Nice

Sheogorath Daedric Princess of Douchebaggery: Soon comrades, soon.

Giorgos Papadopoulos: And then it's going to collapse again
asshole

Sheogorath Daedric Princess of Douchebaggery: You dont understand how societies develop go away fascist.

Father Karras: I like how you consider yourself a Communist yet enjoy the merits and production of Capitalism.
I recommend you practice what you preach.

Sheogorath Daedric Princess of Douchebaggery: Feudal Peasant: Using irrigation are you? If you really hated feudalism why dont you just go forge for berries? Hypocrite!

Father Karras: That what quite possible the most hilarious and stereotypical thing I have ever heard from a communist.
>Federal Peasant
>irrigation
>Forge berries
How often do you commit tu Quoque with bad food analogies?


Sheogorath Daedric Princess of Douchebaggery:
">Federal Peasant"
Wut? I said feudal peasant not federal.

Why are you using 4chan > it just makes you look edgy.

How are irrigation and forging for berries stereotypical communist? That doesn't even make any fucking sense. What do berries have to do with proletarian dictatorship?

How often do you accuse people of committing logical fallacies they didn't commit because you dont have anything intelligent to say?

A tu quoque would be you saying that I'm guilty of something and then me saying that you are also guilty of that same something.

What I'm doing is re-contextualizing your absurd argument so you can fully grasp the measure of its absurdity outside of your ideological indoctrination.


Father Karras:
It's stereotypical because you fill the place of argument with lovely pseudo "poetry", poetry using hilarious words like "irrigation". Gotta feel intelligent I suppose. I bet you're the kind of guy who  does this a lot.

You didn't give an argument dumb dumb, you just gave a speech on how I'm a feudal peasant. You didn't give any proper reasoning as to why you consume the products of capitalists while crying about the very system you benefit off.

You're first response made literally no sense, it meant nothing. Why couldn't you have just said "you're a slave to capitalism, why don't you just make your own products ?! Lmao nope cause u a slave."

You're still benefitting from the merits of the system you decry, do you think you could enjoy the goods produced for an entirely profit motivated sentiment in a system where not a single man can attain the rewards for their work? Pretty sure Todd Howard wouldn't have made Oblivion had he not gained from the transaction you made with him when you bought his product, and because of tat you also go to fund the next product through a remarkably democratic system.

But you seem to be mad about something else, not the good things capitalism had done for you, rather you probably hate how we gotta work for the man just to survive. Well, enjoy living in state where you work not for your boss, but instead break you back for just the bare requirements of survival, like a shitty house constructed by a vast  bureaucratic system which struggles to manage every intricate factor of production, like the USSR, which couldn't even manufacture toilet paper enough for their vast population.

Are you lazy or just naive?

"Ideological indoctrination" oh Jeeze e have a young Slavoj over here, complaining about ideology while being obsessed with your own personal ideological tendency.


Sheogorath Daedric Princess of Douchebaggery:
"you fill the place of argument with lovely pseudo "poetry", poetry using hilarious words like "irrigation"."

Right irrigation is of course one of the most difficult words in the english language and few understand its meaning.

"you just gave a speech on how I'm a feudal peasant. You didn't give any proper reasoning as to why you consume the products of capitalists while crying about the very system you benefit off."

I dont give an argument because the proposition is so stupid it doesn't merit one and this is the fucking internet not debate club and I'd rather relax than talk to one of the many thousands of drone ideologues which you are an example of.

If your so fucking thick that I have to spell it out for you then fine. I live under capitalism so if I want to survive I have to abide by capitalist social conduct even if I find it morally deplorable. I'm not going to inhibit myself and live below my means for some stupid notion of "ideological purity" just because I hate the system. It isn't like I think that we wont have smart phones and coffee under socialism so to me it isn't really me enjoying the benefits of capitalism so much as it is that these technologies exist and I'm utilizing them just like I'll be utilizing them later under socialism. Here is where the analogy comes into play. Irrigation isn't some unique attribute to the feudal mode of production that if a peasant uses they're a hypocrite its just a technology and just because a feudal peasant survives by abiding to feudal social conduct doesn't mean that they cant at the same time have criticisms of that form of conduct for being unjust.

"a system where not a single man can attain the rewards for their work?"

From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. A very simple maxim yet apparently it seems you need a degree in quantum mechanics to understand it. You do thing that's benefits society and you get your needs fulfilled in turn. Its this thing called mutualism. I scratch your back you scratch mine. Oblivion wasn't just made for the money it was made for the story as well because the programmers and story writers and artists that were part of it were caught up in this world they had created and wanted to share it with all of us.
"fund the next product through a remarkably democratic system."

