Permanently Deleted

  • keki_ya [none/use name]
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    yeah I edited my comment, although I'm sort of skeptical of the "transition stage" argument. In a first-world country with a million little firms producing lots of different commodities it would make sense, but for third-world nations (let's be honest - that's the only place where revolution is going to be happening for a long time) then I think it's easier to nationalize the little industry that exists and skip the whole part where you have to root out and dismantle the market system.

    This also depends on the state of the world too, since nations like Vietnam and China had to kind of convert back to market-states since they were sanctioned and deprived of any sort of foreign investment. Without another USSR it's hard to commit to a command economy.

    • kristina [she/her]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      waiting for xi to nationalize the entire chinese economy

    • anthm17 [he/him]
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 years ago

      The USSR also did markets for a bit, but Stalin shut that down.

      There are arguments for Market Socialism, but unless you seriously address the fact that it's capitalism it's just going to eat you alive.

      • Oni [any,comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        And also that the inherent anarchy of markets rather than a centrally planned economy creates waste and other inefficiencies, something we can't afford if we are serious about dealing with the climate crisis.