Communists have different priorities than liberals, so it's always going to seem like socialism produces the incorrect results from a liberal point of view. Communist movements also have the disadvantage of living in a world dominated by capital, meaning our only choices are either to somehow wrestle control of capital, or abandon it entirely. Neither is a satisfying choice and neither is without their own issues.
In any case, socialist countries, including very poor ones, consistently outrank countries of similar income and geography in metrics like housing, healthcare, infant mortality, literacy, and educational attainment.
Liberal economists don't value these factors, instead favoring a focus on things like total GDP, or access to markets, or even completely abstract concepts like freedom, happiness, or liberty. Communist movements are intended to liberate the working class. Other systems, like feudalism or capitalism, don't value a liberated working class, because that upends the entire production apparatus.
I don't know how relevant it is anymore, but I always point to this 1986 study compiled from World Bank information that shows quality of life in socialist countries exceeding similar capitalist countries in 30 out of 36 comparisons.
or even completely abstract concepts like freedom, happiness, or liberty.
these are all important to communists it's just that the bourgeoisie have something completely different in mind when they say these words. When they use curated metrics like the "freedom index," they're measuring freedom of the bourgeoisie, happiness of the bourgeoisie, and liberty of the bourgeoisie, as a class, to do whatever they want with their property, which includes of course the means of production, the land, and the labor power they have purchased from the nominally free proletariat who only have their labor power to sell.
Communists have different priorities than liberals, so it's always going to seem like socialism produces the incorrect results from a liberal point of view. Communist movements also have the disadvantage of living in a world dominated by capital, meaning our only choices are either to somehow wrestle control of capital, or abandon it entirely. Neither is a satisfying choice and neither is without their own issues.
In any case, socialist countries, including very poor ones, consistently outrank countries of similar income and geography in metrics like housing, healthcare, infant mortality, literacy, and educational attainment.
Liberal economists don't value these factors, instead favoring a focus on things like total GDP, or access to markets, or even completely abstract concepts like freedom, happiness, or liberty. Communist movements are intended to liberate the working class. Other systems, like feudalism or capitalism, don't value a liberated working class, because that upends the entire production apparatus.
deleted by creator
I don't know how relevant it is anymore, but I always point to this 1986 study compiled from World Bank information that shows quality of life in socialist countries exceeding similar capitalist countries in 30 out of 36 comparisons.
these are all important to communists it's just that the bourgeoisie have something completely different in mind when they say these words. When they use curated metrics like the "freedom index," they're measuring freedom of the bourgeoisie, happiness of the bourgeoisie, and liberty of the bourgeoisie, as a class, to do whatever they want with their property, which includes of course the means of production, the land, and the labor power they have purchased from the nominally free proletariat who only have their labor power to sell.