Ah yes the mode of production where a small group of people have the ability to control the direction and practices of the  production process truly is the most democratic isn't it?

"rather you probably hate how we gotta work for the man just to survive"

When the fuck did I ever say that? Stop trying to fabricate my positions.

"enjoy living in state where you work not for your boss, but instead break you back for just the bare requirements of survival"

You mean like today under capitalism? Except I also work for a boss as well as struggle to survive.

The USSR took a backwards agrarian society and turned it into an industrial powerhouse and in great isolation from trade and under great outside pressure managed to boost living conditions and lifespans and bring about comprehensive social healthcare and education which eliminated illiteracy and ended starvation. Stop blaming socialist countries for the economic warfare waged against them by capitalist countries in the shape of arms races, sabotage, and embargoes. The USSR started devoting resources to its nuclear program after the US had mass produced a vast arsenal of bombs if that had not occurred those resources could've gone to other places. Many other factors like that played into the development of the USSR but instead you like to attribute its downfall to some abstract bullshit like the calculation problem. All it is is a matter of processing capacity and anything a collection of firms can process is capable of being processes just as well by a solitary firm it is simply a question of information flows. That aside I support planned economies not necessarily command economies.


Father Karras:
"Right irrigation is of course one of the most difficult words in the english language and few understand its meaning."
Oh come on you know exactly what I mean, you replace a very simple sentence with... Well, what you wrote.

"I dont give an argument because the proposition is so stupid it doesn't merit one and this is the fucking internet not debate club and I'd rather relax than talk to one of the many thousands of drone ideologues which you are an example of."
>Complains this isn't a debate club
>Writes a 104 line response
lmao

"I live under capitalism so if I want to survive I have to abide by capitalist social conduct even if I find it morally deplorable."
Right, so you suffer social strain by the inherit material regulations of the capitalist system, like being forced to sell your labor to earn a wage to survive. But, what you deny is the fact that you also benefit off the commercialized aspect of the production it, well, produces. You have a right to complain that the libertarian aspect of a capitalist society forces one to become a slave, but what I find most deplorable is you neither have the effort or ambition to innovate, or focus on creating a Social Democratic system in which private enterprise is both allowed, but a welfare state is also dispensed through the system.

Even worse, you turn to Communism, communal ownership of property, but even doubly worse, you turn to USSR style Communism... A system of governance which failed, where a majority of nationales suffered essentially poverty. But yeah, I get it, poverty happened in places like the US, but the distinction is enormous. Poverty in the US is not being able to buy a tv and afford the internet, poverty in North Korea is being unable to fucking eat. Capitalism OVER produces, Communism under produces, Communism has proven to be unable to properly function and accurately disperse essential goods through out the population. If you have another, and better, alternative, be my guest.

I haven't read everything you've said, but I bet, I bet, it's going to mention propaganda.

"It isn't like I think that we wont have smart phones and coffee under socialism so to me it isn't really me enjoying the benefits of capitalism so much as it is that these technologies exist and I'm utilizing them just like I'll be utilizing them later under socialism."
Can you list the luxury goods invented under the Soviet Union? Now do the same for the United States.

I think you seriously can't be naive enough to think a lack of motivation of any kind still would produce products. Just look at China, even if pressured by the state, Chinese communes would still under produce and lie to the central bureaucracy.

"Oblivion wasn't just made for the money it was made for the story as well because the programmers and story writers and artists that were part of it were caught up in this world they had created and wanted to share it with all of us."
At what point am I denying this? Oblivion was created out of pure love, but the extent of the desire to produce the product and the effort to produce it came from employees who desired the ultimate financial reward. Why do you think the USSR never invented a single commercial product in it's history? Oh, but I suppose you believe that once people are liberated from economic restraint, there'd be a Shakespeare on every corner, just like what Trotsky said. But, creation comes from STRUGGLE, it comes from DESIRE, you can't have products like Oblivion if there is not incentive to create such a product. I'm not gonna go out of my way to break my back producing a product which isn't required for the survival of other people without some kind of reward for doing so. You wont either, no matter how much you'll no lie to yourself.

"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. A very simple maxim yet apparently it seems you need a degree in quantum mechanics to understand it. You do thing that's benefits society and you get your needs fulfilled in turn. Its this thing called mutualism. I scratch your back you scratch mine."
Wait, isn't that what Capitalism is? Fuck, you just said it yourself, the creators of Oblivion expect something back, money is that reward. The act of trading cash for a product, for Oblivion, is a mutually beneficial arrangement .

