The ideas seem pretty straightforward:>People work to self-realize their needs, ambitions, desires etc>Work is organized in a set of relations and gives rise to class>When the workplace's organization becomes detrimental to self-realization, the workers have incentives to overcome itSo how did these ideas transform into the nightmare that was the USSR and Maoist China ? It seems odd that someone could get the idea that every decision needs to be centralized into one absolute dictator with complete control over the economy from marxism. Similarly why didn't they think of reforming their economic model once weakness started showing ? It paradoxically somewhat proves Marx right too
>>18376585>So how did these ideas transform into the nightmare that was the USSR and Maoist China ?They were workers' utopias. Stop swallowing crapitalist propaganda uncritically. Bet you also think the vaccines are safe and effective.
>>18376585anarchy won
Assuming communism can be achieved at all, it would need to be the dominant world order in order to not immediately revert to capitalism. The revolution failed to spread to western europe and was therefore doomed to become Stalin's "socialism in one country" by the time that Lenin died.
It's a pie in the sky ideology.It's very susceptible to being hijacked or misused.Communism of all varieties leads to cultism.
>>18376585>It seems odd that someone could get the idea that every decision needs to be centralized into one absolute dictator with complete control over the economy from marxism. Have you actually looked into "Marxism"? That's its defining feature compared to other socialisms.Us monkeys love jargon and to intellectualize things but if you look past that you will see that Marx was essentially a NEET who fantasized about creating his own French revolution and saw that opportunity with industrialization, "capitalists" and "workers". His understanding was that the socialist revolution had to be bloody just like the FR.
>Why did marxism fail ?High school economics
Revolution is not a dinner party after all. You think the capitalist class and Zionists will simply relinquish their power just because you kindly ask them to? Revolution cannot be gentle and soft, it has to be determined and thorough.
>>18376585Communism is good but to make it work requires sacrifice that most people don't want to suffer.
>>18376585>So how did these ideas transform into the nightmare that was the USSR and Maoist China ? It seems odd that someone could get the idea that every decision needs to be centralized into one absolute dictator with complete control over the economy from marxism.So first of all Maos China and the USSR did it differently from some point on. The strict central planning was how "scientific" economy was meant to look like, the great leap forward/cultural revolution era was an idea for how a democratic economy would look like. They're both retarded for different reasons but ultimately what will you get if you try to actually make it work? Something similar to what Schumpeter proposed? As in state owned industries that engage in market economy? That could work, that does work, but where's your socialism in it, it seems like it lost its way.
Marxism is just the excuse of shit persons without the mindset and skills to become rich legally, to become reach by stealing wealth of common people and those who actually worked under law to become rich, ie, businessmen.
>>18377090>unless those rich people are jewish>then I, a poorfag rightoid, am entitled to everything they have because they gained wealth unfairly o algo
>>18376585What if my need, ambition, desire etc is to not work at all?
>>18377090Capitalism is literally theft, its based on the exploitation of the worker's labor
>>18376585>marxism"Marxism" is a pejorative, like "Darwinism". Just say Communism (or Evolution).Capitalism creates industrial exploitation. Class war was supposed to take back what was taken from them, and use those tools of exploitation towards dismantling the evil aspects and advancing the social good.What happened was that this socialist revolutions faced TWO issues of the 20th century:1 Fascism2 DecolonializationFascism comes about by Capitalists redirecting revolutions away from Socialism and into Fascism. Letting it rid out, completely crushing the Socialist project and then resuming Capitalism. Euro and US Capitalism were able to side step Socialism by adopting Fascism.Decolonialization only had one full developed and revolutionary roadwork that they had access to and it was Communism. Religion, nationalism, etc would lead to destruction (and this is what Fascists used to utterly destroy decolonialization up until today).The issue with this is colonies weren't Capitalist. They were Feudal. So the only ones that "survived" were ones that had to adopt Capitalism in the name of Communism, and now we have everyone associating Communism with Capitalist means and outcomes. Most rightly were too weak to continue, and were destroyed. Some see China doing Capitalism with the intent to transition... but doubt it.
