DO NOT MAKE A POST ABOUT BEING BANNED FROM SOME OTHER SUBREDDIT

This article suggest so. I was wondering if there was anything wrong with the arguments in the article so i'm asking for your guys's thoughts on the matter.

The article: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/growing-gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity

Edit:

To repeat the article...

First they show a graph that shows that production worker hourly wages haven't kept up with gross output per hour in America between 1970 and 2012.

The first change they make to the graph is that they include all workers instead of just nonsupervisory workers. If we do this we see that real wages have grown more.

The second change they make to the original graph is that they use compensation instead of wages, this is because benefits such as health care and social security are not included in wages. Real hourly compensation per worker has increased more that real wages.

The third problem is (to qoute the article) "that different price measures are used to estimate real output and real hourly compensation. The expectation that "real" wages will rise with "real" output per worker reflects the assumption that workers buy the goods and services they produce or that the price of their output and their consumption will rise at the same rate. But these expectations are flawed. The mix of goods and services that workers produce—which is reflected in the business sector price deflator used to measure real output per worker—differs from the mix of goods and services that is reflected in the consumer price index. In particular, the prices of investment goods such as machinery that have risen slowly feature prominently in the business sector price deflator, while items such as the price of shelter that have risen rapidly feature prominently in the consumer price index. In fact, since the business sector deflator has risen more slowly than the consumer price index, if we deflate the rise in nominal hourly compensation by the business sector price deflator to estimate what would happen if workers actually bought the goods and services they produce—a measure sometimes called real product compensation—we find hourly compensation has actually increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent per year". With this new change the rise in hourly compensation is almost the same as gross output per hour, with a slight divergence in the early 2000s.

The fourth problem with the original graph is that (to quote the article again) " the measure of output that is generally used to depict productivity is gross output and thus includes the consumption of capital. Especially in recent years, the use of shorter-lived capital has increased the share of depreciation in gross output; a better productivity measure is net output per hour that takes this depreciation into account. [...]. Comparing real product compensation with net output per hour gives us the relationship between productivity and labor compensation that is relevant for measuring income shares." With this new change we can see that the rise in real product compensation is almost the same as net output per hour, with an even smaller divergence in the early 2000s.

Sorry for my bad english and sorry for quoting the article a lot.

Using internal documentation from the CN government

https://xinjiang.sppga.ubc.ca/chinese-sources/cadre-materials/

I was wondering, why was the Ussr and the prc so authoritarian, especially against some writers? is there any difference between their authoritarianism and the fascist ones? /gen

Coming from a post-soviet nation, I would argue the greatest problem was the lack of freedom of speech, and the lack of the right to complain about the government/communist party. Was this an individual problem of the Soviet style communism, or an inherent part of the ideology?

Let's say under "real" communism, or rather in a transitionary socialist state, like the USSR, if I had heard of the Holodomor, and read reports on it, could I have gone to Moscow and speak about it, complain about the way the Government treated it, and put it in the press? Or even under "real" communist rules, would this have been a big no no?

If profit doesn't exist because if you raise the price of every product/service by a dollar, their values remain the same. But we all know it wouldn't be true since the profits won't be the same, Then the real profits would be the difference between all the profits out there instead of being non existent?

Second, the value of the operating capitals (like the machines) is being transfered into the value of the product (non labor cost placed on the customers) as it devalues and is considered as labor value. Isn't that just an idea and not an actual thing?

Lol, my title.

Ok, so this book is really hard to get into. I don't think think it's difficult to understand. But, I feel like I may misunderstand it because it feels like it's just repeating itself. 20 yards of linen = 1 coat because the amount of labor is the same in each case. That seems to be all it is saying. But, like he was being paid by the word and needed to expand unnecessarily. What small nuances am I missing? I swear that's all he is saying for a hundred pages or so. And maybe it's a rhetorical strategy. Repeat something over and over until it seems like fact.

