/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1783768
>Inflation is due to governments ruining currencies

Lol, lmao even. Explain how it works

>Sure, but again, if wages were allowed to be lowered there would also be more jobs available.

Lolno, there's no market for expansion. Lowering wages would not increase employment in any meaningful way, you'll just get 2 people doing the job of 1 and getting half the wage - meaning halving the consumption for both. It's basically a socialization of losses scheme

>they cant make a profit, so have to move somewhere else.

There's nowhere to run - everywhere else is CHYNAH. That's actually the prime time to squeeze porkies and force concessions out of them

>>1783769
>Fiat is literally much better than the gold standard because you can at least expand the issuing of currency in case of an emergency

?????? oh you mean non-fiat currencies couldn't have printed themselves to death and back??????

Ultimately, both fiat and gold are the same shit with meager differences, and "printing money" doesn't raise prices UNLESS money is put into circumlation. Printing of money is done to REARRANGE who gets the prioirty in an economy, meaning, in the end, a redistribution of labor.

Jerking off to currencies is an extremely retarded behaviour, and it comes out of petit bourgeois attempts of playing in the currency market since it's the most easily understandable financial market there is - you just have currency graphs

>>1783768
>Inflation is due to governments ruining currencies
It's caused by both private and public actors. Sure the gorillion dollars to Israel does not help but for example real estate owners are incentivized to raise house prices and rent as high as possible either through colluding with each other or through environmental circumstances like local population density. Commodity retailers will also use any chance to price gouge on shortages and never lower their prices when their supply chains normalize.
>More jobs are a good thing
Not always it would lead to overproduction since the demand stays the same. Also going from $20 an hour to $10 an hour really pisses people off especially when they're ten times more disposable.
>And if wages are too high they cant make a profit, so have to move somewhere else
Yes but they will never move back to domestic production, instead they will move on to whatever third world place wants to whore itself out or just increase their price and lay off staff.
>flat rate of rent, or "negative income tax" to stabilise incomes to a standard so that people could then build wealth from a foundation
That sounds like socialism comrade.

>>1783774
>Explain how it works
Inflation is on the books as the main economic imperative for western countries, to expand and grow markets by investment from government stimulations. Inflation happens every year, just by incriment. Its actually recessions and depressions that economists fear most since this is obviously cutting down on jobs by a drop in the money supply from saving and divestment. This then orients government policy towards spending, thus adding money in supply to people who never worked to get it. I tell you, things would be different if it was workers who got gibs instead of the unemployed and employers themselves. Hyperinflation happens when theres way too much money printed per commodities in the market. If you suddenly gave everyone a million dollars you could see the cascade - so inflation can track from that basic ratio.
>Lowering wages would not increase employment in any meaningful way, you'll just get 2 people doing the job of 1 and getting half the wage
Theres always new jobs when theres cheaper workers. Capitalists can get creative.
>Printing of money is done to REARRANGE who gets the prioirty in an economy, meaning, in the end, a redistribution of labor.
Elaborate

>>1783781
>all this incentive talk

Yikes. Economists thought up this nonsense only because porkies cut off their hands and forbade them from interfering into the economy directly through state enterprise. Hence, the currency wonk as bourgeois economists can't do anything else, really. Jobs are not dependant on inflation, neither inflation is dependant on investments or stimultions or whatever. It's all coincidental.

>Theres always new jobs when theres cheaper workers.

Nah. You can argue about that when workers are in control of the country and have the initiative to improve their situation, but porkies are directly opposed to labor self-organizing, and porkies themselves won't invest in workers improving their own living conditions.

Look at it this way - two workers can barter between each other to start a production of goods that both workers need, they can pool their resources, but capitalists need to have profit. And if workers self-organize like this and be self-sufficient, porky won't have a supply of labor available to him to exploit for profit.

Besides, there are consumer goods and industrial goods, which are needed to produce consumer goods. While you can create fine enough consumer goods at home, sewing pants by hand for example, there's no way in hell you can create a backyard "fabric plant".