>>18376585It hasn't fallen, its just going through a centuries long crawl. The 20th century was a massive curb stomp for Marxism because of oil. Oil can have up to a 200:1 labour ratio, which means you can get 200 times the energy out of it that you put in to obtaining it. This energy surplus has driven profits and growth through the 20th century.Unfortunately, almost all the easy oil is gone. Oil is by no means gone or anything, but obtaining it from now on is only going to take more energy, and so you can pretty much kiss guaranteed global growth goodbye under capitalist conditions. What will follow now is continuous, violent war over and over and over again as the elite bash their heads against a wall for decades trying to keep the gravy train going. But I think by the 2050's, the people that haven't been violently killed or starved will begin to ease into a new social order which could be called "socialism".
>>18377120These same workers you steal from, kinda ironic, the marxist will talk about workers when they have never ever worked in a single day of their lifes, just as that parasite Karl Marx. Once again, Marxism is the ideological mask for narcissists, psychopaths, murderers, thieves and sociopaths to whitewash murder and thief under an ideological excuse.Shit people and truly scum.
>>18376585Labour Theory of Value is false Hegelian social progress is false.Therefore Marxism is also false.
>>18377477>Hegelian Social Progress is falseMarx’s theory forms the basis of conflict theories in modern (materialist) sociology, and even Weber’s theory is but an individualist form of such dynamics. Yes, Hegel’s idealistic “progress” is false, and so is any notion of progress in Marxism, because in the latter there are only changes due to material causes and contradictions, not some grand project or prophecy dogma laid down by the Prophet Marx.>Labour Theory of Value is falseAh yes. So the boom-bust cycles, Gini index statistics, discrepancies between productivity and median worker wage, as well as the undeniable fact that “minimum” unemployment and an “optimal level” of class inequality is built into all capitalist economic theories, are not enough for you?
>>18377592>boom-bust cycles, Gini index statistics, discrepancies between productivity and median worker wage, as well as the undeniable fact that “minimum” unemployment and an “optimal level” of class inequality is built into all capitalist economic theoriesNone of this proves Labor Theory of Value. All of it is compatible with Marginal Utility Theory. Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall isn't real. In fact, the rate of profit continues to increase as the need for labor continues to decline.There is no final revolution coming. Hierarchy and inequality will always exist. Marx was wrong, Pareto was right.
>>18377604Apart from the visiting Indian who took your job, nothing proves the labor theory of value.
>>18377604>>18377477*clap*, *clap* Such high quality bait Saar Mukesh! Soorely you will get the Rs. 50,000 raise for your good work, no?
>>18377604>All of it is compatible with Marginal Utility Theory>Pareto was rightThis is the problem. Minimal unemployment, optimal class inequality, and productivity-median wage discrepancies are direct conclusions of the theory. As long as you accept the axiom that this theory is empirical and looks at current, yes let me emphasize, current economics, then you must accept that these economic and sociological phenomena are caused by our current economic system. If you then think that such class inequality would not lead to conflict as per sociological conflict theory which economics has barely tried to account for, dunno what to tell ya.
>>18377632The problems exist because the economic theory is true. It predicts that these problems will exist. Economic theories do not provide recommendations, they describe how things work. If you want to make things better, you need to understand how the economy actually works rather than how you would like it to work.Look into Modern Monetary Theory
>>18377632Gonna samefag reply: minimal does not mean “the lowest unemployment rate that we can”, it means “the lowest unemployment rate that leads to the greatest measure of economic revenue or product”, whatever that measure of revenue is, GDP or otherwise. This is the position adopted by the majority of current macroeconomic theory.
>>18377634>if you want to make things betterI disagree. Reform does not create better economic systems; this is a core principle of Marxism-Leninism. This is where we leave economics and enter into sociology and politics, which economics attempts to abstract away most of the time, but cannot in this instance.
>>18376585It disregards the human element. That someone will always want what you have, and power corrupts.
>>18377637The failure of Marxist predictions mean that reform is the only way to improve our quality of life. Economic history isn't linear, inevitabily progressing towards greater equality. It's cyclical and will fluctuate between more or less equality according to a variety of factors. If we wish to create a "better" society (which for me would be social democracy rather than socialism), then it will take active involvement for direct political change.
>>18377639Power doesn't "corrupt". It just brings forward what already exists.
>>18377640>failure of Marxist predictionsYes, because Marxists aren’t prophets and don’t have divine knowledge of causality, but are simply applying dialectic principles to sociology and history with the limited knowledge we possess. There is no linearity in history. Marx may have attempted to give such an account, but quickly failed with his “Asiatic mode of production” (whatever the fuck that was supposed to mean) and “primitive communism”, two conclusions that aren’t scientific today even if they were back in his day. Marxism simply says that if we act, we can get socialism where businesses themselves are democratized and business changes are decided by vote by all instead of the highest management passing down to oligarchic bozos that decide your rate of pay and HR Karens deciding if your interview was good enough for their tastes. All of Marxism relies on human action, without action the most inevitable event to happen is nuclear or climate apocalypse, not socialism.
