Wow! Really? Having lived in eastern Europe in those Utopian years I ask this Einstein; Why did so many Soviet homes have no roofs? Because, the planners ordered the nail manufacturers to produce a certain tonnage of nails per year. So, without any incentives like profit, they ALL made really big nails. Too big to nail down a roof. Ludwig Von Mises in the 1920's already proved socialism was a failure. No? I think they are serving tree bark on the menu in N. Korean restaurants this week.
notice how these speakers are not bringing up the glaring fact that the soviet union achieved its production goals not through voluntary cooperation and respect for individual rights, but rather, through crushing economic regimentation and authoritarian government policies. these speakers are also ignoring the economic inefficiency that resulted from the elimination of the profit motive. shortages and rationing were the norm under this economy. some paradise!
@chrispollock notice how you know that, but you dont know so many capitalist country with even worse governments with even wors disrespect for rights. Profit motive was not need, just like capitalist factory workers who comes to jobs every day and have no say in economy in factory, so ussr factory worker was in same position. But point is for every shortages there was a rationing, in capitalist everething would be bought by rich and resell for more money. PS sorry for my bad english.
At the end of the Cold War, the USSR had a higher population that the US yet an economy less than half the size. The economy "slowed down" because communism provides no incentives for innovation. Innovation, or change, leads to economic growth. But, hell, its not like history has totally vindicated free markets or anything. No wait, North Korea DOES have a great economy!
@Worldslargestipod really? is that really true? If i assign arbitrarily low values to landrovers (cars), can I then produce an infinite number of landrovers (cars)?
and if this wad true, and I needed to produce more food to feed the world, and I found I could do so by assigning these 'arbitrary values', what would be wrong with that?
economics should be arranged to serve the masses of the people, not be the religeon of exploitation preached by the high priests of finance capital.
Also, i think Physics should be arranged to serve the interests of the transportation industry, to allow planes and cars to move faster than the present system of 'mass' and 'energy conversation' permit.
You should look at the history of tractors under Stalin. There is one enlightening case study in which workers were paid a bonus per ton of steal they used in tractor manufacture. The workers decided that since they were being paid per ton not per tractor, the would simply used more steel in the manufacture of each tractor. the result was that the tractors were so heavy they sank into the fields.
Utopians the capitalist bosses would be replaced by hierarchy's of "collective mangers" which would force everyone to work. Is there actually a difference between capitalism and planned economies? Yes, but the suffering and hiearchy hasn't gone away. Civilization is based on hierarchy so how the hell are these people going to organize above Dunbars number?
The question i have is regarding freedoms. Taking the example TR presented, if central planning authority feels that the economy as a whole should have 50 people making tractors where as only 10 people really had the personal interest/incentive/skill/will to manufacture tractors, then isn't the central planning authority taking away freedoms of choice and occupation? aren't those freedoms important? I really really really don't want to make tractors, would my choice be respected?
That would depend on the model of economic planning specifically. You can't just generalize and assume that central planning implies state control of every aspect of an economy. In Yugoslavia for instance workers managed production democratically to decide what a shop would produce, what sort of management would oversee the process (if any were necessary), what resources would be allocated, and so on, with participation on an individual level. This is economic theory, not dogma.
Ok sure, the growth rates under Stalin were high, but that basically corresponds to the post WW2 boom. Basically when the world's leading industrial nations decimate each other, their growth rates will be high after all that destruction.
Yes, imerialism depends on periodic economic destruction and war to maintain its economic and political rule. THat's the point of getting rid of it.
"Growth rates under stalin" ie the USSR between 1924 and the Nazi invasion (1941) were high. THis was in fact precisely a time when there was no war. THe soviet people craved peace to continue to develop, but knew imperialism would not grant it.
The USSR grew precisely when the capitalist world was in deepest economic crisis. Also the point.
Workers of the world UNITE against fascist-capitalist monsters and Save our planet !!! LONG LIVE GREAT COMMUNISM= DEATH TO FASCISM AND CAPITALISM !!!!!
This is a fantastic lecture. I feel as though the simplicity in which the message was conveyed makes this lecture exceptionally provocative. I am inspired and sincerely pleased. Thank you.