So in your society, the group that creates Oblivion will need to go the butcher and trade his game for some meat, or something, and then he'll need to go to the bed makers and trade. Jesus Christ, what if most people don't want Oblivion, what happens then? Is he just gonna get everything for free anyway? Not mutually beneficial at all, a naive system which wont work except in your made up utopia.

What about web designers? What are they going to do then? Why on earth would some one bother innovating a product if they weren't going to get extra reward? Some people would work harder than others, a janitor doesn't work as much a video game designer, yet they still only get the basics to life? Absolutely no reason to do anything, I might as well become a janitor and write books on the side.

"Ah yes the mode of production where a small group of people have the ability to control the direction and practices of the  production process truly is the most democratic isn't it?"
Ok, then advocate for a Social Democracy, not for a state which owns all means of production. Regulate this, don't control it. And in a stateless Communal society, what's going to stop the miner from hoarding all of his resources? I guess he'll need to be beaten up.

"The USSR took a backwards agrarian society and turned it into an industrial powerhouse and in great isolation from trade and under great outside pressure managed to boost living conditions and lifespans and bring about comprehensive social healthcare and education which eliminated illiteracy and ended starvation."
Uh, how many people died due to famine again? Also, what you're saying is a lie, it's a Utopian version of the struggling USSR which never came close to existence. Stalin industrialized it, but it never went any further.

"The USSR started devoting resources to its nuclear program after the US had mass produced a vast arsenal of bombs if that had not occurred those resources could've gone to other places"
Ah, so not only could the US become a military superpower, it could also become the economic superpower of the world. the USSR could only direct resources specific ways. Awe, if only we had World Communism, then everything would be a utopia.

"All it is is a matter of processing capacity and anything a collection of firms can process is capable of being processes just as well by a solitary firm it is simply a question of information flows"
Yeah, and the system failed as it was.

"That aside I support planned economies not necessarily command economies."
Exact same thing, I think what you mean to say is a Mixed Economy. Or not, I have no idea.


Sheogorath Daedric Princess of Douchebaggery:
">Complains this isn't a debate club
>Writes a 104 line response"

I hoped if I wrote a bunch of long ass whatever the fuck you'd get bored and go away so I dont have to talk to you. Anyhow now I'm going to have to redouble my efforts.

"you also benefit off the commercialized aspect of the production it, well, produces."
I benefit from it in that I am able to live? I'm a socialist tell me how the economy making things isn't a benefit I would experience under socialism.

"what I find most deplorable is you neither have the effort or ambition to innovate"
You dont even know me fuck off.

"focus on creating a Social Democratic system in which private enterprise is both allowed, but a welfare state"
I dont want that bullshit. Private enterprise isn't a freedom its just legalized crime. I dont want a welfare state. I'm not interested in patching up problems within the confines of the logic of capitalism I'm interested in constructing a wholly different society.

"Even worse, you turn to Communism, communal ownership of property"
ghost sounds oooohhhhhh demooocrrrraaasy hooooowwww scaaarrrryyyy.

"you turn to USSR style Communism... A system of governance which failed, where a majority of nationales suffered essentially poverty"
I recommend you not become a history major it clearly isn't your forte.

"Poverty in the US is not being able to buy a tv and afford the internet, poverty in North Korea is being unable to fucking eat."
Wow great job comparing imperialist countries to places which have been heavily isolated from all trade for decades. btw the famine in north korea happened in the 90s food security is better now and days. Speaking of food security.
https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-hunger-us

"Capitalism OVER produces, Communism under produces"
Pretty edgy slogan but you haven't really presented anything which indicates a systemic inability of socialism to produce in sufficient quantities. Like with north korean hunger (if you could even consider them socialist today which would be a stretch) that has its origins in north koreas isolation from trade and relative poverty to other countries. I mean Nigeria and Honduras have these sorts of problems to but capitalists dont take that as definitive proof that capitalism is a failure its clear that there are historical and situational factors that play into it as well.

"Can you list the luxury goods invented under the Soviet Union."
Do you mean shit like caviar or just practical consumer inventions? The soviet union did quite a bit of the later so even if we discount all the innovations they did in the more detached fields of military weaponry, space exploration, science for sciences sake and the practical social advancements they made in equal rights and comprehensive universal healthcare there's still quite a bit.
To name a few.

First microwave oven. (1941)

First radio antenna.

First laser microphone. (1947)

Invention of therapies against infectious diseases that were based on bacteriophage virus. (1940)

Early surgical treatment of congenital heart disease, by pioneering Bukulev Alexander. (1948)

First cardiac surgery under local anesthesia. (Alexander Vishnevsky 1953)

First programmable computer MESM. (1950)

First computer with ternary logic (faster and more reliable than the binary system), Setun (Nikolai Brusentsov, 1958) and model development Setun-70 (Nikolai Brusentsov, 1970) which further reinforced the aspect of programming, improving to by a factor 5 software development over other architectures time.

