It’s very interesting that you can’t actually answer, just scoff and jeer. I’ll mirror one last time: LOL, OK. Now you are just confidently being wrong.

Sure, OK, you are rubber and I am glue, very clever.

This has been a giant waste of both of our time. Thanks for confirming my pessimistic view of the futility of human communication. Just block me and let’s never talk again.

To be clear, USPS is planned. I think you’re specifically thinking of planning in a similar manner to Mao’s later economy, which isn’t the only form of planning. To be further clear, companies internally plan all the time, like Amazon and Walmart, though without being centrally planned it isn’t what I’m actually getting at.

SOEs and other State firms may operate within a Socialist Market Economy and aren’t quite the same as, say, the Soviet economy, but they are publicly owned and planned. I am aware that the economy post-Deng is very different from late-Mao, and that the economy under Xi is also distinct, don’t patronize me.

If I wanted to be snarky, I could do the same thing you tried to do in this comment and say that referring to “Democratic Socialism” as an actual, distinct form, as well as your confusion regarding the distinction between Socialism and Communism calls into question all of your examples.

I’ll mirror your comment again: I am sure you are very well read, which is commendable and I genuinely think you did well there. Just, like, please also read something that challenges your point of view sometimes.

About half of the PRC’s economy is publicly owned and centrally planned, and the private sector is under strict planning and guidelines. Industries like Steel, which other industries rely on, are publicly owned and centrally planned in a manner that has control over the Private Sector. Five year plans guide the economy, and Capital is subservient to the State.

I’ll mirror your statement back at you: I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.

Do you want to admit to being wrong about Millei reducing poverty as compared to when he started? Or perhaps explain why you care more about profits for foreign investors than the lives of the people of Argentina, who have been suffering to a far greater degree under Millei?

I’ll show you a mirror: you’re stuck in your ideology and I can’t save everyone.

I think it’s very funny that each time your points were disproven or fell flat on their heads, you ignored and dodged further and further until you walked yourself into a hole defending a tripling of poverty rates and decimation of the economy so foreign plunderers can profit massively, sharing the spoils with Millei and friends. Rather than responding to any of my points in ernest, you just point to the fact that I’m not Argentinian and show one dude’s blog showing how excited he is that foreign investors are going to make serious money from the suffering of Argentina.

China is heavily planned. This isn’t really a point in your favor, China’s Socialist Market Economy works because it’s so heavily planned. The vast bulk of heavy industry like Steel and Energy is fully publicly owned, and finance is in the hands of government as well. Even the private sector is heavily planned and adjusted by the government.

Furthermore, again, I don’t know what you mean specifically when you broadly gesture at the USSR and PRC as “economic failures.” They have not been perfect, correct, but by and large both saw incredible growth and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the Working Class. Do you have specific issues you are trying to point out? Otherwise, here is a decent video going over the Soviet Economy’s myriad successes, and I recommend reading Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the USSR as well if you want to go much deeper.

As for AES, those are not the Sahel States as you might be finding, but China, Cuba, the former USSR, Vietnam, Laos, etc.

Argentina wasn’t “Socialist,” perhaps a different flavor of Capitalist. Nevertheless, poverty was far lower under the previous party. It was by no means perfect, and Millei was in fact a protest vote, but the consequences have been disastrous. Trying to frame an over tripling of poverty and far worse conditions in poverty as “improving” is extremely silly on your part.

Argentina wasn’t in a good shape, correct, but now it’s a dumpster fire. It’s extremely telling that you, again, try to pass off a rating for investors as a sign of overall improvement when you’ve been clearly shown how Millei has decimated the livelihoods of the Working Class to make himself and his buddies richer. Again, basic economics.

As Argentina burns, there will be fewer and fewer Libertarian Capitalists globally, though there is significant chance of a revolution in Argentina if conditions continue.

Socialism is about collective ownership and planning of the economy, so I don’t really know what you’re getting at, here. If you’re talking about Social Democracy, like in the Nordic Countries, those are Capitalist with safety nets, and as such depend on extreme exploitation of the Global South, essentially trust fund kids bragging about how they’ve “made it” by working at their father’s banking firm.

Moreover, I don’t know what you mean by planned economies “not working.” There have been some issues, sure, but by and large AES states have been undeniable successes for the economy and the living standards of the working class. If you could give an example, then I would love to talk more, but I don’t really know what you’re referring to here.

Yep. The poverty rate now is, by your own source, 36.8%. That is over triple what it was pre-Millei. I said, zoom out, so you could see what a disaster he has been.

Why not zoom out? Millei marks an increase in poverty rates and a destruction of social services. The economy is shrinking and GDP is falling, and now Social Services those in poverty rely on are being eroded, resulting in the lives of those in poverty being far more at risk to begin with.

I have no idea what you mean by saying I would rather see people poor. It’s the opposite, I’d rather the likes of Millei stop trying to destroy economies so that his friends and backers can get wealthier while the poor starve and die. Moreover, Marxist economics works, from the USSR to China to Cuba life expectancies rose dramatically, poverty rates fell dramatically, and the economies rapidly grew. China in particular is doing extremely well now and is now the largest economy in the world, when adjusted for PPP.

On the contrary, it’s the “Libertarian Capitalists” that have no actual proof of doing anything other than helping the already obscenely wealthy profit more in the short term. It’s basic economics.

It’s the opposite, poverty is skrocketing. What’s happening is a decrease in debt and inflation at the expense of the poor, not the actual poverty rates, which again shows that those you support serve purely the wealthiest in society.

