Communism doesn't wor-

...

>supporting communism

Typical economic illiterate

Why can't socialists just build socialism without a repressive police state, gulags, political crimes, etc

>Why can't socialists just build socialism without a repressive police state, gulags, political crimes, etc
Don't see a problem with any of these things. Do you think someone like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would ever perform honest labor out of their own free will? Gulags are far more humane than execution.

*tips beret*

m'comrade

Wtf l love communism now

The argument is that, if communism is ever to be established, potentially subversive forces should be purged from society.

/pol/ likes to false flag as socialist

and /leftypol/ likes to false flag as /pol/, so what?

Why can't capitalists just build capitalism without a repressive police state, mass incarceration, terrorism, etc

How depressing is it to view life as a constant struggle for superiority between different classes that will never end unless a fantastical utopia miraculously happens?

Still completely explainable within conventional macroeconomic theory. They didn't do anything miraculous.

This is a graph of the change in each country's industrial potential relative to a 1929 baseline. It's a comparison of relative growth over the interval, not absolute industrial production

There's no caption completely explaining what it means, or any irrelevant graphics in the background. Can user really be blamed for a completely misunderstanding it?

It's actually exhilarating to struggle for true freedom, especially one's own. I care not for miracles, all I look for is a society that gives space for each individual to fully actualize themselves to indulge in the true power of humanity.

>all I look for is a society that gives space for each individual to fully actualize themselves to indulge in the true power of humanity.

How many dragon dildos do you own, user?

>actualize
this isn't that new age self-actualization crap is it

this is ironic, isn't it? just a jest

has to be, this is middle school level math

You have zero evidence this is because of communism. For all you know had the 1917 revolution gone the other way they'd be even better off.

I don't think so. The free market should support the correct NGOs in place of government in the extreme situations where government totally fails regulation. The core of the problems inherent within either structure here is the human condition in addition to resource scarcity agitators.

I for one welcome our eventual synthetic oligarch overlords managing AI systems of production control.

manifest destiny, friend. They fucked it up sure but the only argument against it should not be their lone example of attempting to structure a government. Looking back through the scientific then industrial revolution there are a few capitalistic instances, imperialist in nature, that cost a lot too. When industry became an ROI structure for banks and institutions it became a capitalist society and the following innovation, and human error, is clear.

this isnt how real economy works you liberal nigger

>current system isnt responsible for current situation

the guy at the bottom is a character in my comic and does not represent my views

You are retarded, the reasons are two fold.
1. Of course the current 'system' is responsible for the current situation, however that does not mean that communist policy composes the entirety of said system. Other forces may very well be responsible in informing the current system.
2. Even if the current situation is impressive, that does not mean that a more impressive situation could not have arose if the current situation or what preceded it were different. In fact, it could be the case that the results of the communist regime are a worst case scenario for productivity.
The aforementioned is what some call 'logic'.

What is path dependency?
>What does this indicate? It indicates that Soviet party line is not based on any objective analysis of situation beyond Russia's borders; that it has, indeed, little to do with conditions outside of Russia; that it arises mainly from basic inner-Russian necessities which existed before recent war and exist today.

>however that does not mean that communist policy composes the entirety of said system.
tell me then was is responsible for it
>2. Even if the current situation is impressive, that does not mean that a more impressive situation could not have arose if the current situation or what preceded it were different. In fact, it could be the case that the results of the communist regime are a worst case scenario for productivity.
it has absolutely nothing to do with autistic liberal shock method that ruined industry in all eastern block countries for 20 years
Pre-revolutionary Russia was agrarian shithole, 30 years later it was nuclear superpower.

Because every time they try, capitalists embargo, sanction, and sabotage them out of existence?

>Pre-revolutionary Russia was agrarian shithole, 30 years later it was nuclear superpower.
Imagine how much better it'd be without all the famine, war, and millions of deaths.

>Imagine how much better it'd be without all the famine, war, and millions of deaths.
sounds like Russia under any other tsar than Alexander II to me

...

>tell me then was is responsible for it
Impossible to say for certain but it's not unreasonable to suggest the sheer abundance of resources available meant giant leaps in industrialization were possible and following WW1 neccesary, so pretty much any regime that followed would have been had giant growth, it's really in no way a credit to the commies.

-k

There, I finished it for you. You are welcome.
Btw, what unit is the y axis even being measured in? What unit of industrial production is it OP, you massive fag?

>why don't the meanie capitalists just play fair with the ideology that openly admits it wants to end their world

>Impossible to say for certain

>haha you are wrong but i dont know how to prove it

Industrial production compared to a 1929 baseline you massive fag

>Btw, what unit is the y axis even being measured in?
quess what when base amount is 100 you mutt ape

I mean, it's not like they did anything right, and it's indisputable that they have an outrageous amount of resources on hand. You'd have to be a moron to think the huge industrial growth here is absolutely particular to their policies, which very possibly were detrimental if anything.

so which other policies would you implement?

And then they collapsed.

Here's some more concrete numbers

because of liberal leadership

Never heard of a statistic index number huh?

probably could have done without the holodomor

TFW your replacement for capitalism requires the capitalists to help and nourish it.

>Pre-revolutionary Russia was agrarian shithole, 30 years later it was nuclear superpower.

They generated the "surplus" capital for that by massively depressing consumption (and production in the agricultural sector). With an agricultural sector as large as Russia's was and a population willing (or forced) to accept a high degree of relative privation, it's not as impressive as first seems.

