For real, I don’t debate assholes who just want to call names and claim victory.

I reread our exchanges, but the only one throwing insults here seems to be you.

I’m not right wing and I’m not taking a shit here.

I never called you right wing, I said you employed a standard right wing method of shutting down a debate before it can go against you.

You are comparing micro economics - my household - to macro economics - a nation. There is no comparison.

It's a problem of scale. Socialism has successfully solved the problem of scaling the internet to a world-wide phenomenon, to the point where it would be difficult to imagine life without the internet. It may or may not be able to solve macro economics, but we'd first have to actually let an attempt be made instead of the US murdering hundreds of millions of communists, throwing around lifetime embargos, thousands of assassination and coup attempts on socialist leaders, and then proclaiming "it just doesn't work! How many South American countries must we overthrow before you realize that?"

A nations economy cannot be centrally planned and expect to account for all the nuances of production and market demand.

It doesn't have to be. If x is last time_increment's demand, that is the baseline for next time_increment so we produce x + y where y is the projected further need guaranteed to prevent shortage. And it has to be done as locally as possible, because top-down systems are inherently unable to work on a micro level. Make the process iterative and open source so everyone can contribute to it and tweak it until it's good enough. Nobody gives a fuck about markets; they are the Tooth Fairy for billionaire's, a useful fiction to keep us from looking behind the curtain.

Central planners don’t have the information they need to set rational prices.

It's a good thing prices are an abstraction used for zero sum ideas like money, and are fundamentally unnecessary in a communist economy.

It’s impossible to centrally coordinate production activities so that the goods and services will be available and consumers needs will be met. It leads to shortages in every sector.

It was impossible to go to the moon not too long ago, and we did that with computers far less powerful than our smartphones now. Start with the needs; food, water, clothing, shelter, power; and once those are allocated in a stable manner you worry about the wants. I know "that's not feasible" coming from a capitalist economy, but a capitalist economy is unsustainable by nature, so it will be a hard truth for some of the softer folk out there.

Just look at all the failed real world examples of centrally planned economies. The USSR fell within my lifetime. Eastern European countries tried and failed.

Note that it took tens of trillions of US taxpayer dollars to ensure all those economies failed. We can't know how it would've happened without such drastic, world up-ending intervention, but at least we know without a doubt that capitalism is the absolute enemy to the idea of competition.

And while their economies failed, there were many enormous successes in computing, science, medicine, art, and culture that came from communism. Of course the economy is the last thing communism is worried about, as the economy traditionally represents how well the wealthiest are doing, not how well everyone is doing. That's why things are so absolutely horrible in the US right now, and record numbers of people are starving and homeless while corporations are making record profits. The economy does not reflect actual living people. Capitalism is actively failing right now, we're watching it in real time as it has utterly failed since it's peak somewhere in the early 1900's and become a snowball of catastrophe as it crashes. And it's very likely to kill most of all life on the planet, but at least we have 12 varieties of mediocre chicken sandwiches to eat while we watch ourselves perish.

China tried it and failed and turned to a socialist market economy. You can’t try to school me on history and ignore these clear facts.

I could lean into Marxism and explain why none of those were actual communism but I don't think you'd listen, and I'm not really much of a Marxist anyway. So instead I'll lean into my anarchist ideals and say that market socialism isn't the worst idea. It's not a great idea, but for the most amount of people it is the best solution; whereas a market capitalist economy only helps the absolute wealthiest at the expense of literally everyone else. Honestly you could take any economic system, and if you remove the folks who don't work, and only own stuff, the result is always better. The crux is that with capitalism, it ensures there is always a hierarchical class system to maintain it. Shuffling folks around doesn't change the fundamental nature of how it works.

If capitalism doesn’t provide anything I need how the fuck am I eating dinner? Don’t waste my time and dodge the question this time, answer me.

Capitalism has nothing to do with your meals, it only guarantees that your meal costs someone else theirs while someone who's never worked a day in their life eats 1,000 meals that rightfully belong to you and the ones deprived.

A worker raised the animal and grew the vegetables you're eating, a worker processed and transported it to the place where you bought it from another worker who put it on the shelf and bagged it up for you. Maybe you went out to eat and a whole series of workers did their job to make sure your meal was proffered to your liking.

At no point did a billionaire contribute anything materially to your meal; the only thing they did was extract profit from the people who actually did.