>>18376585your workers self-management (and self-realization kek) isn't productive and efficient enough to sustain 20th century level of civilization and expectations.
>>18376978>bringing up zionism out of nowherezionism is just jewish nationalism
>>18376585People identity more strongly with immaterial things (religion, gender, nationality, social class) than materialistic things (economic class). That is the most basic and fundamental limitation. That people actually just identify more strongly with the philosophical ideas that Marxism claimed were less important than economic class.
>>18377477>Hegelian social progressIt's really not that hard anon. To understand dialectics you simply need to ask yourself what creates the conditions for "change" to occur within a given system. By doing so, you'll realize that endogenous change is created by tensions and inner conflicts. At the very least there must be some kind of back and forth interaction between 2 elements for the system (which is composed of elements) to change.Marx's dialectics simply showed how such conditions were met in capitalist societies to change : unjustified alien business norms, class antagonisms, cyclical crisis etc.You might disagree with his diagnosis, but you'll find that the majority of social studies that analyze dynamic systems will more or less implicitly accept the dialectical framework rather than the pure logician frameworks which doesn't work well with totality and endogenous change.>>18377604>Hierarchy and inequality will always existIs this the marx is egalitarian meme ?>>18377647This. The whole "stages of history" is a bit of a meme that Marx himself disavowed. People have a tendency to read Marx's historical and dialectical materialism as determinist theories when they really are not.In fact, I'd argue that his theories were made to be so because of the general scientific enthusiasm of the late 19th century>>18377665Materialism isn't that humans can't be attached to ideas or norms, or that everything is inherently physical, but rather the idea that everything comes from matter (as opposed to a metaphysical god/idea that organized the world, or to skeptics doubting about the very existence of the world)>religion, gender, nationality, social classThese are all real-life things, which refer to "material" thing. Your gender for instance is a real and material thing, not only does it points to your bodyparts, but it also englobes an array of social norms related to it. This is not the the critique of idealism that Marx made.
>>18376585Marx was a rich kid fail son who was a wannbe poet and later studied philosophy. He later came up with a retarded conspiracy theory borderline cult that supposed to be able to predict the future to the point of it being a "science" all based on economics, something he knew dick about ("b-but he studied it on his own!" doesnt count)He then became a rabble rouser and other took his insane theory and ran with it. Now its just completely unhinged freaks and retards who cling to it more for the "burn society down" aspect more than building anything.
>>18376585The USSR was paradise on earth for wagie nobodies who just wanted a quiet life. Americlaps and other westoid faggots just hate it because they delusionally cling to the wet dream that they'll be part of the child raping Epstein billionaire class one day.>guaranteed car>guaranteed job>guaranteed apartment
>>18378118youre an unhinged loser faggot who can do nothing productive, project your uselessness onto everyone else, and have to pretend its impossible to achieve a middle class existence in America.You're a furry, junkie, NEET, incel, troon, or a combination of all or some.
>>18376585I'm curious about this as well. I don't buy the "CIA did it" cope.Maybe it's just that class division is, in one way or another, inevitable. In high school there are always charismatic kids who get girls' attention and then there's awkward male virgins. The chad kid has no reason not to hoard girls for himself.
>>18376585Marx's analysis was of industrial workers. Industrial workers made up less than 5% of Tsarist Russia or Maoist China. So that alone basically answers that question.
>>18376585Everyone realized the opposition had the better drip.
>>18376585why should my hard work be beneficial to someone who doesnt work?that question alone kills communism
>>18376598>haha the wide spread starvation was actually a utopia!>ignore the countless commie refugees that only talk bad about communism goy!
>>18378467>why should my hard work be beneficial to someone who doesnt work?but you literally just described capitalism at its core. what do you think surplus value means?
