There was no exploitation of surplus value because surplus value was reallocated to all society through public ownership, since there was no owning class reaping those benefits as demonstrated by the USSR having the lowest levels of inequality in the history of the region by a long shot.
There were no markets in the USSR. Goods were not allocated according to market rules but according to a rational plan, and goods didn’t have prices determined by market rules but by economic planning.
You should definitely get better informed before discussing topics you don’t understand
The New Economic Policy was always, explicitly, a temporary setback caused by the utter destruction of the country by the civil war. It lasted a whopping 8 years, from 1921 to 1929, and as soon as it was abolished, industrial growth skyrocketed to previously unimaginable figures of 10-15% per year, uplifting hundreds of millions from destitute poverty and doubling life expectancy in 30 years. The USSR’s industrial revolution was literally founded on economic planning, the polar opposite of capitalist markets. What’s your point?
I have no idea why you’re being so hostile or pedantic. My point was that socialist countries can use capitalism as a tool when it’s suborned to the state. You conceded my point. What’s YOUR point?
My point is “capitalism subordinated to the state like the USSR” is an extremely misleading claim, and it’s often used by anticommunists who make uninformed accusations of “USSR was state capitalism so it was the same as capitalism” without knowledge of the topic. If that’s not the claim you’re making, I apologize
So you’re imaging capitalism except capitalism is suborned to the state
Like in the USSR and China
There was no capitalism in the USSR.
There was no exploitation of surplus value because surplus value was reallocated to all society through public ownership, since there was no owning class reaping those benefits as demonstrated by the USSR having the lowest levels of inequality in the history of the region by a long shot.
There were no markets in the USSR. Goods were not allocated according to market rules but according to a rational plan, and goods didn’t have prices determined by market rules but by economic planning.
You should definitely get better informed before discussing topics you don’t understand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
The New Economic Policy was always, explicitly, a temporary setback caused by the utter destruction of the country by the civil war. It lasted a whopping 8 years, from 1921 to 1929, and as soon as it was abolished, industrial growth skyrocketed to previously unimaginable figures of 10-15% per year, uplifting hundreds of millions from destitute poverty and doubling life expectancy in 30 years. The USSR’s industrial revolution was literally founded on economic planning, the polar opposite of capitalist markets. What’s your point?
I have no idea why you’re being so hostile or pedantic. My point was that socialist countries can use capitalism as a tool when it’s suborned to the state. You conceded my point. What’s YOUR point?
My point is “capitalism subordinated to the state like the USSR” is an extremely misleading claim, and it’s often used by anticommunists who make uninformed accusations of “USSR was state capitalism so it was the same as capitalism” without knowledge of the topic. If that’s not the claim you’re making, I apologize
instance checks out, anyways this wouldn’t be Like in the USSR and China, this would be like in the EU but more regulations.
more regulations because who says so?
english is not my first language so, I can’t easily understand what “more regulations because who says so?” means.
Is the language barrier responsible for you being a snippy little asshole?
i am not a pair of scissors, and please don’t stick scissors up your asshole.
I wasn’t using an idiom, I was speaking in plain language.
the