>Elaborate

People go where they get paid more. If you pay handsomely for scams, people will increasingly become scammers

>>1783775
>real estate owners are incentivized to raise house prices and rent as high as possible either through colluding with each other or through environmental circumstances like local population density. Commodity retailers will also use any chance to price gouge on shortages and never lower their prices when their supply chains normalize.
I agree. I actually like nixon a lot and think economists are far too harsh on him for suggesting price controls (on oil he was wrong due to the extreme demand and following stagflation). But in principle, a government can set an adjusted "real" price of goods that makes up for the market's moral failures. Rent controls are even supported by some lolberts. I think it can be a case-by-case process, but ultimately the point of working is to have a family and to BUY a house eventually. I think its only right to procure that possibility.
>Not always it would lead to overproduction since the demand stays the same. Also going from $20 an hour to $10 an hour really pisses people off especially when they're ten times more disposable.
The issue right now is that we have unemployment. So we have workers demanding jobs but none are supplying. The easiest way is to give companies incentives. Seems like an issue that solves itself.
>Yes but they will never move back to domestic production, instead they will move on to whatever third world place wants to whore itself out or just increase their price and lay off staff.
Eh, it depends. And anyway, if we are giving out gibs, might as well help developing national companies that can be the next corporations. As long as there are natural resources here, companies will want them.
>That sounds like socialism comrade.
Lol no. Its an idea that comes from milton friedman. I find the chicago school much more interesting than the austrians who arent as thomas sowell understands, "conservative" in the "tragic" way. That we live in a world of compromises, not of perfect tradeoffs.

>>1783784
>Jobs are not dependant on inflation, neither inflation is dependant on investments or stimultions or whatever. It's all coincidental.
Oh really? So what would improve employment then? The old keynesian trick of paying people to be useless? The point of inviting the private sector into the role of employment is that it keeps people useful. The government gives you welfare to spend on stuff to make GDP go up, but a company might have you scrubbing toilets. It seems like a shit deal, but this is life for so many low-skilled workers. Even prisoners work in factories because they are paid so cheaply - sometimes i think they lock up so many people just to make profits for these companies; thats probably right. But you would get less in prison and more on factory floors by that logic then.
>Look at it this way - two workers can barter between each other to start a production of goods that both workers need, they can pool their resources, but capitalists need to have profit. And if workers self-organize like this and be self-sufficient, porky won't have a supply of labor available to him to exploit for profit.
Profit is the best way to do things. It creates a surplus to reinvest into the company (M-C-M+)
creating self-sufficiency is entropic. It feeds on itself. The secret of profit is that you are supposed to save it up so you can afford free time because then you feed from your savings instead of working every day to maintain the same rate of survival. Humans figured this out milennia ago by building grain silos to save up high yields as a reserve source of food. Like, imagine of we had to hunt every day instead of just buying something at a store that was mass produced. Okay, its soulless, but its also efficient. The same reason we have computers instead of typewriters.
>People go where they get paid more. If you pay handsomely for scams, people will increasingly become scammers
Well thats how the market works. Who would have thought you could become a millionaire by playing videogames or by being an online whore? Value is always changing its pattern in a market society.

>>1783786
If we lowered wages, the price of utilities will not become affordable. If they lose enough customers, there's nothing stopping them from just shutting down or just reducing the proportion that you're allowed to access like in South Africa.
The government giving subsidies to national companies has been tried over and over again since the New Deal and has failed every single time to provide long term benefit.
I don't think a negative income tax will be effective without changing how the capitalist works as a whole. Just look at Boomers, they had their whole lives to aggregate 'foundational wealth' but now they can't even afford to retire and live on the street. They will just adapt and find another way to siphon surplus value from the proletariat.

>>1783794
If we got rid of minimum wage then wages would have a more diverse dispersion and so prices would stabilise for different goods at different levels, with the most basic still being affordable, but also the ones paid at the current minimum wage being accessed by higher markets. It would mean the renewal of a middle class basically. With unions we would still secure the most necessary jobs at this higher standard of payment. I think it would be good to try it as an experiment. Lets say a red state gets rid of minimum wage then we see results.
>I don't think a negative income tax will be effective without changing how the capitalist works as a whole.
Sure. But thats negotiable. Things arent working right now so they should be fixed.
>Just look at Boomers, they had their whole lives to aggregate 'foundational wealth' but now they can't even afford to retire and live on the street. They will just adapt and find another way to siphon surplus value from the proletariat.
Well the extraction of surplus value is fine as long as the proles can still afford a living. As i say, the biggest issue by far is housing, for many reasons. The dumbass idea of giving people "free houses" is communist garbage so i dont go for that. No, i dont think homeless bums can handle the responsibility of that. I think there are many families who would be first in line for that.
Rent controls can work like i say, but who rents? Its usually younger people - so renting isnt a fix-all solution since people are supposed to get a mortgage later on. Mortgages and families then.
I believe finland started paying couples to have kids a few years ago, so the government being pro-family isnt an alien concept. Mortgages first of all are set by bankers with constantly switching interest rates. Ursury and theft.
I think we need interest rates but they should be low and be set as low as possible. Monopoly is an issue too, so like in the early days there was anti-trust laws, we can implement anti-monopoly measures including regulations on how much property you can own (think of bill gates buying up india's farmland). However, estate agencies are the guys building the homes in the first place. Do they get an exempted status? Many questions.
But like i say, i would like to see theory put into practice in different ways. The idea of having a federal all-or-nothing policy gamble every 4 years is stupid. We need long term ideas and solutions.