>>18378477I swear to god the only people more retarded than marxists are the retards who try to argue against marxism but have never fucking research the basic core principles
Well , you can't really write off Marxism because it didn't work in the "modern era".All you can say is that it didn't work so far. Due to many different factors that essentially boil down to people being selfish cunts who want to climb to the top of hierarchies to get more gain for themselves and less for everyone else. However, since communism is the rational system for a group of intelligent and unselfish people, its "failure" doesn't preclude it from succeeding in the future, if people become gradually less stupid and selfish over time it might even just arise spontaneously as people's values change. Kind of like how it works in Star Trek.However this doesn't preclude the
>>18377840>The whole "stages of history" is a bit of a meme that Marx himself disavowed. People have a tendency to read Marx's historical and dialectical materialism as determinist theories when they really are not.So is Marxism norminative or descriptive? If it's the descriptive, the description has clearly failed. If it's norminative, then I can simply say that I don't like it and I want social democracy instead
>>18378477None of these nations are communists, let alone socialists. They are all failed experiments
>>18376585Communism depends on every person bottom up to be incorruptible. But we *are* humans so.
Commies don't care about workers, most commies are neets stealing workers money, never worked a day in their life, they aren't different from capitalists, even fucking marx was peak neet.
>>18376585Here you can find a good analysis of why socialism, marxism, communism, etcetera always fail.
As far as I understand, the core idea behind marxism-leninism is the idea that there are core countries (America, Europe, Australia, NZ) who want third world countries to be permanently poor and subdued so they can extract their resources. But this doesnt make sense. If African countries were rich, America and Europe could sell them more products. Of course there are natural resources that, if they became developed, they would try to have for themselves and they would not sell to America so that they themselves could produce high end finished goods but maybe we could solve this issue through materials science and by developing synthethic materials so in terms of natural resources, we could live in a post scarcity world. The problem with socialism is that it doesnt have an explanation for the 'peripheral' countries that greatly increased their standard of living and in some cases, even became developed countries. Socialism is meant to be a post capitalist ideology according to Marx, I believe, but Soviets tried to implement it before capitalism industrialized their countries and when the USSR collapse the wealth of the state and ownership of state corporations was distributed mostly among a few people.
The Soviet project was the most successful socialist state. The Maoist project failed and it led to mass starvation. The socialist revolutions in latin America, other parts of asia or in Africa were also a huge disaster. The Soviets managed to industrialize Russia, but after some time, it became clear that the standard of living in the west was better and they were not going to be able to catch up. They began to lag technologically, especially in computing. Why this happened is anyone's guess. It was an economy that was very geared towards the heavy industry. One thing that I havent seen anyone discuss is the fact that You cant trust a third world government to ever do anything right, and that includes capitalism, but it also includes socialism. Most socialist revolutions happened in poor countries without state capacity. If anyone can pull socialism off, it would be the most advanced countries, like America. Not even Germans could pull off socialism despite being smart and having a competent state, but its still important to acknowledge the role that the Marshall plan and American aid had in helping the west outcompete eastern Europe. Which, America had been an industrial power for a long time when the ussr had been just an agrarian state just a few decades ago. I am not a socialist, I think I prefer capitalism, but I think its only fair to acknowledge that socialist and capitalist countries did not have the same starting point during the cold war.
The irony is the only successful socialist states were ultra authoritarian.Socialism can only exist by unironically replicating monarchies and those systems.
>>18378751Socialism is just slavery. It requires authoritarianism.
>>18376585Simple, like basically every other political movement it's a 'simple answer to a complex question' problem. Something designed to give retards the ability to pretend that they have the faintest idea what the fuck is happening and what should be done about it. The difference between completely shitty politics like Communism/Fascism etc and moderately shitty politics that can be lived with (like most but not all democratic systems) is that they respect that you're more than just property of the state (unlike communism/fascism/monarchism/shitty politics in general) and can be at least theoretically reformed without killing everybody.>>18377277You're really going to do that? Waste perfectly good digits on the most tedious and pointless attempt at avoiding the question possible?
>>18378721Do you engage with any historical or economic theory that isn't available in free PDF form from the Mises Institute?
