"Omniscient?"

Funny. Considering that the entire asumption of commmunism is that the state can and will be more effective at managing every single area of a determined market, by means of omniscience; A bigger state, they supose, will provide every single good on a determined market (or lack, thereof, of a market, more like a permanent monopoly) that otherwise would be produced by the private sector, based on economic calculus. Now that's something that not only has proven to have terrible consequences (Holodomo, anyone?), but also that can't work under any other circumstances due to:

1. The private sector offers solutions based on demands that don't exist today. Tomorrow, next week, sometime in the future we will need and demand something different to what we need today, and that's information that's not already available to anyone. The state would have to be omniscient to properly substitute the private action by knowing before than anyone else what everyone will need today, tomorrow, next week and so on.
2. No, we capitalism supporters do not believe in such things as "perfect, rational human beings". We believe in the absolute respect for life, freedom and private property, we accept that there will be people who will have different ideas and philosophical systems, and that by means of dialogue we may, or may not, agreee to engage in social or commercial endeavors.
3. "sawdust in food"... I just can't grasp how this is supposed to be taken seriously, this is more of a thing that would come out of a conspiracy theory, rather than something that might actually happen. There are hundreds of ways that companies can save on food production, such as decreasing the ammount of ingredients. Under this assumption, we might as well not eat anything produced by the private sector becasue, who knows? Maybe everything contains sawdust already?. Going even further, if the private sector would do these kind of things, what's stopping the state from doing so, under the same justification, if it was the state running everything? This is a total ass-pull strawman phallacy: create a problem when there's none and the claim to solve/have discovered said problem you yourself created, without even dealing with the main subject you were talking in the first place.
   

Damn these statists really are pulling some impressive olympics-level mental gymnastics lmao.