Can socialist planned economy function?

Can socialist planned economy function?

discus:

How can it NOT function? It is the most efficient thing ever, like a flaiming cheetah on steroids.

Watermelon wrote:

How can it NOT function? It is the most efficient thing ever, like a flaiming cheetah on steroids.

explain exactly what you mean ?

Enlighten me with some socialist economic theory - ie how do you sell the idea to free market economists ?

Watermelon wrote:

How can it NOT function? It is the most efficient thing ever, like a flaiming cheetah on steroids.

That's assuming they will all function in a uniformed way. Why would that be?

I think it can function, since it brought Russia and China out of their relative poverty. But it seems too easy for it to re-form some sort of capitalist economy.

simple answer.
cuba, 89,90,91.

mattabesta wrote:

simple answer.
cuba, 89,90,91.

Then your answer is yes. It still functioned, it just lost subsidies from the Soviet Union. When a country is fucked over by a greedy imperialist power, namely the US, it has trouble functioning, especially when the country cannot produce everything to meet its own needs, within its own borders.

the problem with most socilaist and communist countries is that, while the theory is good, a single person usualy tells everyone he will embrace people, but end up being a dickwad and seizing more power. ussualy socilaistm or communism goes hand in hand with totalionsim

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Then your answer is yes. It still functioned, it just lost subsidies from the Soviet Union. When a country is fucked over by a greedy imperialist power, namely the US, it has trouble functioning, especially when the country cannot produce everything to meet its own needs, within its own borders.

Hint, hint: Iraqi.

And no enviromentalist, that's fake communism. Leaders like that are never true to their words, ESPECIALLY in today's modern politics. Take the great King Sejong for example. He pratically INVENTED the Korean language to benefit the people and Korea now has one of the highest lit. rates in the world. ^^

"The people's happiness are my happiness." -King Sejong

That's been my issue with all this change it stuff, you all say. I'd love to see the change, and it would mostly be fore the better, and forgve me if I'm wrong, please, but the majority of the plans and such I have read on this site rely greatly on the honour system. Everyone doing what's right. Sadly, it will not work lke that. Ever. There will always be criminals, always be the corrupt who try to sieze the power, making it all fall apart.

Sadly, nothing is ever perfect, no matter how had you try. Humans in general, that's the issue.

nothing in life will ever be perfect, that is why communsim has failed, its relies on perfectinism. if its thoerys were change to reflect a person not a machine or perect cocitey, maybe it would function better than in did before.

environmentalist wrote:

nothing in life will ever be perfect, that is why communsim has failed, its relies on perfectinism. if its thoerys were change to reflect a person not a machine or perect cocitey, maybe it would function better than in did before.

Were not discussing communism were discussing planned socialist economy.

And for the same reasons that would/will/has, whatever, failed.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

That's been my issue with all this change it stuff, you all say. I'd love to see the change, and it would mostly be fore the better, and forgve me if I'm wrong, please, but the majority of the plans and such I have read on this site rely greatly on the honour system. Everyone doing what's right. Sadly, it will not work lke that. Ever. There will always be criminals, always be the corrupt who try to sieze the power, making it all fall apart.

Sadly, nothing is ever perfect, no matter how had you try. Humans in general, that's the issue.

I disagree, the USSR for instance functioned perfectly well and maintained a reasonable growth rate for a long time - until the late 70s into the 80s.
In fact its economy was estimated at about 60 per cent of the size of the US economy in 1970.

Since the breakdown of the soviet union Russia was pushed back into the third word in that its economy got worse alongside capitalist reforms.

-one of the main reasons the second largest party in Russia is the communist party. - you wont hear that on Fox News me thinks.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And for the same reasons that would/will/has, whatever, failed.

And I suppose you think Neo liberal capitalism has triumphed? lol
Are you a Neo liberal ?

It hasn't. It's failed, too. Corruption ou the wazoo!

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

simple answer.
cuba, 89,90,91.

