/lit/ - Literature

>>21038529
>You don't have any empirical criteria that could prove what amount of productive forces could make communism possible.
because this depends heavily on the particular situation and things like how much extra capacity must be redirected for waging the revolutionary war.
the relevant fact that suffices here is that Russia in the year 1900 had the industrial level of the UK in the year 1800 (sic) (see pic), and that Russia's wheat yields in 1909 were only 70% of UK's wheat yields in 1850 (sic) (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/long-term-wheat-yields-in-europe).). you don't need any explicit criteria to work out that socialism in one isolated country under siege was in such circumstances a ridiculous proposition.
>NEP just Lenin admitting communism was not a feasible program for improving the lives of Soviet citizens
it was a feasible program, but this program necessarily included revolutions in Western Europe, which were defeated with armed force, and not because of any economic infeasibility. what wasn't feasible economically was socialism in one country, which I agree with, that being my entire point in the first place.
>his successors, like Stalin, caused a famine trying to communize the country side only
he was attempting to improve agricultural productivity by overcoming the parcelization and concentrating production, repeating the process that happened in other capitalist states. this only further proves my point by showing that those agricultural productive forces were inadequate even for the capitalism Stalin was building, let alone for socialism.
>This happened pretty every where the communists tried to collectivize property.
*everywhere the bourgeois state tried to compensate for shortage of modern means of production with state force
yes