Creation of the Soviet Soyuz spacecraft model (1967), which is the only way that NASA and ESA send astronauts into space.

First personal computer. (MIR Victor Glushkov, 1965)

Invention of Tetris. (Alexey Pajitnov, 1984)

First radio telescope (1979)

First mobile phone, Leonid Ivanovich Kupriyanovich (1955), which was copied by the USA in 1970 and Finland in 1980 gave them a civil use with Nokia.

The development of the laser enabled the first practical optical holograms that recorded 3D objects to be made in 1962 by Yuri Denisyuk in the Soviet Union.

Invention of the FAR file manager, RAR and WinRAR format file. (Eugene Roshal)

Creating the Sikorsky S -64 Skycrane, able to lift more cargo than any other in history.

Creating underwater welding. (Konstantin Khrenov, 1932)

First supersonic passenger plane, TU-144.

Creating the Ilyushin Il-2, the most produced aircraft in history.

First aerial firefighters. (1936)

First underwater assault rifle, the APS. (1975)

Invention of the LED (Oleg Vladimirovich, 1927)

First successful cornea transplant in 1931, by Vladimir Filatov, who developed tissue therapy.

"a lack of motivation of any kind still would produce products."
Hurp durp ib people dont werk fur duh monies dehn wut do tey live fur? There isn't a lack of motivation just because the profit incentive doesn't regulate economic activity for example people want to investigate these things for their own personal curiosity and fulfillment from doing work in a field they enjoy and above that there's still the need to produce things so that society can maintain functionality.

"Wait, isn't that what Capitalism is? Fuck, you just said it yourself, the creators of Oblivion expect something back, money is that reward. The act of trading cash for a product, for Oblivion, is a mutually beneficial arrangement ."
No capitalism is a parasitic relationship where the bourgeois live off other peoples labor. The obsession is solely with the pursuit of money and not about other people. Cash exchanges arent necessary to regulate a mutualistic society it is enough that those programing elder scrolls games are contributing to society we do not need to measure them. There should be no cash exchange it is enough that they are doing something and so they should receive in return according to what their needs are not according to their position in a hierarchy of social privilege according to what position you have in the relations of production.

Profit is derived from exploitation and unpaid labor. It isn't mutualistic.
“The wage-form thus extinguishes every trace of the division of the working-day into necessary labour and surplus-labour, into paid and unpaid labour. All labour appears as paid labour. All labour appears as paid labour. In the corvée, the labour of the worker for himself, and his compulsory labour for his lord, differ in space and time in the clearest possible way. In slave labour, even that part of the working-day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. All the slave’s labour appears as unpaid labour. In wage labour, on the contrary, even surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid. There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of the wage labourer.” -Capital

"you can't have products like Oblivion if there is not incentive to create such a product."
Money is not the only incentive in the universe. I already explained this stupid bullshit. Oblivion wasn't just made for the money it was made for the story as well because the programmers and story writers and artists that were part of it were caught up in this world they had created and wanted to share it with all of us. That aside you still give to get. Keep the social engine functioning. All that's abolished is private ownership. People still have the incentive to contribute just like people still had the incentive to forge for berries for the tribe in nomadic times.

An explanation of human behavior is just an explanation of the needs of humans, together with the assertion that they will act together to fulfill those needs.

There isn't anything that strictly impulses humans to function selfishly only to secure the survival of the species with unrefined base instincts to flee danger or to consume or to sleep or to fornicate.

The specific behavioral method through which these needs are fulfilled is determined is determined by the specific social arrangement currently present. The specific productive relations, productive instruments, and mode of production of society.

The material conditions of our lives determine this 'human nature' not the other way around. Of course the contemporary system has produced a 'human nature' obsessed with hierarchy and feuding competition since that's how its organized by subjugating and exploiting others. Humans have no inherent urge to amass wealth its merely that the current environment favors it above all else.

Should material conditions be reorganized to select for mutualistic altruism as the most favorable of dispositions then of course it is only natural that people would behave altruistically. Its tabula rasa. Humans have within them the capacity for both great good and great evil the rest is simply social engineering.

Humans are just incredibly good at adjusting to the parameters of any system they participate in likely as an extension of our pattern recognition to our social circumstances. To claim that human beings are inherently greedy because of their actions under some specific set of conditions makes about as much sense as to observe several rounds of chess and then conclude that human nature is to checkmate your opponent.