Then your answer is yes. It still functioned, it just lost subsidies from the Soviet Union. When a country is fucked over by a greedy imperialist power, namely the US, it has trouble functioning, especially when the country cannot produce everything to meet its own needs, within its own borders.

that's why we love globalistation and you just proved my point
soviet union lasted in 65 years.
most e-europen cuntryes 45 years
cuba is dieing
vietnam lasted 10 years of communism
china lasted 17 years.
the Brithish union has lasted 301 years.
denmark has lasted 1028 years
the russian empire lasted 500 years.

wow I wonder wich one workes??

mattabesta wrote:

that's why we love globalistation and you just proved my point

Erm, no. You're point, whether you meant it or not, is that it can function.

If what you really meant to say was, "i love fascism, whoever doesn't conform to capitalism can screw off and suffer in solitude, individualism and competition that creates poverty and hunger rules!!", then i cannot be held accountable for such a misunderstanding.

Quote :

soviet union lasted in 65 years.
most e-europen cuntryes 45 years
cuba is dieing
vietnam lasted 10 years of communism
china lasted 17 years.
the Brithish union has lasted 301 years.
denmark has lasted 1028 years
the russian empire lasted 500 years.

wow I wonder wich one workes??

It's amazing how a monopoly on violence, alliances between militaristic, imperialist countries, and a heirarchy that breeds conformity and obedience can allow capitalism to prosper so.

There are two kinds of socialist economies: planned economy and market socialist economy (such as the one china currently has)

In market socialism production is still done for profit, while a planned economy's purpose os to satisfy people's needs efficiently.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

that's why we love globalistation and you just proved my point

Erm, no. You're point, whether you meant it or not, is that it can function.

If what you really meant to say was, "i love fascism, whoever doesn't conform to capitalism can screw off and suffer in solitude, individualism and competition that creates poverty and hunger rules!!", then i cannot be held accountable for such a misunderstanding.

Quote :

soviet union lasted in 65 years.
most e-europen cuntryes 45 years
cuba is dieing
vietnam lasted 10 years of communism
china lasted 17 years.
the Brithish union has lasted 301 years.
denmark has lasted 1028 years
the russian empire lasted 500 years.

wow I wonder wich one workes??

It's amazing how a monopoly on violence, alliances between militaristic, imperialist countries, and a heirarchy that breeds conformity and obedience can allow capitalism to prosper so.

It's amazing how a monopoly on violence, alliances between militaristic, imperialist countries, and a heirarchy that breeds conformity and obedience can allow capitalism to prosper so.
yup much better than forcing 6,8 billion pepole into slavery.

yup much better than forcing 6,8 billion pepole into slavery ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


Explain what you mean.

inkus2000 wrote:

yup much better than forcing 6,8 billion pepole into slavery ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


Explain what you mean.

He thinks communism is slavery. That's bull. Communism is rule of the WORKING CLASS (mid class) and viturally ensures the people rule!

The working class is not the middle class. The working class is everyone who works and gets a wage. Communism isn't the rule of any class, it is a classless society. Socialism is the rule of the working class. You are a great example of a "communist" who doesn't know anything about marxism.

Watermelon wrote:

The working class is not the middle class. The working class is everyone who works and gets a wage. Communism isn't the rule of any class, it is a classless society. Socialism is the rule of the working class. You are a great example of a "communist" who doesn't know anything about marxism.

I think that their is a problem with class definitions in that the terms working class, middle class ect are used regardless of the fact that its subjective and average income ect. For example a middle class person in China prb earns about the same as a working class person the US - and working class people in Europe would be very wealthy compared to what might be considered middle class in the third world.

Watermelon wrote:

The working class is not the middle class. The working class is everyone who works and gets a wage. Communism isn't the rule of any class, it is a classless society. Socialism is the rule of the working class. You are a great example of a "communist" who doesn't know anything about marxism.

I already know all this. My apologies if I stated wrong. I do understand that communism is a classless society and where goods and services can and will be exchanged for free.

Okay I will forgive you this time.