All the retarded /pol/tards claiming communism means no food

What this says is that Amerifats have a shit diet of sugar and other trash while the USSR eats mostly potatoes, grain and fresh produce.

This is likely true to this very day in all those regions. What does this have to do with communism?

>1/5th of the food produce is made by people themselves in their "private" dascha summer houses outside of the cities
>Communism works guys

>food supply, not their actual ingestion
that would fit perfectly with all the commie jokes.
>have enough food available
>still starve

>What would happen if the desert became communist?
>Nothing for a while, and then there would be a sand shortage.

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension, it says that actual nutrients in ingestion for BOTH countries will be lower in actual ingestion than the food supply due to losses in the supply chain.

Sure, i just like to imagine the losses in the supply chain in a free market vs the losses in a system with centrally planned distribution of supplies.
Sand shortage

Vast amounts are thrown away in the supply chain of capitalist countries.

Yes, and?

Why do you feel a centrally planned economy is less efficient in food distribution in purely quantitative terms?

>Critics of planned economies argue that planners cannot detect consumer preferences, shortages, and surpluses with sufficient accuracy and therefore cannot efficiently co-ordinate production (in a market economy, a free price system is intended to serve this purpose).

>Additionally, misallocation of resources would naturally ensue by redirecting capital away from individuals with direct knowledge and circumventing it into markets where a coercive monopoly influences behavior, ignoring market signals. According to Tibor R. Machan, "Without a market in which allocations can be made in obedience to the law of supply and demand, it is difficult or impossible to funnel resources with respect to actual human preferences and goals."[19]

How do you know what a certain food/foodgroup is worth in different parts of your country without the free market dictating the value through supply and demand?

Ideological conjecture vs empirical facts.

>Food wasted at the retail and consumer levels of the US food supply in 2012 contained 1,217 kcal, 33 g protein, 5.9 g dietary fiber, 1.7 μg vitamin D, 286 mg calcium, and 880 mg potassium per capita per day. Using dietary fiber as an example, 5.9 g dietary fiber is 23% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for women. This is equivalent to the fiber Recommended Dietary Allowance for 74 million adult women. Adult women in 2012 underconsumed dietary fiber by 8.9 g/day, and the amount of wasted fiber is equivalent to this gap for 206.6 million adult women.

jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(17)30325-8/fulltext

Wasting food in a free market and food not being sufficiently delivered (at reasonable prices) in a planned economy is a big difference

These are both valid arguments against planned economies, in the sense they can’t predict demand. But it assumes demand is based entirely within a purchased, currency based system. These are far more arguments against eastern bloc style planned economies, which indeed had inefficient and slow distribution, and poor calibration as it ws modelled in a capitalist sense, of an open consumer market with currency.

You’re right about the soviet planned economy, but not the planned economy as a whole.
Read Cockshott. The modern issue facing planned economies isn’t the quantitative economic theory, but the bloated bureaucracy surrounding it.

We're discussing which system has greater losses in the food supply chain, if one system allows certain households and retail chains to thrown away vast amounts of food while other parts of the population have to rely on food banks and suffer malnutrition then that is waste in the food supply chain and inefficient distribution.

>The modern issue facing planned economies isn’t the quantitative economic theory, but the bloated bureaucracy surrounding it.
Could you ever get one without the other? A bloated bureaucracy seems necessary to me in a planned economy

>We're discussing which system has greater losses in the food supply chain
We're also discussing wether those losses are because the AVERAGE person (of course there's also poor people in the free market as you mentioned) in the system has so much food available that he has to throw stuff away or because he can't afford the food that actually gets delivered despite it being theoretically available, so that food is wasted too.

If you have so much food that you have to throw it away then there's obviously no problem with the supply. It's a waste, sure, but the food is actually supplied

>Could you ever get one without the other? A bloated bureaucracy seems necessary to me in a planned economy
Such was the tragedy of the Soviet System, that continues to ruin Cuba and North Korea. But Cockshott argues modern computer sciences allow for an incredibly accurate, pinpoint calibration if planned economies, providing results of the amount necessary, and creating 5 year plans. He lays out these exciting theories in ‘Towards a new socialism’. Look it up, it’s interesting.