It ignores both that the described system does not contain the entire scope of human possibility as well as the cognitive autonomy one has to restrain themselves from engaging in these purported instinctual behaviors and fulfill their needs in a way much more satisfactory to self-interest.

There is no rigid set of human social behaviorisms in society because such a thing would be easily selected against in evolution for inhibiting or capacity to adapt to diverse dynamic social relations continually in flux.

Human behavior isn't innate or static it varies with the development of material conditions and has particular nuances and traits with every state of social relations. Nobody develops separately from their environment so considering anybody without consideration for the heavy influences of society is a flawed analysis.

If an organism is placed within a situation where members are acting selfishly and trying to exploit eachother then it learns that such behaviors are the most beneficial path to survival.

But if an organism is placed within a social situation where group members are acting altruistically to mutually fulfill each others needs then it learns that the opposite set of behaviors are the most beneficial path to survival.

Humans are just incredibly good at adjusting to the parameters of any system they participate in likely as an extension of our pattern recognition to our social circumstances.

There is no rigid set of human social behaviorisms in society because such a thing would be easily selected against in evolution for inhibiting or capacity to adapt to diverse dynamic social relations continually in flux.

Entirely selfish beings would be very detrimental to their own progress as a society. Entirely altruistic beings would be potentially open to weakness to exploiters. Survival is adaption.

t is not as though communism requires moral paragons to even function. In fact communism appeals greatly to greed for communism is itself the attainment of a society which is capable of fulfilling the most social need possible. Fulfilling the most greed possible. It is the logical ends of the masses pursing their own 'rational self interest' and seizing the means of production for themselves to produce things for their own sake instead of for the sake of parasitic exploiting capitalists who, contrary to what bourgeois ideologists may try and force feed you, do survive upon exploiting people. Just think about it. If people want to do all they can to try and survive wouldn't it be natural for them to go about establishing a society oriented around fulfilling their needs to the fullest through coordinated planning?

Under communism, social conduct and productive relations have been transformed, production takes place according to the principals of mutual aid and ensuring the collective welfare for everyone's survival. You have to understand the influences of ideology, under communism contributing to the collective becomes a natural principal, you could not think of it to be otherwise, just like under capitalism fighting to survive is such an innate intrinsic thing you could not think of it to be otherwise. It is of course simply social engineering.

Groups of individuals engage in productive activity to survive, that is the basis of any general conception of human nature. An explanation of human nature is an explanation of the needs of humans, together with the assertion that they will act to fulfill those needs. Under capitalism this is carried out through certain inescapable social conduct and likewise under communism, the same. The general realization that if I do not contribute to the collective we all perish becomes as fundamental a concept to human thought as the conception that if I don't 'get money, get cash, get it now, get it fast' I'll die is under capitalism.

Altruism is the most beneficial thing for fulfilling our own needs there is.

Its capitalism which reduces individuals to simply cogs in the machine. The value of a unique individual is reduced to what they can contribute to the profiteering of an avaricious capitalist machine. The reduction of each unique entity to nothing more than an anonymous cog in the factory machine is capitalist alienation of labor. Capitalism fails to care for their needs and fails to appeal to their personal self. If it did then there wouldn't be any contradiction because these needs would be fulfilled. But people are turned into mere automatons and their personal self needs aren't considered.

Communism does not seek to eliminate the diversity of unique entities which roam this world or to unify them into a homogeneous mass of replicas. But to eliminate the socioeconomic class isolation between them and unify them into a harmonized mass of machinery, not a single gear less significant or than any other. With everyone's needs considered and not overshadowed by the logic of capital.

Altruism is good for greed. (Forgive the crudity of the slogan for greed is at the sake of others whilst self-care is in moderation, unfortunately the later does not sound nearly as catchy.) If we were to degenerate into a truly feuding selfish parasitic society we would all be out at eachothers throats and it would result in nothing for any of us but death and slaughter and suffering and despair. The basis of our prosperity is our social relations with eachother which permit us to contribute to eachothers survival and pool our collective capacities to survive. That we engage in mutualistic relationships (Even under capitalism where such relationships take a parasitic aspect) is what allows us to fulfill our individual greed so well. When has a bear or an eagle ever lived so prosperously as a person in society?

"So in your society, the group that creates Oblivion will need to go the butcher and trade his game for some meat, or something, and then he'll need to go to the bed makers and trade."
There is no fucking trade that's a primitive economic practice all that they need do is requisition the things they need. There'll be communal depots for general supplies and such.

