kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@yogthos There's a fundamental problem with central planning: it assumes planners have perfect knowledge of consumer needs and their changes. If you apply planning to *everything* from production of toilet paper, food and steel, it will never work.

All countries in the world apply *some* economic planning to strategic sectors, like energy. This works, but nobody applies it to all sectors like Marxists did.

@yogthos "When society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force." — Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring

There was a lot more details on LTV and planning in the "Capital"

@yogthos You don't know much about Marxian economy then. Marx and Engels had a few very outright directives: first violent revolution, then dictatorship of the proletariat and nationalisation of means of production, central planning, prices based on (rather bizarre) labour-value theory. USSR did everything correctly from the theory point of view.

These elements like the cult of the Plan or regulated prices survived to the very end of USSR.

@yogthos You could just as well say that Astrakhan was a vassal state of Moscow and St Petersburg. There are huuuge income gaps between these two and the rest of the country even today (or maybe especially today), just as there were in Soviet times.

@yogthos It briefly rises to 28% in 1995 but quickly falls to 17% in 1999 and then continues to decrease.

Also note that people losing income from collapsing enterprises in 90's is not the "fault" of market economy. It was direct consequence of their often absurd ineficiency resulting from applying Marxian economy. They were only able to function as long as the party was receiving Western loans.

@yogthos Now, this is really good and in-depth article. Just remember that communism in Poland ended in 1989 so the "closing balance" is 1990. Now, if you go to page 8:

"income poverty and expenditure poverty incidence startedto decrease after 1994 and 1995, respectively, reaching levels much below the1990 values by the end of the decade"

Page 9 gives absolute values - the closing balance of socialism is indeed 23.8% below social minimum line.

@yogthos If you lived in Moscow or St Petersburg, you might have only experienced this in 90's. Most of Soviet province and satellite states (like Poland) were living in this hell at least since 70's.

@yogthos You're partially right... but this partiality matters. Over 70% of CO2 emissions globally originate from power generation and car fuel. Chinese emissions increase comes mostly from private cars, reduction - from low-emission power generation.

@yogthos Again you post something that actually disproves your point.

At the end of real socialism in 1990 there were 24% people living below the poverty line. This 24% is the socialist Poland's closing balance (not to mention collapsed pension system and 48 billion dollars of foreign debt).

Even your graph shows that it never returned to the "socialist" levels of poverty.

If you more detailed data you can see it's falling down all the time (green=changes in law)

@yogthos You're cherry picking again. If you look at most EU countries they already reduced their emissions to a lower level than China.

And the greatest hero here is probably France, who as of today happily emits 65 g CO2/kWh thanks to their country-wide, government-driven nuclear program. Or Sweden (38) with their hydro and nuclear power.

Both having market economy.

@yogthos And I 100% subscribe to the first part of your statement.

@yogthos I like this one more: "Кто-кого? Догнать и перегнать" (Who wins? Catch up and overtake).

They did neither.

Because you can't build a sustainable economy if your primary objective is to prove an ideological point.

@yogthos You're wrong again, data says something else. All countries, including "communist" China (which is not) and bolivarian Venezuela, just as capitalist countries *did* reduce emissions. Even USA did, with its openly denialist president. And this is a global effort - tribalist thinking like you're implying is nothing better than neconons rants about "socialism".

@yogthos BTW if you add China and Sweden you can see that inequality in Poland today is comparable to Sweden, while in China it's larger than in both. BTW as you play with the chart, be sure to add Venezuela - you'll be surprised :)

@yogthos It's not true. Here's the graph of Poland's Gini index (higher=more inequality) from 1800 till 2019. As you can see inequality has fallen significantly in the beginning of 20th century (II Rzeczpospolita), then inequality started rising (!) after Soviet occupation and communist Poland, further increased during 90's and then started falling again after 2000. You can play with the graph here https://bit.ly/2lOgFLn