Your second post was to someone who isn’t me.

>If you have so much food that you have to throw it away then there's obviously no problem with the supply

That's wrong, but the other user wasn't talking about supply but about the actual amount of food that median Joe gets.

>But Cockshott argues modern computer sciences allow for an incredibly accurate, pinpoint calibration if planned economies, providing results of the amount necessary, and creating 5 year plans.
hmm.. maybe. I've read up on planned cities recently and traffic, sewage systems etc. in planned cities would have to be planned and coordinated by advanced AI; it's not possible otherwise to build milion population cities from scratch otherwise. I'm just skeptical about an AIs ability to predict a populations "mood swings" and varying tastes, which also skew demand/supply drastically (just think about all the Quinoa superfood craze)
But thanks for the book suggestion.

>Your second post was to someone who isn’t me.
I know. I just wanted to save captcha typing time

You're not really making any sense, we have already established the USSR had more food available in terms of nutrients. If the USA is then wasting even more by it being distributed to the incorrect people and by retail stores throwing it away then that is by definition losses in the supply chain.

>If you have so much food that you have to throw it away
One in seven US households suffers from food insecurity.

Again: Of course there's also poor people. The average citizen has enough food to throw away nevertheless.

I'd argue that median Joe in the free market gets more than in a planned economy (if overall the economies of both countries are comparably strong of course).

Not for the average guy. He has apparently enough food being supplied. Of course if you argue that the percentage poor people not being able to afford that food thus not getting it counts as loss in the supply chain, then yes, that would be a loss.

>Of course if you argue that the percentage poor people not being able to afford that food thus not getting it counts as loss in the supply chain, then yes, that would be a loss.
Well that's not how I worded but yes, we are now in agreement the USA had less food available than the USSR and the USA was more inefficient in food supply, thus leading to widespread malnutrition in the USA,

>in agreement
Well, you believe the percentage of poor people in the US not being able to buy food was so large that it made the average US citizen less food supplied/ more malnourished than the average sovjet, while i believe the average US citizen was better of.

*starves*

There's lots of ways of calculating average so I don't really know what you are talking about, nor have you supplied evidence there was widespread malnutrition in the USSR in the 1980s, that appears to be something you have made up. Nor does it change the agreement we have already come to that the US had less food available than the USSR and the USA was more inefficient in food supply.

soviet data

Why would commies whine about an overwhelming surplus, when that is literally the reason capitalism is superior to mercantilism and feudalism?

If capitalism was completely Pareto optimal, then Communists would literally not have an argument.

Here's an interesting read were some autist compares many/all the different data available on USSR food consumption/nutrition
nintil.com/2016/05/11/the-soviet-union-food/

they ate meat and milk all day and had vitamin defficiencies
who knew?

...

Still less meat than the average US citizen, but overall the sovjets consumed less calories, while probably having to work harder

I'm not a communist or whining about anything. I made statistical point about inefficiencies in food supply.

Well, at the end of the day, overproduction is better than underproduction, especially in something as important as the food supply.

The food industry is also extremely regulated, so it would surprise me if it experiences pricing failures.

it wouldn't surprise me*

You're getting confused.

The literal argument being made in this thread is that the USSR overproduced but was more inefficient in food distribution, something no one has been able to back up.

>USSR overproduced but was more inefficient in food distribution

In all reality, it was probably inefficient in both, but tankies will defend anything.

here the average USSR citizen consumed less calories and had vitamin deficiencies.

All the actual statistical data produced in this thread says otherwise and again I am not a tankie, don't be so childish. We can actually thrash out topics like this by trying to ascertain and understand the best facts available rather than acting like five year olds choosing a gang in a playground fight.

Just came back from the supermarket with all the right and healthy amounts of carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and trace elements to last me for another week for about 1/40 of my net wage.

What should i cook for dinner lads?

