Cowbee

Why ia "balance" a good thing? It wouldn't make sense to jump straight to a fully publicly owned economy over night, but gradually fold in more sectors and firms as they develop, starting with all of the large firms and key industries. If you don't take control of those, then you won't have actually risen above the Capitalists.

Your fundamental argument relies on it even being possible to peacefully go against the ruling class and bend the state in the favor of the Proletariat. This assumption leaves your analysis dead in the water. Combining that with a failure to analyze Capital to any meaningful degree, and the failure of analysis as regards the ever-increasing complexity of production and the benefits of central planning, means you're left with the equivalent of universal healthcare in a Capitalist economy.

A good idea, no doubt, but will always be undermined by the ruling class, and thus is both incomplete and not a real solution.

The complicated system we have is because of megacorporations lobbying to make it that way. We cannot push against that. Further, the vast rise of large industry and megacorps plays a larger role in society than housing, which is still important, but not the dominating aspect of the economy.

Georgism isn't really a part of the problem, but it's also not part of the solution.

You don't move towards Capitalism if you vote right or move towards Socialism if you move left. You don't change the entire base like that. Eventually, a build up of quantitative pressure will result in a qualitative change, but you won't be halfway at any point.

It really isn't possible to have Capitalism, a system where private ownership holds the large firms, key industries, and state power, while genuinely restricting it. Regulations in Capitalist countries serve to punish small firms and ensure large Capital succeeds, it solodifies their status.

"Economic theory" does not suggest workers and owners reach a balance. Economics and history prove that wealth and Capital concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, as large firms supercede the small ones. Further, financial Capital is Capital of a different sort, and is the means by which the US and EU Imperialize countries in the Global South. Stiglitz may make a decent argument rhetorically as you read, but his writings don't hold up to history while Marx's do.

I'm aware of Georgeism, it isn't some grand secret trump card to pull. It's just a more restricted form of Capitalism, it doesn't address the base. Land Value Tax may be a neat idea, but it would only slow the progression of Capitalism to fewer and fewer firms. Further, Capitalists would just wind it back when it suits them, even if by some miracle you could get them established.

No? Very silly fanfiction you've got there. I do think in a future Socialist society Marxism-Leninism should be taught in schools, same with history, but the idea that you'd be shot and killed for refusing to do so is laughable.

I know you don't like history books, you already said you're a libertarian 😜

Feel free to read Russian Justice. They weren't theme parks, but not nearly as bad as you probably think they were, nor at the scale you imply.

Dekulakization was the process of collectivizing agriculture. This process was frustrated by Kulaks, bourgeois plantation owners, killing crops and their farm animals, rather than handing them over to the red army, and even getting into skirmishes with the red army. This led to famine. The reasoning for collectivization was absolutely driven by Marxist analysis, so we can file this under "deaths that happened because the Soviets were trying to bring about Socialism," though the blame is absolutely on the Kulaks.

The 1930s famine was a tragedy, accelerated by drought, though the Ukrainian Communists hid how bad the famine was getting until it was too late. This can be considered partially state responsible, though obviously most of the blame is on the Ukrainian Communists for trying to hide how bad it was getting. It was more of a human error compounding a natural famine, hard to attribute it to Marxism or not.

Those that died during the purges? Yep, the fascists, White Army war criminals, rapists, anti-semites, and murderers made up the majority of those executions, and these people may have lived had the Tsar remained. There likely were innocents killed as a part of the chaos, though. All in all, definitely a consequence of the Socialist system defending itself from an onslaught of infiltrators.

Deportation? Not really driven by Marxism, and I don't know enough about that particular subject to speak on it.

The USSR as a whole was formed based on Marxist analysis, it was a largely publicly owned and centrally planned economy. Life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to 99.9%, healthcare, education, and childcare were free and high quality, and working hours were lowered gradually and vacation days were higher than in the US. Whether or not the USSR was following Marxism isn't in question, it absolutely was for the bulk of its existence guided by Marxist analysis, even if errors were made along the way.

On the other hand, Capitalism kills millions directly every year. The US Empire committed many deliberate genocides during the USSR's existence, while the Soviets stopped the Holocaust. You are happily accepting the US State Department line, and doing their work for free.

What an... "interesting" way to put words in my mouth, lmao. Gulag incarceration rates were lower than US imprisonment, by the way.

Also, Pol Pot shouldn't be grouped with Marxists, he denounced Marxism and practiced his own thing.

I literally referenced that paragraph, and explained. The vast majority of gulag deaths, included in that 1.5-1.7 million estimate, were starvations during World War II. The executions? The large majority were, again, rapists, murderers, fascists, war criminals, and members of the White Army.

The total deliberate killings of innocents? Entirely left obscure. Any execution is marked as "excess," including the criminals I listed, starvations during World War II are "excess" rather than listed as deliberate murders from the Nazis.

I even said there were excess deaths, my point (that you're proving, no less) is that real facts are quantitatively and qualitatively obfuscated to push a narrative.

Would you mind telling me what point you think I'm making?

Communism absolutely works, it's an irrefutable fact. Communists are currently running the largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity, with the largest reduction of poverty in history and a regularly lowering wealth inequality. Historically, countries like Russia, China, Cuba, etc saw doublings of life expectancy, free healthcare and education, over triplings of literacy rates to 99.9%, and more. This is all publicly available information.

It's more that I'm aware that the purpose of calling me a "fucking commie" was not said with kindness, though I am a Communist so that "insult" doesn't really hurt. I'm not really mad, just disappointed, was hoping you would respond to my points instead of plugging your ears when shown irrefutable facts.