Wow! Really? Having lived in eastern Europe in those Utopian years I ask this Einstein; Why did so many Soviet homes have no roofs? Because, the planners ordered the nail manufacturers to produce a certain tonnage of nails per year. So, without any incentives like profit, they ALL made really big nails. Too big to nail down a roof. Ludwig Von Mises in the 1920's already proved socialism was a failure. No? I think they are serving tree bark on the menu in N. Korean restaurants this week.
bmac6446 4 months ago
notice how these speakers are not bringing up the glaring fact that the soviet union achieved its production goals not through voluntary cooperation and respect for individual rights, but rather, through crushing economic regimentation and authoritarian government policies. these speakers are also ignoring the economic inefficiency that resulted from the elimination of the profit motive. shortages and rationing were the norm under this economy. some paradise!
chrispollock 9 months ago
@chrispollock notice how you know that, but you dont know so many capitalist country with even worse governments with even wors disrespect for rights. Profit motive was not need, just like capitalist factory workers who comes to jobs every day and have no say in economy in factory, so ussr factory worker was in same position. But point is for every shortages there was a rationing, in capitalist everething would be bought by rich and resell for more money. PS sorry for my bad english.
hanter012 7 months ago
At the end of the Cold War, the USSR had a higher population that the US yet an economy less than half the size. The economy "slowed down" because communism provides no incentives for innovation. Innovation, or change, leads to economic growth. But, hell, its not like history has totally vindicated free markets or anything. No wait, North Korea DOES have a great economy!
mr2bmr2b 1 year ago
You can achieve any level of production you want if you assign arbitrary values to things.
Worldslargestipod 1 year ago
@Worldslargestipod really? is that really true? If i assign arbitrarily low values to landrovers (cars), can I then produce an infinite number of landrovers (cars)?
and if this wad true, and I needed to produce more food to feed the world, and I found I could do so by assigning these 'arbitrary values', what would be wrong with that?
economics should be arranged to serve the masses of the people, not be the religeon of exploitation preached by the high priests of finance capital.
ProletarianCPGBML 1 year ago 2
@ProletarianCPGBML
I was being sarcastic..
Also, i think Physics should be arranged to serve the interests of the transportation industry, to allow planes and cars to move faster than the present system of 'mass' and 'energy conversation' permit.
Worldslargestipod 1 year ago
he calls the shots right on the traitors. behead gobachov the cunt!
slanker786 1 year ago
You should look at the history of tractors under Stalin. There is one enlightening case study in which workers were paid a bonus per ton of steal they used in tractor manufacture. The workers decided that since they were being paid per ton not per tractor, the would simply used more steel in the manufacture of each tractor. the result was that the tractors were so heavy they sank into the fields.
mormor39 1 year ago
Utopians the capitalist bosses would be replaced by hierarchy's of "collective mangers" which would force everyone to work. Is there actually a difference between capitalism and planned economies? Yes, but the suffering and hiearchy hasn't gone away. Civilization is based on hierarchy so how the hell are these people going to organize above Dunbars number?
Eldel15 1 year ago
greatttttttttttttt
jeanpaulfelix 1 year ago
The question i have is regarding freedoms. Taking the example TR presented, if central planning authority feels that the economy as a whole should have 50 people making tractors where as only 10 people really had the personal interest/incentive/skill/will to manufacture tractors, then isn't the central planning authority taking away freedoms of choice and occupation? aren't those freedoms important? I really really really don't want to make tractors, would my choice be respected?
hadikhanhadi 2 years ago
That would depend on the model of economic planning specifically. You can't just generalize and assume that central planning implies state control of every aspect of an economy. In Yugoslavia for instance workers managed production democratically to decide what a shop would produce, what sort of management would oversee the process (if any were necessary), what resources would be allocated, and so on, with participation on an individual level. This is economic theory, not dogma.
DMPineau 2 years ago
Ok sure, the growth rates under Stalin were high, but that basically corresponds to the post WW2 boom. Basically when the world's leading industrial nations decimate each other, their growth rates will be high after all that destruction.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago
Yes, imerialism depends on periodic economic destruction and war to maintain its economic and political rule. THat's the point of getting rid of it.
"Growth rates under stalin" ie the USSR between 1924 and the Nazi invasion (1941) were high. THis was in fact precisely a time when there was no war. THe soviet people craved peace to continue to develop, but knew imperialism would not grant it.
The USSR grew precisely when the capitalist world was in deepest economic crisis. Also the point.
ProletarianCPGBML 2 years ago
Well between 1924 and 1941, the USSR was recovering from the civil war which is also an important factor in explaining high rates of economic growth.
Look I agree with you on getting rid of capitalism, I'm just pointing out a few issues that's all.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago
Workers of the world UNITE against fascist-capitalist monsters and Save our planet !!! LONG LIVE GREAT COMMUNISM= DEATH TO FASCISM AND CAPITALISM !!!!!
workergirls 2 years ago
@workergirls allahu akbar!
slanker786 1 year ago
This is a fantastic lecture. I feel as though the simplicity in which the message was conveyed makes this lecture exceptionally provocative. I am inspired and sincerely pleased. Thank you.
Slaysociety340 2 years ago 8
Great comrades, very impresseive and commendable.
Shamyl75 3 years ago 5