"Jesus Christ, what if most people don't want Oblivion, what happens then?"
As it stands lots of people do want Oblivion so knock it off with the absurdities. Above that production doesn't just take place in a vacuum people communicate with eachother and groups get together and discuss what things would be cool to do. With more down to earth requirements cybernetic planning and administrative investigations can be used to indicate social wants and then production can be allocated to match. In regards to more creative works groups can come together and decide what they want to do based off of what they feel is creative off of what people like off of advice from administrative councils which maybe they'll ask for resources for projects from and  maybe they get together and make these games on the side of more practical work  and if their game proves popular they can take it on as a main job. Anyways stop asking me to elaborate the functionings of an entire complex theoretical future economies. Capitalism wasn't made in some fucking visionaries head it was made through a lengthy process of social development.

"Why on earth would some one bother innovating a product if they weren't going to get extra reward?"
The profit incentive no longer exists. There is no thinking of oh if I do this I'll get extra stuff. They get whatever they ask for within the reasonable capacities of society to provide. So like if they ask for a car then maybe there's a stock of those produced for personal use but maybe they have to wait a bit for it to get shipped from somewhere and maybe they are behind others in a list if its something special and they have to wait for availability too. Nobody has any desire to like go to a supplies depot and go like gather all of the toasters up and store them in their garage just because you can since toasters no longer embody any exchange value they're basically fucking worthless beyond their practical utility as something you use to toast bread.

"a janitor doesn't work as much a video game designer, yet they still only get the basics to life?"
No you fucking brain dead squirrel people receive in proportion to whats necessary to fulfill their needs. That's what "to each according to their needs" means.

 "Social Democracy, not for a state which owns all means of production."
Communism doesn't have a state people, you and I, coordinate everything. Socialism has a state but not in the sense your familiar with. Under socialism the state is nothing different than the people of society organized as the ruling class. The state isn't a clearly distinguishably separate entity from the general public and the boarder only becomes more fuzzy as time goes on.

"Regulate this, don't control it."
Regulate murder dont control it.

"And in a stateless Communal society, what's going to stop the miner from hoarding all of his resources?"
"Nobody has any desire to like go to a supplies depot and go like gather all of the toasters up and store them in their garage just because you can since toasters no longer embody any exchange value they're basically fucking worthless beyond their practical utility as something you use to toast bread."
It would be absolutely pointless to hoard a bunch of copper or whatever to yourself when you a) have no need of copper b)cant refine and process copper into something useful and c) can already get any copper needs you do have fulfilled through economic planning.

"Uh, how many people died due to famine again?"
You: Hey look I'm demonstrating my absolute ignorance about soviet history yet again!

Capitalists love to cite that the death tolls of the 'holodomor' (I put this in quotations because the term implies both that it was intended and that it affected solely ukrainians. Both of which are untrue.) famine as around 7mil. This statistic actually has its origins in Nazi propagandists for the purpose of making Hitler look better than Stalin under the premise of that Hitler killed 6mil in 4yrs Stalin killed 7mil in 1yr, Hitler is therefore better than Stalin. Now if the questionable origins of this statistic aren't enough any historical analysis of Ukrainian population growth can provide clear evidence against it.

In 1926 the population of ethnic Ukrainians was 23,218,860 and then 13yrs later the population was 23,667,509 by 1939. Now looking at this it becomes evident that the 'holodomor', as a famine not a genocide, did indeed happen to some magnitude else the ethnic Ukrainian annual growth rate was 34,511people/year. But when we account for this statistic of ~7mil 'holodomor' 1932-1933 death tolls then the population of that years ending would be around 17,000,000 with full recovery to pre-famine levels 7 years later by 1939. Implying an annual growth rate of 1.11mil/year, you may look at this and say,"That sounds reasonable." but when you compare this with Ukrainian growth rates during the later half of the century you observe that during the 60's the decade growth rate was 3.84mil/decade with an average annual growth rate of .384mil/year, that during the 70's the decade growth rate was 2.88mil/decade with an average annual growth rate of .288mi/year, and during the 80's the decade growth rate was 1.92mil/decade with an average annual growth rate of .192mil/year. These are far smaller growth rates at a much later much more industrialized period than the supposed 30's annual growth rate of 1.11mil/year.

On top of that if we compare the implied resulting average percentage growth rate over the period of about 5.6% to boom periods in other countries with 2.8% in China, 1.7% in America, and 2.3% in India we find that the necessary growth rate for any figures of over say ~3mil in deaths far exceeds that of the fastest growth rates in some of the most populous countries on the planet. What this indicates is that either this statistic for these death tolls is completely inaccurate for it would imply a pre-industrial growth rate far exceeding that of several industrial and post-industrial growth rates, which is absolutely ludicrous. Or it indicates that Stalinist policies of collectivizing agriculture are 5 times more beneficial than any capitalist agricultural policy. Leaving you to choose between the lesser of two 'evils' on what the actual truth is, either your a liar or you believe in idiotic policies.