The USSR categorized the Mujahidin as the oppressors, when in reality they were fighting against Soviet imperialism. And while I don’t defend everything the Mujahidin did, they weren’t all extremists, but the USSR created this narrative they were. This isn’t to defend those who may have later become terrorists, but to point out the USSR smeared the Mujahidin as all terrorists. Basically what Israel does today with groups in the Middle East.

Because of this, today the Mujahidin are remembered as all being radicals instead of imperfect freedom fighters with radical elements.

What does this show? It’s one of many examples that imperialism is not something socialists are immune from doing at all, and it shows the Soviet propaganda machine has had lasting effects. The USSR literally assassinated an Afghan leader and put in their puppet, then invade to keep their puppet in power. And history remembers the Mujahidin as the bad guys.

The main point: You can’t say you support things such as Palestinian resistance if you disagree with this. If you do, you favor your own imperialism and are fine doing the same tactics to other groups

Reading Capital and I pause at this. Clearly these items aren't the same price. Are they the same use-values? No, every metal has different uses. Same labor value? No, it takes longer to find silver or gold. More labor is expended to produce silver or gold. How are they the same value?

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless, society, a utopia one may add. Unfortunately, I believe we may need the "state". Now, it ultimately depends on how one defines the "state", however if one of the key factors of the state is a military, police, armed forces, ect. I am here to state that we may require said forces to defend ourselves and expand our civilization against other species. This is unironic.

So I agree with a lot when it comes to communism. I do think there are a lot of based takes from Marxists and Marxist-Leninist. My only concern is more of a matter of trust on whether communism is the goal or is just used for leverage.

Because when a socialist state does say “we will transition into communism, a stateless classless society.”

My response is “cool…when are we gonna do that?”

when are we going to do that?

…are we there yet?

I mean take your time, make some social-democratic progression here or there but…communism please?

I genuinely want this and I do think that there are times where things have been alright under a state, yet sometimes it doesn’t decentralize in time before fascists subdue it.

Kinda unrelated to the sub but I prefer to ask here than a mainstream liberal one.

The only communist country to be considered “Rich” (GDP per capita that reaches over a certain line) was the Socialist Republic of Slovenia in Yugoslavia. From what I heard there a lot of welfare and social programs were in the republic due to how much money it made. But if you look at republics like Bosnia and Serbia, they were very poor compared to Slovenia and even Croatia. Was this a result of Titoism (Market Socialism)? Or was it something else?

You could consider me, in soviet terms, to be part of the Right Opposition, or even the Mensheviks. SR agrairianism was misguided. I can understand why, in the conditions of the civil war, Lenin adopted martial law measures, yet at the same time they were never truly rescinded. Socialist states tend to veer towards paranoia and to maintain martial law status, with non existent civil liberties, in perpetuity (ex: North Korea, Albania, GDR). Kronstadt should have been listened to. I hate both Stalin and Trotsky (who would not have acted too differently, outside maybe of conducting the great purge, which is a truly horrible event which killed any pretense of internal democracy, disagreement in private and unity in action doesn't work when the Politburo is filled with people who all agree on everything and where the congress is a rubebrstamp, see Xi's China). I like people like Bukharin and Deng, who were pragmatic and understood the only thing that mattered: the improvement of material conditions, and were willing to use whatever works to achieve it. It's why I support the enlargment of the EU, it is in fact the only crucial job of the organization, to create a united, properous Europe past the cold war. They lacked the commitment to democracy of people like Kamenev, the Mensheviks, maybe Zinoviev had.

I saw somewhere that Lenin planned to make the leftist parties legal again at the end of his life, I don't know if that's true. The one thing I do believe trotskyists are right about is that the revolution has to be a world revolution. In my view, it has to happen quickly or the regime has to loosen up, you can't take people's civil liberties for decades at a time. China went through different periods, where the Cultural Revolution was surprisingly free before it transformed into a mini-civil war, and China in the 80s leading to Tiananmen (I understand why Deng did what he did, his generation was scarred by the CR and feared chaos, doesn't make it right, China right now needs to liberalize, I'm a fan of the renegade Kautsky, y'know? Revolution isn't close, and supporting shitty regimes trying to maintain socialism in their own little box doesn't help. China will not free Palestine, or any of us for that matter. I'm still someone who thinks the west should have better relations with China).

