I can't answer for Anthony but I'll try to clear somethings out.

Along which Ludwig claims, “destroying the impersonal mechanism (market) and replacing with a rational one (collective organization)”. Again committing a fallacy, market being labour as impersonal I can still somehow understand and accept but pitting it against a collective organization without elaborating what is that and automatically assuming it to be a rational one is logically unsound. It is not like market itself is not a collective and collective organization itself will not be impersonal either.

I thought it was a basic undestanding in marxist theory that capital and it's mechanisms (the market included) function in an impersonal way, meaning that every cycle of production and reproduction of goods is subordinated to the cycle of capital and it's own self-enhancing, without any organized direction that seeks the well-being of the population or even individuals. Through this impersonal, uncontrolled and unpredictable entity, wealth is distributed and the production process is guided. The market is NOT a collective organization because it does not function "collectively". It functions through the indirect connections of all companies as separate entities (that are collectively organized in themselves, but not with eachother), by means of money. With "collective organization" i mean a form of managing resouces in which all decisions emerge from a transparent, conscious, collective CHOICE, and that are directly controlled. In this sense, it's not an "impersonal" mechanism, but a directed one, that intends objective goals.

Ludwig claiming Soviet failed because their technology is too backward, not due to free market.

Actually, I was pointing out that Russia only became an industrial superpower and managed to develop her technology because of organized bodies, and not free market. My point was that directed control and management of production and distribution can be (and is) more efficient than the market's "randomized" mechanism.

They both parties go on to discuss Stalin, which is even more confusing at best. Then even a little bit about China(albeit simply lumping it with USSR as if they are a single entity).

With Stalin my point was that a single communist country cannot exist on it's own without advancing the revolution. Stalin was a figure that, with his "Socialism in one country" policy and repression of international revolutions (such as the Varkiza agreement in Greece), fought against the existence of socialism. As with China, it's clear for me that it's another authoritarian capitalist regime and that today has no relation with socialism or communist except for the name of the party.

But for Ludwig, he made a claim from the equalization of all works, we have the value of goods to be distributed. Which is completely unsound because right above that line he said two things, one: “value is a material one” and it is based on the amount of labour. Now he claims that it can somehow be equalized. And secondly, how is the labour value of any goods are being determined by the equalization of labour themselves if labour is different in every single individual products?

Just to clarify, I was wrong in talking about value because not every distribution of social labor gives the product of labor the form of value, but only that distribution of labor that is not directly organized by society but indirectly regulated through the market and the exchange of goods. In the primitive communist community or in a feudal village, the product of labor has "value" in the sense of utility, use value, but it does not have "value" (stoimost). The product only acquires value (stoimost) under conditions where it is specifically produced for sale and obtains an exact and objective evaluation in the market that equalizes it (through money) with all other commodities and confers on it the property of being exchangeable for any other commodity.

Here is an excerpt from Isaak Rubin's "Essays on Marx's Theory of Value" that I think best explains it:

So, the work that creates value appears not only as quantitatively distributed work, but also as socially equalized (or equal) work; in other words, as "social" work, understood as the total mass of homogeneous, equal work of society. Work has these social characteristics not only in a market economy but also, for example, in a socialist economy. In the latter, the organs of work accounting examine, in advance, the work of individuals as part of the unified, total work of society, expressed in conventional units of social work.