Safety, shelter, and food are harder to come by for the working class under Millei, while the wealthiest in Argentina celebrate.

For what it’s worth, I agree, one person’s narrow expertise does not directly translate to knowledge elsewhere. Einstein admits as such, yet explains exactly why Socialism is a necessary step forward and why he thinks those not trained traditionally in political economy should still have a voice. Further, Einstein’s essay just shows his thoughts on the matter, I don’t consider it a genuine work of theory, more a springboard to look into actual Marxist theory.

This is where our agreement ends. Socialism is, factually, more democratic than Capitalism. By collectivizing the economy, it can be democratically directed and planned, as already has been the case in many AES countries. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR’s economy was democratized and how it functioned.

Your last point is just anti-intellectualism, and ignores that Marxism has, historically, been extremely popular among the working class, and in the Global South. Your article is very western-centric, only analyzing thoroughly Imperialist countries like the United States and Western European countries, and shuts out the vast majority of actual, practicing Marxists in the real world.

Argentina is collapsing. Its economy wasn’t great before, but austerity is destroying its own foundation for short-term profits for the wealthy. See again: Sowell purely works for the obscenely wealthy against the needs of the people.

As for Africa, it is not Socialism that keeps the various African nations under-developed. Like Parenti said, they aren’t under-developed at all, really, they are over-exploited. Imperialism from the Global North has carved out of Africa and South America the lion’s share of their resources:

But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there’s billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there’s been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they’re overexploited!

Please, elaborate on what you think Socialism is, if it is keeping African nations under-developed.

No, economy is not a zero-sum game, correct. However, one has to call into question the purpose of a system that is built to make a few people obscenely wealthy on the backs of the vast majority. Capitalism naturally suppresses the wages and material conditions of workers, whose conditions gradually, microscopically improve, or even deteriorate, while Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. The end result of Capitalism is monopoly. Once a hypothesis, this statement is now a confirmed fact.

I’m aware of Sowell’s past as a “Marxist.” Many people have donned such a moniker and failed to genuinely grasp Marxism, and the existence of one such fellow-turned crank does not at all lend credibility to Sowell. Marxism does not turn to dictatorship, rather the vast majority of AES states represented vast democratization of the economy, from Cuba (previously a country of fascist slavers) to Russia (under the thumb of the Tsar) to China (under the thumb of the Nationalist Kuomintang) to Vietnam (under the thumb of colonialist France) and more.

I’ve read enough of Basic Economics to know that Sowell is a crank. I haven’t read it cover to cover, nor do I care to waste my time studying every crank in the world of economics in-depth. I don’t imagine you’ve read Marx’s works much either, nor do I expect you to, you clearly have chosen the side of Sowell and the microscopic few that profit off of the vast majority of the population via extortion.

I mean, kinda? It’s a meme, really. The actual article itself though isn’t an appeal to authority, rather, it outlines pretty well the basics of why a publicly owned and planned economy is logically the correct path to take.

I’m well aware of Basic Economics. I maintain that he’s a crank, just because you personally agree with him doesn’t disqualify myself, I could be just as dishonest and say that you disqualify yourself by quoting him.

Again, I elaborated quite well on some of his dishonesty from the single quote you provided, and I can go more in-depth than that even. His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.

First off, Sowell is a crank economist that purely exists to push deregulation and allow for higher and higher exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the Capialist class.

Secondly, the economy is already planned, just by those directing it for their personal enrichment. Socialism changes that equation to be planned along a common goal, and democratizes that process.

Thirdly, Socialism and Communism have been economic successes, you’ll notice that the “disasters” are left undescribed. Rapid industrialization, stable and constant growth, and massive infrastructure improvements and projects have been staples of Socialist economies, and by and large the Working Class saw the most dramatic improvements.

Finally, there is the non-sequitor of “free speech, liberty, and property rights.” Not only are the first 2 entirely unrelated to Capitalism and Socialism, just vague “values,” the latter has nothing to do with personal liberty, but the ability of few small individuals to carve out the bulk of society and build their own kingdoms on the backs of the working class.

The thing with Adventurism is that it doesn’t change anything. The path to getting rid of billionaires requires organizing and toppling the system that necessarily gives rise to them, not by killing them as they crop up. Luigi played a valuable role in showing the Working Class that, actually, they have more in common with each other in their shared hatred of their natural enemy, but he didn’t get us any closer to taking down that system.

I’ve had many people at this point DM or reply to me saying they appreciate my input and learned something new, and this helps me keep my faith up. There are also those who consider me a “troll” which is silly, and others who are eternally anti-Marxist-Leninist no matter what, but those aren’t the people I really try to reach, it’s the more reasonable people that are more receptive and act in better faith. Funnily enough, I have developed a bit of an “anti-fan club.”

In cases like this, it’s pretty much a lay-up for me to put a bit of effort in, as you can see from the response my comments are getting on this post. In other cases, I ignore because I can tell the other person’s mind is made up and there’s no chance of onlookers anyways.

Ultimately, it’s a balance.

I’d say Capital itself makes the rules, the wealthiest just try to guess at those rules the best they can. The M-C-M’ circuit isn’t very “human” in design, it’s more like a law of nature for this level of development.

Kinda. Einstein here is referring to an eventual fully publicly owned and collectivrly planned economy in a world republic, which is what Communists aspire to. Communism is that world-government stage, Socialism is the process of building towards that stage. So, when Einstein espouses the necessity of Socialism, he means in the process of building towards Communism.

All Communists are at first Socialists, because that’s the most immediate stage to reach.