This creates a situation where the state becomes an oppressive force and creates the impetus for reforms, which is what led to Kruschev and Gorbatchev down the line. It's too easy for MLs to blame these two, especially Gorbi, for destroying the USSR, and thinking that oh, if only Andropov had been around, things would have been better. In his short reign, while he did attack corruption, he wasn't willing to do anything about Afghanistan or better reforms of the economy. The system collpased under Perestroïka because the managers were already willing to pillage the country.

I tend to be sympathetic to Gorbachev, he was naïve but he really believed in the system, at least until the situation forced him towards being a socdem. He was no capitalist in disguise. If Reykjavik had succeeded and nuclear weapons truly been eliminated, none of this would have mattered, as his place in humanity's heritage would be assured. He also believed in Europe, where I do believe Russia belongs. The cold war split of the continent is the reason why I believe we're in this war. Note that I am strongly pro-EU and even NATO, they are not always right but they truly were right in fighting Milsevic's Serbia and Putin's Russia, which are two fascist states. Fighting fascism should unite socialists and liberals. The EU was also immensly beneficial to states who joined. You shouldn't blame the west and "color revolutions" for liberal revolutions. There can be popular support for liberalism, as sadly seen in the russian elections of 1991. Unlike 1996, the ability of the west to prop up Yeltsin wasn't there, and there was genuine support for him due to the hate of Gorbatchev and hardliners at this point.

Perestroïka, oddly enough, seemed to work until about 1988, when the economic revival of the two previous years started to go under. Glasnost was also right, nationalism was bound the happen under a system which had never truly come back to the federalism of the pre-Stalin era, but Gorbachev failed to take it into account. His greatest mistake was failing to stem Yeltsin and take care of nationalism in the USSR. On february 15th, 1988, the Soviet Union was already on a terminal course. That day, Armenians were killed in a pogrom in Baku, and ethnic cleansing began. The two republics were already at war 3 years before independence, and soviet brotherhood was over.

As for the baltic states and the Warsaw pact, the regimes were imposed and were, I believe, Stalin's worst strategic mistake, as the USSR would then spend 40 years maintaining unpopular regimes. Brejnev is the biggest individual culprit for the fall of the system, as he basically put stability over anything and failed to take advantage of economic opportunities like OGAS, while maintaining the Warsaw Pact, invading Afghanistan,

You could say my preferred version of socialism would be a dual system with proper, independent soviets and trade unions on one side, and a parliament gathering all anti-capitalist forces (everybody left of the liberal cadets, people calling the SRs and Mensheviks moderates fail to understand they would all be considered far left today). It would be a sort of platformism, but unlike just anarchists, it would include all non-capitalists. I've been profoundly radicalized against this evil system, and while we must avoid social democracy, which is too weak to face it, we must be a progression from capitalism on all fronts, including civil liberties. In Canada and Quebec, where I live, I think the way forward is entryism, seeing examples like Militant in the UK, or alt organizations like the Black Panthers. I don't know if it's possible to do any of that in my community though.

I imagine it had to do with a cult of personality but he surely didn’t expect his population to just treat him like a god, Right? Well judging by what happened to him in 1989 he definitely wasn’t seen as a god by his people but still wouldn’t he be smarter?

I’m aware that the PRC backed the Khmer Rouge and invaded Vietnam for intervening against Cambodia. But did The soviets under Brezhnev support the Khmer Rouge?

Isn't Nietzsche views against leftism?

People debate human nature. Some say we're naturally good and society makes us evil. Some say we're naturally evil and society makes us good. What do you think?

My adolescent self believes, like Nietzsche, that the will to power is what motivates all humans & their ideologies.