>>1783800
>Lets say a red state gets rid of minimum wage then we see results.
I mean they just repealed child labor in Florida so let's see how that goes first.
>the extraction of surplus value is fine as long as the proles can still afford a living
The issue is that they must keep extracting value at an ever unsustainable rate for more profit no matter what because that is their end goal under capitalism. No amount of regulation or rate fixation will change that.
>finland started paying couples to have kids a few years ago, so the government being pro-family isnt an alien concept
So did Japan, pro natalist policies are just a cope if there's demographical collaspe in the first place.

>>1783791
>Oh really? So what would improve employment then?

Literally SOEs

>Profit is the best way to do things.

Nah, the best way of doing things is by directly creating production of things people demand. Again, either through SOEs (better for making industrial goods) or worker cooperatives

>because then you feed from your savings instead of working every day

Oh, you mean that food comes out of money printer, too? What a neat trick

Reality, however, is that "saving up money" means you are postponing consumption - or that your labor is consumed by others with a time delay. In either case, it has nothing to do with profits, it's a separate entity entirely

>Like, imagine of we had to hunt every day instead of just buying something at a store that was mass produced.

Supermarkets exists thanks to refrigerators and conservants. Back in the day people consumed regional products for a reason

>Who would have thought you could become a millionaire by playing videogames or by being an online whore? Value is always changing its pattern in a market society.

Unproductive labor remains unproductive, and countries who bought into this crap are now a laughing stock of the world who can't even outcompete DPRK in industrial production. There is a very valid reason why Soviet methods of accounting put housing and services into expenses, i.e. those decreased Soviet (and Chinese) GDP, and not into incomes

>>1783750
MMT is fine and more Marxists should know about it. fiat money the way it works today didn't exist in Marx' time

>>1783808
>fiat money the way it works today didn't exist in Marx' time

Uh-huh, how so? Fiat money is the same as gold money

>>1783800
Did you live in the 90's or something? Attack on the minimum wage was already tried during the heyday of neoliberalism, it didn't result in the renewal of the middle class, it resulted in the cratering of demands among the lower classes to reduce to inflation.

>>1783804
>SOEs, worker cooperatives
Unproductive and inefficient
>Reality, however, is that "saving up money" means you are postponing consumption - or that your labor is consumed by others with a time delay. In either case, it has nothing to do with profits, it's a separate entity entirely
Yes, precisely. You dont consume, in order to preserve your reserve of value. The spending model of things reverses this and is also a favourite concept of the labour voucher scheme marxists have, where resources are allocated very precisely and by scarce supply through the singular purchase of the barter note. Because marx in his own time saw proles only needing necessities, he thought an economy based on necessities was a good place to start at. Today though people would happily work longer hours to save more yo buy better things. Some of that wealth trickled down and now we all share in it by proportion. A savings economy then is based on high productivity while a spending economy is about necessities and thus the least productivity required. Its a discrepancy of values and comfort.
You are right though that savings and profits are different. I was just generalising a principle with that one.
>Supermarkets exists thanks to refrigerators and conservants. Back in the day people consumed regional products for a reason
Well the point was made that maximum comfort comes from the maximum yield of reserves. Self-suffiency (i.e. the abolition of profit) is idiotic. UBI is a better model.
>Unproductive labor remains unproductive, and countries who bought into this crap are now a laughing stock of the world who can't even outcompete DPRK in industrial production. There is a very valid reason why Soviet methods of accounting put housing and services into expenses, i.e. those decreased Soviet (and Chinese) GDP, and not into incomes
Yes and that is part of my point. Who cares about idle wages when you have a stable foundation of necessities to leap from? Today however it is reversed in capitalist countries where you only get income with no security. Who cares if you make $600 a week if the rent is $400?
Adam smith and other liberal economists have also made notable concern about land and rents before. And in capital vol. 3 marx also makes a great case that landlords are in many ways a class enemy of the industrial capitalist, so this canonical view of the theoretical rivalry continues today.
Again, when most people say capitalism sucks what they are really talking about is landlords, bankers and billionaires. Not entrepeneurs. Not the market itself.

