First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA
There are problems with the USSR model in its habits of primitive accumulation of resources in lieu of capital, and lack of syndicalism/party clique with diminished politburo etc, its nationalist ethos and closure of borders.
"First, you could compare GDP between the Soviet Union vs the US as an example, just because GDP per capita in the USSR increased doesn't automatically result in being more prosperous. The following gives the change in GDP per capita for the U.S. in the similar period, which is higher than the figures given for the USSR. "
The problem is you are comparing two different countries with different levels of industry, technology, and natural resources. The USSR was also able to go into far less trade with other countries because of embargoes. The best comparison is between a country and itself under a different system. Even though it had more advanced technology, industry, better trade, and the same natural resources it did far worse.
If you really want to compare, at least compare growth. It took the USSR 44 years to go from a backwards agricultural society into the first to put a man into space, how fast was the progress in the usa at that time?
"Ask yourself why are you trying to fight capitalists? What do you want to achieve? Unfortunately fighting in any literal sense will not produce greater prosperity, again capitalism has lost any real meaning."
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. The meaning still stands and will always stand with meaning as a type of economic system until post-scarcity.
Actually looking at the golden age of capitalism, fighting does help it. Capitalism needs to expand to produce greater technology innovation and prosperity. When there is nothing left to expand into it grinds into a halt and the only thing the ruling class can do is hold a monopoly or start wars so that they can rebuild the means of production again as another temporary expansion.
Again cannot win? A weakened russia won against the entire world, castro started a revolution with 100 people, Rojava is an ongoing (winning) revolution today.
"1% of individuals eventually control a majority of resources over time, this has been established in nature."
No society without a government has ever had that happen. Worker control of the means of production will easily prevent that. Also the human nature argument is stupid.
https://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/06/02/the-human-nature-argument/
"We both have certain perspectives that I don't think can be altered in this discussion, although I appreciate this."
Are you sure about that? I was not boring with these opinions and ideals, I learned them through speaking with others. Eventually I started debating. There was one group of people I just couldn't beat, they had all the facts that proved all of my ideas wrong. Eventually I decided that I could not hold ideals I could not defend.
There may be a conflict with anarchy with others desiring collective solutions by the unification of workers, who can co-operate or wish not to if 'land' or area is claimed by a state or group.
"All other points are null and void. The individual is the smallest minority. To require anarchy while needing a collective solution of unification of workers without the ability of the individual to choose not to co-operate and still be free, does not produce a level of freedom I would be interested in. Politics and battles of control are bread and circus tricks."
but even the most collectivist form of anarchy (literally called collectivist anarchy) even holds this ability as its highest standard. Please research something before you try to debate about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
This minority is effectively a new government of labour/capital or majority coalesced into a minority.
From the wikipedia page: 'Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined'' - so a central authority would do this, assuming all power? How long would it take to abolish all money? How would labour notes be arranged? By a central authority, thereby offering no different a solution to the previous one. The revolution is not at an end.
'Bakunin's socialism seeks... equality in the social rights of every individual from birth; in particular, equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor' - if this includes the politburo.
"As I have stated, you have a preconceived set of values and ideals, so do I, these do not meet in all ways and will not be changed, therefore there is no point in continuing this."
My values and ideals change through debate and understanding of other viewpoints, do not force your unchanging nature onto me.
Who would decide what is personal vs private property? A central authority?
There would not be a mass flooding from the anarchist side, there would be no need to live rigidly in one defined area, many would and could live in the communes; whereas the opposite could not be true because violence would be enacted, the state violence would not allow deviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
alright well, I don't have enough time to answer these basic questions. Please read up on it yourself, its faster either way.
"Why would you wish to be on Steemit, a platform which you could state as capitalist, and whom those that had the incentive initially have gained the majority of followers and power? Does this not contradict with your values?"
"oh man you are eating the food you made under feudalism and wearing the rags it gave you, you can't want capitalism hahaha I win"
"If I gave away my car, I would feel even more guilty. When I go to visit peasants in southern Colombia, they don't want me to give up my car. They want me to help them. Suppose I gave up material things -- my computer, my car and so on -- and went to live on a hill in Montana where I grew my own food. Would that help anyone? No." - Chomsky
"I can give you something we do agree on: Intellectual Property is a fiction, as it is not tangible."
All property is fiction.
"'Bakunin's socialism seeks... equality in the social rights of every individual from birth; in particular, equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor' - Equality truly doesn't exist. And even if it did there would be no incentive to produce anything long term, some individuals will have a lust for power and seek to be unequal in relation to others. The need to obtain power doesn't look to be in any way peaceful."
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
https://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/06/02/the-human-nature-argument/
"From the wikipedia page: 'Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined'' - so a central authority would do this, assuming all power? How long would it take to abolish all money? How would labour notes be arranged? By a central authority, thereby offering no different a solution to the previous one."
The workers themselves are the authority, there is no centralised authority needed to do this. The labor notes are arranged by the workers themselves and managed through labor unions of direct democracy. Again it is anarchist, so only those who wish to take part in this form of society will, and those who do not will likely join in with other groups.
"All other points are null and void. "
The economic system is the system of control over the means of production. The monetary system can change all it wants, but the economic system will be the same. Your points are all moot.
"Comparing two rather outdated systems using federal reserve notes of paper printed out of thin air by a central authority does not produce freedom or overall prosperity, real purchasing power decreases per year due to the increasing supply."
the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The monetary system doesn't cause this, it just accelerates it.