>>18377477>Labour Theory of Value is falseThe LTV is simply the idea that under a competitive market, prices hover arround the costs of production + surplus value. The whole point for Marx is that competition doesn't enable to expand profits continuously, but actually decreases them because of competitive pressure to lower your price and reinvest more into machinerie.The marginalist revolution also doesn't "refute" the LTV btw. It's a common mistake but all the marginalist revolution does is explain how prices work on a microlevel, and not a general aggregate level like Marx's analysis.>Hegelian social progress is false.Also wrong. Dialectics are simply a tool to analyze how change occurs and plays out in the physical world. Saying that dialectics are false is like saying that causality is false; it's absurd. All that dialectics claim is that the world is material (exists independantly from the mind and is composed of matter), and that it is in a constant dynamic producing change. This is more or less something widely understood desu, people simply get triggered by the word dialectic because muh spooky hegel.>Therefore Marxism is also false.Marxism is just the idea that humans constantly transform and work on their environment in a dialectical manner to satisfy their needs, and that over times the relations of productions can come in conflict with the potential of production.>>18377604>None of this proves Labor Theory of Value. All of it is compatible with Marginal Utility TheoryYes because you don't realize that both are compatible. What you're essentially saying is "Psychology is true, therefore neurobiology is wrong". It's a wrong binary view.>Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall isn't realpicrel>There is no final revolution comingAlready did many times already. In fact they still occur and still prove Marx essentially true.
>>18379338>>There is no final revolution coming>Already did many times already. In fact they still occur and still prove Marx essentially true.A "final revolution" cannot occur multiple times for the same purpose in the same country only to be undone by reactionary forces.The USSR fell because Marxism is wrong about historical progressAlso, that graph is dishonest because it focuses on the "non-financial sector" in the US and if you look at the years listed, they show the decades of Financialization of the US economy and off-shoring of US primary and secondary industry. The US non-financial sector saw declining profit because the profit has been in the financial sector and in non-US industry, nonetheless profit continues to increase
>>18379338Also Marginal Utility and LTV are in fact incompatible.Either value comes from labor and raw production or it comes from the intersection of objective supply and subjective demandThese two models are not compatible and have very different implications.
>>18376585It’s pseudo religious. It has a secular millenarianism and demands almost religious levels of piety and loyalty from all members of society. But it doesn’t give the spiritual benefits traditionally associated with religion. It has all the behaviours and aesthetics of a religion. It’s entirely a materialist project aimed at transforming society back into paradise on Earth. It’s a demonic parody of Christianity in this sense. In which in Christianity, the believers are granted eternal life in heaven via accepting and living to Gods grace, here we must surrender our egos and wills and desires to the “collective”. If communist utopia hasn’t appeared then it’s just because we haven’t done it hard enough. Also there are hidden dangers and deceptions along every path trying to drag us back to capitalist fascist hell.Thus the state becomes authoritarian to chase this ludicrous utopian vision and ensure that all people are playing along with it. However, like all religions, you have disbelievers. And it turns out, when they can get away with it for personal gain, many people will forsake “revolutionary ideals” and “socialist principles”.
Communist revolution would have worked if the 1918 german socialist uprising succeeded and created a domino effect turning every west european country into socialist countries with the biennio rosso in italia, the french communist party then spanish socialist forces like the cnt, but the bourgeoisie in western europe was too powerful at that time, it already gained experience against communist uprisings with the anarchists attacks and socialist strikes from late 19th and early 20th century, only peripherical, badly integrated and feudal states managed to be overthrown by communist parties (Russia and China), communist parties had to build everything from scratch and had to take drastic measures to modernize the territory leading to millions of death in a few decades when the capitalist system made these millions of deaths in centuries of modernization through slavery and industrial labor via the primitive accumulation of capital process.Chinese and russian communist parties then eventually forgot the communist doctrine and assimilated their imperial bureaucracy customs, forming a class of bureaucrats similar to an imperial court with the same intrigues and plots as the former rulers, communists in USSR and China replaced the aristocracy by the nomenklatura/red princes and the emperor by the secretary, but the relations of production are still centralized like in feudal or capitalist empires and they have no intent to give up their privileges.TLDR : western communists failed because the bourgeoisie was too strong, chinese and russian communists failed because they assimilated to the former administration and became emperors
>>18379349>A "final revolution" cannot occur multiple times for the same purpose in the same country only to be undone by reactionary forces.What ? Look at the democratic revolutions which happened in France and tell me how this can't happen.>The USSR fell because Marxism is wrong about historical progressIt fell because its leaders stopped reforming the economic system>Also, that graph is dishonest It's not. The falling rate of profit theory is about how commodity production tends to have a declining profit. Finance sectors don't create commodities they redistribute and relocate capital. But even if we discard this fact, Marx's TRPF essentially posits that 2 things can happen for profit rates : either they lower and create overproduction crisis, either firms are consolidated into a few big groups to guarantee profits.Guess where finance goes...>>18379351>Either value comes from labor and raw production or it comes from the intersection of objective supply and subjective demandWrong again. Value in marxian economics refer to something that happens on an aggregate level with competitive dynamics at play. This isn't at odds with the marginal conception which analyzes value on a micro basis.You're comparing 2 different models that attempt to explain 2 different things. Marginalism answers "why does this good trade at this price right now?", whilst the LTV answers "what is the source of profit and how does it evolve over time". In direct terms with what you said : the subjective appreciation of a good (marginal) will always be linked to how that good gets created and distributed (ltv)
>>18378468you did not address the safe and effective part of his argumentthat has been noted
>>18379451>firms are consolidated into a few big groups to guarantee profitsHow does this lead to revolution though? It seems like this system just works very well for capital.