See, the famine occurred when Soviet leadership was pursuing a policy of agricultural collectivization as a response to food shortages created by remnants of the New Economic Policy, which allowed a more-or-less free market in grain and the continued polarized status of classes in the countryside. In other words, grain production was allowed to continue through capitalistic means, and was causing shortages.

The kulaks were deliberately hoarding food to artificially raise prices which was causing starving in the cities and cutting into economic development forcing the state to seize their food. The kulaks reacted by burning their crops and slaughtering countless livestock to prevent seizure, and waging uprisings against collectivization.

Most simply assert that this was just innocent political opposition to collectivization. Rarely though is it acknowledged that if you destroy food en masse, it might just create a famine. Or that if you wage violent uprisings, there is going to be casualties. Rather than recognize these actions of the wealthier peasants and the right of the Soviet leadership to pursue policies to relieve food shortages, the entire famine and resulting deaths are simply blamed uncritically upon Stalin.

The US House of Representatives claims: “people in the government were aware of what was going on, but did not do anything to help the starving,” apparently ignorant to the fact that this statement perfectly describes the US government’s response to the Great Depression (or that of any capitalist government when it’s people are starving) (as relief was aimed at businesses with common suffering ignored till the later years) and that collectivization efforts were meant to reduce food shortages.

What’s probably most important is to recognize about famines is that they are not uncommon phenomena in human history, especially in the context of a hundred years ago. They’ve occurred on every continent and in countless countries, in some recurring as a regular event. But their acknowledgment is only used as a political tool when they occur in a communist-led state, in which scenario Westerners label it “deliberate mass murder.” As historian William Blum has said, “more people certainly died in India in the 20th century from famines than in the Soviet Union, but no one accuses India of the mass murder of its own citizens.”

Out of a peasant population of ~120,000,000 only ~10,000,000 of them were kulaks/rich-peasants/ushers/land-lords and only ~2,000,000 of them violently resisted. Forced isn't the correct term, if anything it was just bureaucratic.

Collectivization was actually a response to famines which were quite frequent and was intended to eliminate them. Which it did the famine of the early 30's was the last famine in the country apart from the famine after ww2 which was caused by the disarray left by the fascists. What really caused the famine of that time was a poor harvest from had weather combined with the class warfare between the wealthier peasantry and the poorer peasantry which provoked the wealthier peasants into burning their already meager harvests and slaughtering their livestock. As the poorer peasants pushed for collectivization to provide them with better livings because an effect of the NEP enacted under Lenin to redevelop the economy was the centralization of farmland into massive private estates which were formed from the buyouts of poor and often indebted farmers which thereafter were forced to labor as tenant farmers on the newly formed estates or move away to the cities just like under capitalism. Collectivization was the alternate route to the capitalist path to mechanizing agriculture. Instead of destroying the peasant class through agrarian centralization which made massive estates that needed machines to farm them best and as a compliment to this made a class of wealthy farmers capable of buying such machines - agrarian mechanization would be conducted by the community of peasants together who pooled their collective farmlands and expropriated the wealthier peasants combining their resources together so that they could both mechanism faster and farm more efficiently. A problem of this for the Soviet union is probably that such a policy probably undermined the creation of the proletariat and permitted the peasantry to persist and also that because it made agrarian production efficient to a degree that it disinclined some of the mechanization. Other issues were that collectivization was conducted in regions which weren't quite developed for it by misguided bureaucrats wanting to mimic the successes of more developed regions. Agricultural collectivization was conducted too fast and probably should've been undertaken at a slower pace but given the chaotic conditions of the USSR during the time it is understandable that they wanted to improve things as quickly as possible.

"so not only could the US become a military superpower, it could also become the economic superpower of the world. the USSR could only direct resources specific ways."

The USSR and the USA are not comparable. The US had existed since long before the USSR and had built up a sturdy industrial base and was kept isolated from all sorts of disastrous conflicts and wars. The USSR was born out of warfare and bloodshed and grew between repetitive attacks on its very existence. It was cut off from trade by the cold relations between them and capitalist states and further isolated after the Sino-Soviet split. It tried to secure the same connections that the US had built world wide but was meet with vicious proxy wars waged by the country. It endured a Nazi invasion which devastated most of the country to a place beyond despair to which they recovered from without the assistance of the US aid they had been promised and then later denied. Dont you dare try to compare them.

