>how are markets and the exsitence of capital superior than central planing?
srsly? we had examples of central planning and it was quite evident it didnt work so well

at least compared to free market

that's not an anwser to the question

> how are markets and the exsitence of capital superior than central planing?

because a market is way too complex to model and predict we cannot do that, it works better largely unregulated

> a market is way too complex to model and predict we cannot do that

markets dont' exsist in socialism

oh alright then how do you do anything then

free markets have unquestionably increased global production many times over, and increased the living standards of millions of people who used to work the fields for feudal landlords. but just like technological advancement moves ever onward, so must society continue to move forward, and socialists believe that capitalism is an outdated system. I do not believe that capitalism is the final mode of production, and I believe that capitalism has to be replaced by a superior system. c0apitalism is politically, economically, and ecologically unsustainable

how do you do what?

my point is capitalism is unrivaled in pure wealth creation

stop right there

and I want people to be wealtyh

that's exactlly what capitalism is about, creating profit and accumulating capital

beacouse it maximizes profit and minimizes spending

do you know who's in the spendid area? people like workers

Thing is, if you want your nation to gain profit, you don't need a capitalist economy

socialists states made profit with which they operated in a capitalist global economy

and give me an example of such thing, which non capitalistic nation has managed to keep up growth

all socialist states remained woefully poor while some capitalist states went from being one of the poorest in the world to one of the richest(South Korea)

USSR, PRC, Vietnam, PRL, RSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria,

gee i wodner how teh soviest turned russia from an agrarian feudalist state to an industrial superpower

>remained poor

who was poor

the people?

there people in every state taht die of hunger, medical bills, debts, can't afford a house

but in all those examples beyond creating some heavy industry the growth stalled

ok soo if the growth stalled shouldn't the natiosn just collapse economiclly?

liek in a coupel of years by your logic?

no

im not saying that no growth is inherently bad but im just comparing two models in their efficacy at wealth creation

also yeah most of these collapsed so uhmm

gee i wonder if you could give a reason why the marxsist-leninist states of the 20th ceuntry are no longer around

wh ywoudl you want to create "wealth"

what's this "wealth" you're speaking of

you mean, make more money?

its not the matter of my argument

I'm just saying, capitalism is better at wealth creation

in order to make more money you maximize profits and minimize spendings

yeah