>>18379465>How does this lead to revolution though?It worsens the living conditions of the average joe. Capitalism appears rational to the average guy because it produces innovation, job creation, future prospects of owning capital etc. Monopolies tend to reduce all those things.However, nothing in capitalism directly leads to a revolution, all it does is create the conditions for one to emerge.>It seems like this system just works very well for capitalIt does indeed but it always faces the pressure to satisfy the needs of the average person because it knows it has to rely on them consuming and producing things. This is why we went from pure liberal capitalism to welfare keynesian capitalism (because of crisis and unemployment) to neoliberal welfare capitalism (because of inflation and stagnation), to what seems now mercantile capitalism (because of slow growth and labor outsourcing leading to a vacuum in production)
>>18379613Why won't it disintegrate back into capitalism again?
>>18379619Why would you go back to capitalism after a revolution if you've managed to find a better system ?
>>18379648People will always want more than they haveThis is ultimately a technological problem which we remain until we've solved scarcity and automated most jobs
>>18379659What are you trying to say here ?
>>18379662As long as resources are scarce, we will continue to compete to have more than we "need" and some people will end up with more wealth and power.Until AI and automation are perfect and the human population significantly reduced, history will be a pendulum swinging between greater or lesser equality
>>18377277>Euro and US Capitalism were able to side step Socialism by adopting Fascism.you're retarded
>>18376585Doesn't work, simple as
>>18376585>So how did these ideas transform into the nightmare that was the USSR and Maoist China?They totally destroyed most of their own ideological base within a generation.
>>18378118>The USSR was paradise on earth for wagie nobodies who just wanted a quiet lifethat was not how Soviet society worked
>>18379124Probably no. I have some exposure trough other media but it is limited. Im not saying Im omniscient but that is kind of also the point that Mises makes. Nobody is omniscient about other individual peoples wants, needs and life goals. Im very much in favor of liberty too and I think you cant separate liberty from economic liberty, aka free markets and private property.
>>18379689> Until AI and automation are perfect and the human population significantly reduced, history will be a pendulum swinging between greater or lesser equalityThe only situation we are going to get out of this is a dystopia where AI and automation are used to put the majority of humanity, even of a smaller population, out of work. The few who own the AI and automated industries shall be the elite, while the rest have to guide and work with the mining AI to mine rare minerals for making all the robots and chips. As always, it all comes down to the discrepancy between the owners of the means of production of economic value, and those that have no such ownership.
>>18380680Then I suppose we're doomed
It failed because of the economic calculation problem and because of war communism etc…
I don't want my fair share. I want more and I will find a way to get more. This is why communism will always fail.
>>18377406>never ever worked in a single day of their lifes, just as that parasite Karl MarxWhy do people keep repeating this? Is it just bait?Marx had a job working as a journalist and editor. He couldn't keep a job because of his controversial political writings.
>>18380910Have fun with not even getting your fair share in capitalism the vast majority of the time (perhaps never in your life), for the slight chance in your life of pleasing your company oligarch owners and moving up.>>18380696Economic calculation problem can be solved easily via computers. The Soviets did their best with what they had, and developed advanced numerical methods used in math. With today’s tech combined with the advanced numerical methods, it’s a non-issue.War communism can be reverted by using China’s policies: instead of having a stranglehold on the capitalists via weaponry, have a stranglehold on them via trade, diplomacy and sheer economic advantage (see Xi Yinping Thought). USSR would probably have gone this way (see Lenin’s post-revolution work and Bukharin), but WW2 and its consequences resulted in them being a lot more paranoid than they would’ve been otherwise.
How does R&D work under a communist system?