>>1783810
It isnt
Fiat is based on governments lending from a central bank and the bank issuing its currency as debt to be paid back later. Gold money has a fixed value based on the amount of gold that is converted into currency.

>>1783814
>Unproductive and inefficient

China is literally beating the West right now, lol. And USSR was beating the West also, before it decided to reverse the Revolution and feed the West with cheap labor and resources

>le saving and spending economy

Just a codeword for taking away people's money/forcing them to work more. Well, obviously you are going to get more profits and GDP out of people working paycheck to paycheck, it's just utterly inefficient compared to an actual economic policy of planning beforehand

> Self-suffiency (i.e. the abolition of profit) is idiotic

Nah, balanced account without minmaxing is both safer and more efficient. Just look at China beating the West in both investments and consumption

>landlords, bankers and billionaires. Not entrepeneurs. Not the market itself.

So, we replace everyone bad by the state, and entrepeneurs are left alone (except for labor protection). Then entrepeneurs get outcompeted by both SOEs and cooperatives because socialist enterprise is more efficient by default

>>1783816
>hurrdurr accounting trick means it's not the same thing

There's zero practical difference between kinds of money. That's why nobody takes voucher schizos seriously

>>1783810
>Fiat money is the same as gold money
no it isn't lol
gold backed currency's value can only shift with chances in the gold industry. the value of fiat currency by comparison can be pretty much whatever porky needs it to be
>>1783818
>There's zero practical difference between kinds of money
there's a big fucking difference between $100 being exchangeable for say 10 grams of gold at any time, and it being possible to devalue at will

>>1783816
I mean yeah, but in Capital Marx writes at length about price-form in Chapter 3, section 1. And there he draws the conclusion that while money-commodity is a physical thing, the Value it realises is idealised. Money-commodity becomes "money of account".

>>1783900
Money that is unspent does indeed hold value in suspense, or it is socially unrealized (which is why surplus value is directly transformed into money by the same excessive quality), but the inflation that would occur with gold being dumped into the economy wouldnt be near as bad as if all of the national debt came swarming into america.
The term "velocity of money" refers to the sudden surge of cash into the economy that suddenly inflates markets. This is guarded against by basic sociology. Theres only inflation or stagflation or shortages in natural disasters or something lime that. Like all the people buying toilet paper in 2020.

>>1783818
>There's zero practical difference between kinds of money. That's why nobody takes voucher schizos seriously
The difference is who has possession of the money printer. Now like i say i support fiat, but thats because i think the government should have a sovereign currency.

>>1783818
>There's zero practical difference between kinds of money. That's why nobody takes voucher schizos seriously
Well I'm obviously not a Marxist, but as I see it, these vouchers are not money. For instance Robert Owen’s "labor-money" is no more "money" to me than a theater ticket would be. These vouchers don't circulate. Can you tell me from a Marxist point of view what is wrong with my take?

>>1783912
They could be seen as M-C-M since they are a means of exchange that is mediated by commodities. But not M-C-M+ since they dont reproduce, but are recalled to the central issuer, like taxes. When you give in a ticket its like throwing treasury notes into a shredder.
According to MMT any token of exchange centrally produced (sovereign) is money. So all in-game currency is "money" technically.
This differs from the liberals who say "gold is money". But gold is not money *proper*, where gold must be converted into money by a state.
Even a gold coin must be minted to be legal tender. Think about how you can pay for something with an american penny in america but not a british penny in america - even if its the same material, it cannot be traded since it isnt represented under the same issuer.

>>1783915
vouchers aren't means of exchange, precisely because they do not circulate. it might be more accurate to call them means of payment


, they are means of payment

>>1783947
Exchange and payment
Whats the difference?
>circulation
Well it depends. If we use the tax analogy. The state takes in cash and rescinds it, but then it makes more cash later to put out which then returns back at a later date. So there is circulation of a sort, in the relation of exchange, not in its value-form as such. A ticket can purchase a commodity but cannot be universally equivocated. It isnt money in the general sense but is still money in the technical sense.
I would say according to MMT its still money, where money in this case is any token of exchange with a central issuer. A ticket is issued by a movie theater to grant access to a movie.