Reactionary politics at work again. They always say communism will never work. Their system breaks all the time they just hide it, invade other countries, milk the poor, and print more money to make up for capitalism breaking.The rich can get through any crises if the poor pay for it. So the rich are usually OK even in a depression (they hoard money and bleed others out) so in the eyes of politicians and the media, we have it good, and since the upper crust of society has it good you people are just lazy. Homelessness isn't that common, and no it's not because we chase them out of town or imprison them. We are responsible, that's why we take bailout money and add it to our bonus and cut pensions after we crash the economy. Never mind that durning the Great Depression the Soviet economy was doing fine while the rest of the world took a shit. Also, you poor people have it good. Work harder (has nothing to do with manipulating capital and lobbying) and you'll be as rich as us. Fucking idiots believe most of the above idiotic statements.

The falsehoods fabricated during the cold war by the ideological enemies of communism for the purpose of demonizing communism, an ideology they have biased interest in discouraging for it's tenants call for dismantling private ownership of the means of production, don't count as history sorry, they are at best skewed biased distortions of events and at worst outright fabrication of the incentives and rationals of the party. Also even among thoroughly bourgeois idealist historians there is a massive diversity of interpretations of historical events even in regards to Vanguard Socialist regimes. The trouble with history is most everyone was never there to witness it, diverse interpretation is therefore inevitable.

"Stalin industrialized it, but it never went any further."
History begs to differ.

First universal public education system, which achieved the highest rates of literacy in history in the 15 Soviet republics. Moreover, Soviet schools offered free food for students, so the work-life balance is made much easier than today in the capitalist countries. Even kindergartens were also free. There were evening studies so that workers could build careers and providence of comprehensive universal education through university for workers.

First comprehensive and universal health care system, which increased the life expectancy of the Soviets, less than 40 years in 1917, to reach Western levels in 1980 (70 years). The achievements of hunger eradication and health systems can also compare with the average height of the Soviets in 1917 (1.60 m) to 1980 (1.80 m). This health system discovered painless childbirth and performed the first organ transplant. First country in history where abortion was legal and free (since 1920).

Equality policies. Of the first countries to adopt women's suffrage. Criminalized racial and ethnic hatred for others.

"-I support planned economies not necessarily command economies.-
Exact same thing, I think what you mean to say is a Mixed Economy. Or not, I have no idea"
No a command economy is in its most vulgar sense an economy where a sect of elite bureaucrats plan the whole economy from a dark little room. A planned economy is just an economy where people plan it out. Decentralized and autonomous planning are other flavors of planned economies which are possible where groups of people from different places discuss together what they need and trade information to coordinate the flow of resources on smaller scales to build up a big web of planning relations.

When workers own the means of production coordination of productive activity is done by workers who work there. The workers of a community discuss together with each other what they are most suited to producing, the practices they should follow in producing, the requisition of materials and shipment of goods in short businesses are community coordinated. No overbearing bureaucracy to filter through just to requisition a coffee maker that wont arrive for months. They can just act on their own communicating directly with whomever makes the coffee makers they need.

The horizontal nature of coordination parcels out the flow of information and makes the whole thing very efficient. Dis-economies of scale occur with monopolistic corporations because of their very different structure which focuses on hierarchy and chain of command and the few key stockholders who sit at the top of a business and their interests. The defect is not inevitable and can be avoided in communes by structuring things democratically.

Of course in the economy information must flow from the people to the industries so there must be a mechanism to facilitate the flow of information where it needs to go. Community coordinated industries have to receive information about what it is they are depended upon to produce to satisfy social needs.

On a side note this is why I say that workers discuss what they are most suited to producing and not what they need to produce most. The whole takes care of itself so what they need is produced by whomever is best suited to producing it. (That's probably determined by like maybe a comparative production possibilities frontier or whatever.) iron is mined where iron is plentiful not where it is scarce.

There must be some structure or arrangement or whatever we wish to call it which sends out information for information is the heartbeat of any economy. In part this can be done as mentioned above by communes directly contacting their associated communes which produce the things they need to produce things. of course this is not feasible for the common people of society at large though.

The way in which their needs may be meet is actually quite familiar to us today. Most of the volume trades made on stock markets are done by automated algorithms. These high frequency trades occur thousands of times per second at the speed of light across a globally integrated communication infrastructure constructed to coordinate the planetary distribution of resources. The same root function is heavily adapted to operate to coordinate the flow of information under the new society.

Cybernetic plannings programs compile and integrate data packets about wide scale economic requirements from the people of society and send them out to suited communes.

Without cybernetics it would still be possible to coordinate by having administrative bodies process observed data to extrapolate guiding data about required output levels then send it off to where it should go to adjust production levels. And that will probably still occur to compliment cybernetic planning.