"We define 'communism' as workers' possession of the means of production. Although, of course, that alone will lead to economic decline and, in fact, it is the very element of communism that leads to decline."
If that were the case, the Soviet Union would not have had an economic growth of 2.4 percent per year, which exceeds its tsarist era, and the current era of Russia.
"Communism refers to the extreme extreme of socialism, it is considered the dream of the cusp (among believers) where we have all those who really do any work working for the benefit of anyone who has an immediate and obvious need"
Not always, in Stalinism industrialization was put above the basic needs of the people.
"Wishes are dismissed as unnecessary, credit for one's work is nothing more than a side note because all credit goes to the collective 'community' (hence 'communism') and the only pride or gratification one can have is that the system is justified in equality. It achieves it. "
not really, within the urrs, important scientists were widely supported, proof of this is the history of great mathematicians (such as gregori perelman) who were born in the urrs, and not only that, but also a high degree of political recognition, examples as Yakov Zeldovich's show.
The problem, for Pro, "is that the same thing that is exchanged is both a motive and a means to maintain a strong economy, it is exchanged for a morally just society where no one gets more than they need to use financially or is credited with more. of the raw work they put into anything. "
that something is replaced by another means and another reason, the benefit of the workers, within the urrs, commune leaders (kolijos) received 10 times more salary than others, and certainly received more than the value of their raw work.
"The most important flaw is that if the workers take control of the economy, it will all be rigged against the rich, who will then pack up and leave unless it is some kind of psychopathic tyrannical communism with closed borders but that will still lead to decline and here's why: "
the refutation to this is the commune of paris, where nothing was manipulated against the rich.
"People will never, in any attempt, ever get true satisfaction from working in a system where inventors and brilliant creative minds are credited as nothing more than a simple cog in the very machine they inspired."
the fact that Soviet families were happier than current ones refutes this.
"In fact, there is no other system than communism that results in such a decline with such severity and security, but even if that were not true if we say that it goes from a variant of capitalism to communism, it is without a doubt going to decline. economics since that is what it considers morally fair in exchange for equally affluent and happy / sad workers. "
if there is, it is called fascism.
"Yes it is. It is completely related, in fact it is causal.
That the workers take control of the means of production will make the entire nation need to serve the interests of even the individuals of the lower working class, since they will be in control. If any particular industry that is needed enough has workers who are not happy, they would ransom the entire nation until it gave them what they wanted. "
not really, one thing is political control, another is economic control.
Or put another way, if the workers rescue the nation that will make the nation itself impose control, just as if a lot of businessmen impose control on the nation, they will receive reprisals.
"If the workers take control, it means that all the factors surrounding leniency on, say, maternity leave, taxes on the rich, the percentage of profit that goes into each worker's pockets, are maximized, and money resulting is left to spend on anything. "
This did not happen during the commune of Paris, it did not happen during the government of Thomas Shankara, it did not happen with the Incas (the most powerful empire in America,
who was a socialist).
develop, invent or build beyond basic needs drowns "
If true, the Soviet Union would not have won the space race.
"Because it's the workers who decide, not the bosses or the 'owners' (well, they're relegated to just placeholders, the workers own everything now)."
that doesn't prove your point.
"Thomas Sankara ...
"Thomas Sankara ...
He was a pioneer of socialism in Africa who failed miserably everywhere he appeared, "
The gigantic economic growth of Maoist China refutes your point, 2.8% per year, higher than the 2% of the United States.
"Specifically it was influential in Burkina Faso ... A country that nobody knows about because its economy was hopelessly devastated due to the seriousness with which the cause of communism was taken."
accusing communism of the crisis in burkina faso is like accusing the sweet I ate yesterday of the bad taste in my mouth that I had last week, the crisis in burkina faso was present before thomas shankara came to power, in fact thomas reduced considerably The crisis, with new irrigation techniques that increased production and thereby raised the domestic market, literally went from having food insufficiency to food surplus, which was sold, however, when Shankara died, the means of production (the lands ) passed back into the hands of feudalists and capitalists, so that socialism died with Shankara.
That's right, as of today, "40.1% of its population is considered brutally impoverished (qualifying as below the poverty line in Africa is actually being unable to live beyond the absolute minimum to stay alive. Obviously it ranges from starving to barely over coping, but even the 'coping' live in severe financial despair, paycheck to pay). "
"It irritates me greatly that this is what Pro uses to show that communism can work. That, after all, is the debate here."
I do not see why, it is necessary to analyze what socialism did, not what semi-feudalism does.
"Pro is also abusing words and semantics here. At what stage am I allowed to criticize Pro about a totally ridiculous and indefensibly skewed definition of communism (which is basically anything within socialism as defined by Pro) and" it works"?"
In no way, would that be equivalent to losing the debate immediately, as the rules say, although there are other issues about communism that we must consider, I want to discuss specifically the economic aspect.
"The only example of communism in name that is not being reduced to absolute obsolescence in terms of the economy is China."
false, vietnsm is another example, its economic growth was very high last year.
"in China the workers are absolute owners of the economy"
not even jokingly, in China almost all members of the aristocratic party, Chinese socialism died with Mao.
"It is a tyrannical dictatorship in the denial of its fascist customs"
More than agree, China is the first mature fascist state.
"The semantics of Pro works against them, if the workers take control of the economy, each and every time it leads them to make demands that harm the economic progress of the nation."
not really, in burkina faso, in the inca empire, and more importantly, in the commune of paris, this never happened.