>>1783950
>Exchange and payment
>Whats the difference?
the ability to engage in M-C-M' circulation, but also the very existence of commodities. a mere product and a commodity are not the same thing
>So there is circulation of a sort
perhaps. but it isn't free circulation
>still money in the technical sense
it functions similar to money, sure, but it isn't money in the Marxian sense
>A ticket is issued by a movie theater to grant access to a movie
a ticket isn't money. it can maybe be exchange-value in the Smithian sense which Marx inherits. that is, in the sense of the barter myth

>>1783990
>a mere product and a commodity are not the same thing
Right. A commodity has use-value and exchange-value. I suppose the "price" of admission could be seen as its exchange-value, but maybe not. 1 ticket = 1 movie.
>it functions similar to money, sure, but it isn't money in the Marxian sense
Marx sees the historical use of money in history though, mostly being the medium between commodity circulation (C-M-C), where capital is later created by money circulation.
So there has always been money, but capital only exists with liberalism because Value is socially-realized and thus surplus-value is created as an excess.
So you can have money without capital.
Or would you see the movie screening as just a use-value and so it is not exchanged for despite the ticket costing money?

>>1784011
>capital only exists with liberalism
capital arises pretty much as soon as any kind of surplus does. it's the scale of it that makes capitalism different from previous mode of production. or do you mean to suggest that say a medieval blacksmith didn't have capital? that kings extracting taxes didn't have capital? what are the pyramids of Giza or the Great Wall if not a huge capital projects?
>Or would you see the movie screening as just a use-value and so it is not exchanged for despite the ticket costing money?
of course not. you just said there yourself: costing money
what sets most labour voucher schemes apart from money is that you can't transfer them to other people, or what transfers you can do are limited to settling petty debts. this makes it difficult to hire people to work for you and pocketing any profit. perhaps we don't need vouchers for that though? perhaps abolishing private employment is enough?

>>1784024
This is what i scried from marx's capital
Well with capitalism comes the advent of world money with a truly global system of trade. This establishes Value (socially-necessary labour time) as a "universal" substance accounted for by capitalists.
With capitalism we have the political freedom of the individual where labour is no longer "owned" but *borrowed* or lent by the capitalist, where the worker sells his *labour-power* as a distinct commodity and so within this monetary relation, capital is able to be created through the extraction of surplus-value (again, as unrealized excess).
This is because only in capitalist relations can the Value of a worker's labour-power be formally sold at it its proper price, yet informally this disguises the process of exploitation.
Before this you had slaves, who were means of production, and so like machines, could not create "Value" proper, but only labour (the same way machines dont create value but still labour).
This is because as means of production, you can only put as much into it as you can get out.
Labour-power then is the twofold commodity that unlocks the capital accumulation process. Capital's circuit: M(C+V)-C-M(+S) also has means of production as the product of its self-feeding system which is also historically relevant to capitalism's development.
So capital is only socially realized as a "social relation" (which in hegelian terms appropriates the role of Spirit to marx) then begins by political liberalism (the liberation of the subject - where most also cite decartes' cogito as the dawn of modernity), and technological advancement lead to capital accumulation through the contradictions of the value-form, which produces Value and Surplus-Value as its constitutive excess.
The pyramids are a product of M-C-M exchange and slavery, but not capital relations. Capital is perculiar to (well…) "capitalism" to marx.
With mere M-C-M relations we get the entropic system of low development society.
>perhaps abolishing private employment is enough?
I dont see the leap in logic

>>1784053
>I dont see the leap in logic
I'm getting at the USSR doing precisely this, while the ruble was semi-free to circulate internally within the Union

>>1784242
Well i think post-capitalist economies of scale are impossible to sustain. Planned economies just dont work, which is why china is capitalist with markets and there was stalin's famous defence of socialist commodity production, where kruyschev immediately implemented reforms after his death.
Capital is efficient by design, because it has to keep reproducing and expanding itself, plus technological advancement (as constant capital) is literally tied directly to economic production, which is why the most capitalist nations usually have the best tech, which is also cybernetic in structure (as a sort of artificial lifeform).
To marx, technology doesnt create value and therefore the rate of profit (surplus/constant capital) lowers over time, leading to capital's self-destruction.
But by this logic the more capitalist the better since it leads to capitalism's demise quicker. Maybe thats why marx supported free markets in that one letter.
Basically, whoever makes the best tech wins and america's tech successes are also tied to the military industrial complex. So tech cant be decoupled from capitalism and war it seems.
Such is life. Tragic.