Ultimately, though, I'd say we're mostly sheep. We will be the product of whatever society we're in. There are extremes on both ends--- Nazi Germany, and Jainist India. Did each society contain the same number of psychopaths and altruistic people? Were the psychopaths checked in a Jainist society, but were rewarded in a Nazi society? Or were psychopaths completely non-existent in the Jainist society?

We've had slavery before but now it's reprehensible. I believe that one day we may look back at our omnivore diet and wonder how we could be so evil to mistreat animals to such a degree.

So, this brings up the question of how much "re-education" needs to be done to create a successful communist society? How would it assuage the nature of those with ambition who would destroy the social fabric?

It's no secret that people try to instill values into children. Both conservatives and liberals do it. Instilling civic virtue in kids is key to making society function peacefully. But what additional instillation would be needed for a communist society?

At the extreme end of "re-education" you have Pol Pot and his "year zero" mentality. Not a good look.

Another example of "re-education" is Chinese assimilation of the Uyghurs. Some consider this a cultural genocide. I believe that China had a problem with Muslim terrorists and decided it was necessary to assimilate these people into mainstream society. While it may seem dystopic, it's at least more moral than bombing the hell out of them-- which is what the US does.

Here’s the Associated Press discussing Uyghur Wahhabi terrorists in Syria in 2017: https://apnews.com/article/79d6a427b26f4eeab226571956dd256e

Here’s The Telegraph doing it in 2024: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/13/uyghur-fighters-in-syria-vow-to-come-for-china-next/

And here’s retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson going into detail about US strategic planning in the region: https://youtu.be/4N385vKhXYQ

Here’s retired USMC Colonel Richard Black discussing what kind of people the U.S. allies in Syria are: https://youtu.be/H9kj5BkMUCA

Is there anyone still confused? We did an atrocity propaganda. We stood up an army of terrorists and we blamed the atrocities on their victims. We’ve done it around the world for decades.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-reveal-offshore-secrets-china-red-nobility-big-business

March 5, 1953 from 20:00 to 20:40, under the pretext of Stalin's ill health was a joint meeting of the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, in the process of which, violating the Constitution were reshuffled in the Council of Ministers and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. Malenkov was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers, although Stalin's powers were not removed (he was alive until 21:50), thus for the first time in the USSR there were two Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Malenkov "on the instructions of the Bureau of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee" appointed Beria L.P., Molotov V.M., Bulganin N.A., Kaganovich L.M. as his first deputies.

To clarify - the entire composition of the Council of Ministers, including the Chairman of the Council of Ministers has the right to form only the Supreme Soviet at its session, but in this case, violating the Constitution, with the permission of the party body was an illegal reshuffle under the pretext of the need to rally in the conditions of poor health of Stalin.

The same was true of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet - it was also elected by the Supreme Soviet only at its session, but this was not given any importance, approving Voroshilov as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and Pegov as Secretary.

I'm leftist/market socialist just to clear this up. But I wonder how can people justify that communism will be an economic succes when we have an array of unsuccessful examples. How does marxism/communism aim to tackle the problem of inefficiency, human greed, and the lack of a market pushing growth?

Businesses / companies are almost all sellers of a product, whether physical or digital nearly every business has a product that they sell to some facet of the consumer base. My question is, in a communist society, where workers and business owners receive/ get payed the same amount, what would incentivize somebody to start a business or create a product. Why would somebody want to go through the difficulty of thinking of, generating prototypes, manufacturing and marketing a product if they would receive the same amount of goods/ money if they hadn’t done that at all. Would any inventions or creations even exist if there isn’t any incentive to do so? For instance, why would a chef want to improve the quality of their food if it doesn’t matter whether they do so or not since they will receive the same amount of money/ goods. Wouldn’t communism hinder achievement and advancement because of this?

Recently I was having an argument with someone, and we were talking about how the costs of the company they work for went down. I asked if with that the services they provide became cheaper, or if their salaries went up. They said neither of those two options happened.

So when I suggested that what likely happened was that their boss started to earn more money, they responded with “yea but he deserves that, he took all the risk when starting the company”.

So how do I respond to this as a socialist?