Yes) I self-identify myself as a person of ultra-right views, but again, here I have to immediately explain that in my understanding, in my discourse, let’s say the same National Socialists are not ultra-right, because people cannot be called “ultra-right. right-wing “who stand for a VERY left-wing economic model (restriction of reintability, mixed economy with a predominance of the public sector) That is, these people are not right in my understanding, the fascists are not right.  

Why change the point of view of another person? For example, I don’t have such a goal, I just thought that, for example, at least one representative of the Marxist platform would tell me how communism would work, but in response I just heard Marxist terms and religious dagmata from the Bible (more precisely, from the book of Marx, which in principle is the same)  

English is not my native language and I cannot understand all dialects, what are the red lines, and what do you mean? O_O

Well, well, you didn’t say that, but I didn’t understand why you said it, well, you didn’t say it or said it)) I know you didn’t say that. For example, I respect you as a person, but your views are complete nonsense, respectively, you also think and vice versa, my views are wild and completely opposite for you. It is important to separate the views of a person from his personality.

No, the socialist countries are poor because there is a state-capitalist or quasi-socialist system that is completely based on a planned economy, where there are no market elements. That is, a 100% state plan, where there is no competition in the market, only a single state monopoly on the grain trade.

Here I disagree) in Soviet historiography, this country was presented as a poor, terrible country, but if the question goes deeper, although it lagged behind Germany or Great Britain, it was rapidly catching up.  

wow, seriously?) wow, where did I say that? By the way, I had two great-grandfathers at the front, they fought against the Nazis, and I think they are heroes, in general, everyone in the Red Army who fought against the Nazis, they are heroes who defeated the Third Reich, but the Soviet Union paid dearly for this victory.  

Mao Zedong was a very stupid ruler with his “socialism” Then Deng Xiaoping came, he is clearly a very smart man, brought capitalism, a market economy to the country, attracted foreign investment, well done, I respect him.  

• Communism is a utopia, a fairy tale that has nothing to do with reality, and so far I do not see more than one argument in favor of this fantasy.

Yes, I already understood that socialism is universal prosperity and heavenly dreams from Jesus, but all these fantasy fantasies, they must be based on something. That is, as it were, it is necessary to show statistics, they say, we will work this way and that, this is how this plan will look, this plan will allow people to have access to such and such material benefits. But instead, there is some kind of set and stream of unfounded statements that are not based on anything.  

We have a situation in which there are different subjects with different abilities and different contributions to a certain common piggy bank of the public domain, that is, if we assess their work adequately, we reward them adequately, their contributions to public affairs are adequate to their work, then it turns out that we have to pay someone higher, someone less high salary, someone will be richer, someone will be poorer - This is called property stratification, that is, it turns out that we consider socialism in this way, then under socialism there will be both rich and poor.  

It turns out that there is a certain state cudgel, which is constantly lifted over the heads of people, and redistributes income from the rich to the poor, that is, it turns out that the more effective subjects of economic relations, just this state cudgel that redistributes everything destructively, it is NOT PROFITABLE, and is aimed at so that they can withdraw their surplus income and redistribute it to the poor. That is, to the least successful subjects of economic relations.  

Yes, this principle works great under capitalism) The only motivation for work is money, the more money you pay, the more responsible and difficult the work.

Great) but this is a fantasy, this dude is inventing shit out of his head, it has nothing to do with anything that can be observed in practice. That is, to say what socialism offers is the same as to say what Jesus offers, let’s listen to Jesus) right now he will tell us everything.  

The market economy is good, the main thing is you are not talking about the planned one. And what is better now for the whole world, I will not say because I am not an economist and I am not competent to discuss this topic. I only look at the history and experience of other countries, but as they say “practice is the criterion of truth”  

Of course, that is, if we look at the history of capitalist societies of the 20th century, and not only of the 20th century. Then we will find that most of the developed economies were not pure free markets in a spherical vacuum. And all the same, these were mixed economic systems. That is, developed economic systems, if we are talking about the modern American, Chinese economy, about what is happening in Europe. This is still not a pure market or a pure government plan. And these are still mixed economies that include elements of the public sector and elements of the private sector.  

Yes, the elements of the state plan are, of course, present in the capitalist countries, moreover, every private corporation that acts as a subject of economic relations within the capitalist economy, of course, there are elements of economic planning. But people who criticize the state plan, their criticism is mostly directed not at the planning elements that can exist under capitalism, the criticism is aimed at the possible creation of an economic system where, apart from the state plan, there will be nothing, 100% planned economy, in fact there are problems with this.  

A private owner not only makes a profit from this, in order to extract this profit he creates all of this. + If you do not have economic competition, then you have different economic agents, they will not compete for the consumer. It is the competition for the consumer that makes us improve the quality of our services and reduce the cost. As opponents of capitalism, they don’t understand this basic thing, I’m just surprised. O_o  

• Okay, do you think this is bad? well .. that’s right, small business needs to be developed.
   
  “He hired several salesmen. The salespeople do not own the goods, they are the proletariat.”
   
• And these hired workers should own the goods? what is the problem?
   
  “The bourgeoisie promotes the development of productive forces and accumulates capital through unequal exchange of production methods”
   
• Lol, “Bourgeoisie” it sounds from the lips of the communists as a stigma and an insult)) no, I’ll call him easier, this is the director of the company, the owner of the store, yes, he makes more money than the store employees he hired, they do different work, each different responsibilities and different responsibilities. Do you think the store owner is obliged to share the profits equally?
   
  “The bourgeoisie uses the proletariat to sell their productivity.”
   
• Okay, so what’s the problem? I do not understand much in this Marxist axiomatics, I would rather speak in simple words, here the store owner hired additional employees as assistants to sell products, the owner keeps most of the profit for himself.  
  Okay, I realized that in your understanding the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but it rather sounds like a propaganda slogan.
   
   
  “The proletariat is used and used by the capitalists by selling their productive forces, while the proletariat is used by the capitalists when they purchase daily necessities on the market. In the development process, it has mastered the technology and management methods of participating in market competition, and has used revolutionary or peaceful means to seize power. In order to seek political and economic independence and equal and balanced rights with the capital class.
   
  The main contradiction to be resolved is how to reduce the exploitation of excessive profits, balance the distribution of benefits, reduce polarization and ultimately change the status of the proletariat to control power. While maintaining a certain degree of unequal exchange, private ownership, and capital accumulation, it promotes the development of productive forces.”
   

I seemed to have read a passage from the Bible from a believing person, some kind of sectarian rhetoric, is it dialectics in the course of half a century? this is some kind of sectarian rhetoric that is not based on anything.  

Yes, by proletariat you mean the partocracy, the hegemon class