>nintil.com/2016/05/11/the-soviet-union-food/
This source says that right up to just before the collapse of the USSR the citizens had more calories and the only vitamin deficiency it mentions was a specific Vitamin C deficiency in the Republic of Karelia.

By the same source URSS had no crime and no political prisons

....you should read more of that post/article

The USA overtook the USSR in terms of percentage of the population incarcerated during the 1980s as well so I don't see what your point is. Although that is an entirely different conversation and not really relevant to the topic in hand.

The author claims in his conclusion the Soviet calorie intake was lower but accepts this is his opinion as a random blogger based on his dispute of the stats, again there are no claims of vitamin deficiencies other than the one I mentioned.

Cheese pizza,

That's the point, if we trust official data USSR was heaven on earth, with the fastest growing economy, no secret police, highest standard of living, happier population...

>We can actually thrash out topics like this by trying to ascertain and understand the best facts available

Look, the USSR survived for 80 years. Which means it cannot have been as inefficient as U.S propaganda made it out to be, and it also competed on par with the U.S as a superpower, not exclusively, but mostly because of a huge nuclear arsenal.

And if you ask me, the reason it survived at all, was because it practiced a form of state capitalism/state socialism. If it has actually done what the Communist Manifesto says should be done(e.g dismantle property relations etc), in a fledgling socialist state, it would've died in 5 years.

And I say this as someone who prefers capitalism, and isn't a socialist at all.

There has not been a single source posted unfiltered from Soviet propaganda anywhere in the thread.

Soviet Union did have some competent people, did have some good things, but in general they maintained themselves 80 years suppressing any internal danger with secret police and any external danger threatening nuclear war.

>but in general they maintained themselves 80 years suppressing any internal danger with secret police and any external danger threatening nuclear war.

Exactly.

I'm not a supporter of the USSR or the oppressive regime it established, but just in the interests of being unbiased does the USA not have secret police or a nuclear arsenal that is uses to threaten nuclear war?

>leftypol literally crying for a safespace

I mean, all states have similar qualities. They are hierarchical, they embody authority, and they have a monopoly of violence.

But that doesn't mean an authoritarian/totalitarian state isn't qualitatively different from a liberal democratic one.

It's all a question of proportion, people die in Modern Europe and people die in killing camps.. but no one say that they are the same thing because of it.

It's like comparing a food thief with atila, both steal things and are mean

>I mean, all states have similar qualities. They are hierarchical, they embody authority, and they have a monopoly of violence.
The specific qualities mentioned in the post were secret police and a nuclear arsenal. It is not true to say all states have those qualities at all.

Arguably all have secret police, although also arguably they don't. Most certainly most states do not have a nuclear arsenal or threaten other nations with it.

Well, since 1945, the U.S hasn't exactly been prone to threaten people with nuclear weapons, obviously with the one exception being the USSR.

I don't want to start any argument about modern politics or Trump, I'm just pointing this out as a fact, but the USA has specifically threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons in the last few months, without me even needing to trawl through history and see what other examples I could dig up.

That's true I guess. Which is obviously a retarded thing to do.

> USA has specifically threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons in the last few months
Conventional war and economic sanctions aren't nuclear...

...

Even without getting into arguments about less clear statements from Trump.

>North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

Did trump moved nuclear warheads and point them at NK, like USSR used to do?

I don't see how that is relevant. I'm not defending the USSR, or even attacking Trump, arguably his threat was justified given what NK was up to. I was discussing the specific objective claim that the USA has never threatened any country other than the USSR with nukes.

That is either true or false, saying "what about this other random thing" is irrelevant.

Well, at least it's not the FBI who openly denied the Holodmor in the 60's

During cold war US only treated USSR (and maybe red China) with nukes

He didn't say "I have a conventionally powerful army and economic sanctions, and is a much bigger and powerful than his", did he?

Are you willfully obtuse or are you just retarded?
>MAGApede
Answered my own question there huh

Are you saying that USSR fake things and lie all the time?

That's a non-sequitur.

No, I'm saying the FBI published the comic blaming the kulaks for the famine I posted, are you fucking stupid or something?