>tell me then was is responsible for it

The Russian agricultural sector.
National production relative to 1929 baseline.

Ok commie super nigs, I get it now. But that doesn't represent the actual industrial output, whether you want to measure it in money or something else. So even though muh percantage of the baseline was lower, those western nations were still producing more than the Soviets as they were more industrialized.

>tfw this graph was literally refuted by Nixon in the 1960 presidential debates
your bait shall not avail you, flame of udun
go back to the shadow

give me a single proof of Holodomor ever taking place or having anything to do with USSR government and not Jewish kulaks
burning the grain
your graph goes against your claim

>literally could have produced more agriculture surplus if you weren't robbing and murdering your farmers
>but muh collectivism

>the kulaks were jews
this is some desperation pol

Don't shove peasants into industrial management positions.

Attempt some degree of industrial rationalization.

Choosing good economic indicators that are harder to game.

Don't bother with Lysenkoism.

Build upon the avant-garde artistic tradition.

Focus on organic enlargement of agricultural holdings by creating mechanisms for distributing additional land to the most productive and profitable.

More initial focus on quality control.

Vast Majority of them were, general Krasnov mentions them in his book From Double Eagle to Red Flag

I just didn't make the connection and thought that they all dropped below 100 and stayed there for a few years. But I get it easily now, thinking of baselines and percentages.

Fucking brainlet, nobody is claiming that the Soviet Union was more industrialized than the Western nations at the time. Did you go to middle school? It seems you must have dropped out before you learned to read and interpret graphs.

The point is that the industrial production in the USSR increased by 240% in the middle of the great depression.

Sounds legit (but completely antithetical to reason or history).

>Don't shove peasants into industrial management positions.
never happened
>Attempt some degree of industrial rationalization.
only relevant if you mean liberalization of economic Berija wanted
>Choosing good economic indicators that are harder to game.
meme
>Don't bother with Lysenkoism.
not relevant, Lyenkoism had little to no impact on practical agriculture
>Build upon the avant-garde artistic tradition.
meme
>Focus on organic enlargement of agricultural holdings by creating mechanisms for distributing additional land to the most productive and profitable.
see Berija part, but this only works after WW2, not before
>More initial focus on quality control.
relevant claim, but a lot of consumption goods from the East had much better quality than Western shits

-k.

He's right about consumption

WW1, the revolution and the civil war collapsed much of the Russian economy. The economy would more or less stay in that state until the NEP superceded War Communism, at which point it recovered to the prewar baseline.

Around 1927-28, Stalin consolidates power and the first Five Year Plan (FYP), marking a drastic turn from the relative liberalism of the NEP is enacted. The plan intended large-scale, centrally directed industrialization of the Soviet Union, but such a massive plan needed a massive amount of investment capital, both to develop Soviet infrastructure and industry and pay for the tools and expertise that needed to be imported from abroad. The enormous agricultural sector was the obvious source, having brought foreign money into the Russian economy for decades. The scale and speed with which the FYP was to be implemented meant that the Soviet agricultural sector would have to produce far more capital far faster than it had before. Viewed generously, collectivization, combined with programs to spread agronomics, tractors and other facets of industrialized, scientific agriculture, aimed to generate this capital by boosting agricultural productivity to levels near that of the Americans, who'd pioneered much of it. Collectivization generally failed at boosting productivity (for a variety of reasons, many of which were out of the USSR's control), but the capital extracted from the sector was not adjusted downwards to compensate. The result of this is the net (often compulsory) flow of capital and labor out of agriculture into the burgeoning Soviet industrial base.

At point B., this is partially the reason why the GDP per capita was nearly flat for the Soviet Union, capital was being sucked from production (and consumption, which decreased dramatically) into investment. That is why point C seems to show such a large spike, as those investments came online. (1/2)

(2/2)
If this were to be disambiguated by sector, we would see a fall in agricultural production, a fall in civilian consumption, a rise in investment, a rise in heavy industry, a rise in infrastructural spending, and a rise in military consumption. The reason those rises were able to happen was because of the falls in consumption and agriculture, neither of which ever really recovered.

>The outturn of farm commodities in the USSR during 1958 is roughly
estimated at about two-thirds of the U.S. level. On a per capita basis,
this Soviet output is reduced to about half of the U.S. level. The Soviet
Union is placed in a more favorable position than normally by using the
1958 season to measure the farm outputs of the two countries. Exceptionally
favorable weather during the 1958 growing season resulted in record
crop production which tended to boost 1958 Soviet farm output above what
is considered an average year• Although weather was also favorable in
the United States during 1958, it was not as favorable as in the U.S.S.R.
Soviet farm output during a year with more average weather is probably
nearer 60 percent than two-thirds of U.S. farm output.

It's simple Aristotelian teleology you fucking troglodytes.

>tfw you know that good guys capitalists are protecting the world from socialism

They aren't though. They are trying to figure out ways to get privilege and subsidies from the government.

>anarchism in a nutshell

Stop being utopian.

Nothing there contradicts my point at all. They went from producing virtually nothing to producing meager quantities relative to their population. There is nothing exceptional about the proportional increase.

Dragon dildos represent the absolute nadir of human cultural development.

I can't relay to you the sheet existential anguish I felt when, during one of my many wanking forays, I found myself watching some poor girl getting plowed by this glorified Disney statuette. A little piece of me died that day, desu.