>>1784279
>Planned economies just dont work
lol
>Capital is efficient by design
lmao
>To marx, technology doesnt create value and therefore the rate of profit (surplus/constant capital) lowers over time
that isn't why the RoP falls. it only falls when the rate of depreciation falls, since that causes OCC to rise. but that isn't something that is set in stone. it does happen to be true so far though
>tech cant be decoupled from capitalism and war
it isn't surprising that you think this since you deny the possibility planning in spite of historical evidence to the contrary

>>1784011
> A commodity has use-value and exchange-value.
Sry for going well akshually but it really doesn't. Commodities have Value which depending on different social context expresses itself as exchange value (when owner of a commodity wants something else and has an useless (to them) commodity) and use value (when it's directly useful to them). Exchange value only exists at the moment of exchange, it isn't an inherent "thing" that commodity posseses.

>>1784356
What historical examples are comparable to today?
You think a supercomputer can run an advanced economy for 10 billion people? Its fantasy.
Its an answer to a question nobody asked.
Like, literally nobody wants to live in communism
Like i say, all people hate is landlords and bankers; who even to marx are the regressive and contradictory elements of the capitalist class.
The struggle against imperialism is the struggle against international finance. All domestic disputes about living wages are about rent.
Listen to a good leftist like michael hudson who gets the picture.

>>1784381
Well a commodity is created in a society that already operates by exchange, where C-M-C expresses the social relation of commodity circulation. There is no C-C relation; the commodity is always alienating (mediating) its essence and so allows for things like commodity fetishism where a commodity becomes its own mediating power by the M-C-M circuit.
This is also a major pathology with goldbugs, who think because they convert their money into a commodity they are possessing the very object of value, when value is a social relation (as per the all-encompassing hegelian "spirit").
I believe marx says that before exchange, people just created "use-values" alone, where ofc marx's historical dialectic is about inverting history back to the point of abolishing commodity production by heightening history to a formal reproduction, where primitive communism evolves to communism and species-being is fulfilled.

>>1784408
>Well a commodity is created in a society that already operates by exchange
More or less, yeah. I was just point out a technicality.
>I believe marx says that before exchange, people just created "use-values" alone
I am pretty fresh on the Capital and afaik I understood first chapter as folk creating Value embodied in commodities with their labour, which then expresses itself as various use-values. I find this bit pretty interesting to be honest, because split between Value and use-value reminds me a lot of aggregation problem in more orthodox economics.
Marx points out that since qualitatively different kinds of labour are used, we can not compare different kinds of Use values directly. Hence we compare them according to amount of labour put into them (and social stuff).
In orthodox economics the aggregation problem states that qualitatively different kinds of capital (trucks and apples for example) have too different units of measure for them to be added together in order to measure income.
The answer to aggregation problem? Treat machines as dated labour neo-ricardian style.
Why am I talking about it here? Because econ doesn't focus on value theory enough.

>>1784391
>You think a supercomputer can run an advanced economy for 10 billion people?
yes. in fact they already do to a large extent. the further development of computerized planning is hampered by commercial secrecy

>>1784433
The way i read use-value is very straight forward, its just the subjective element of our desire. It is what most economists would call "utility" for any item. This is the *qualitative* (subjective) aspect, while exchange-value is the "magnitude of value" and thus its *quantitative* (objective) aspect. This would find its eventual term in price, conditioned by Value as a whole, where Value is "human labour in the abstract" or socially-necessary labour time.
The point of socialism is to reduce Value as much as possible and thereby eleminate the very function of the value-form as a tool of mediation.
This is also why the LTV is not quite marx's nuanced meaning, because Value has 2 aspects - Value in labour-power, paid in full, and surplus-value as its excess.
My feeling however is that dialectically there is no Value at all without surplus. There always has to be a surplus. This then extends into concepts in psychoanalysis and so on. So then all we can do is manage profits and not abolish them.
Surplus-value is the unrealized substance of Value, so wherever there is Value, surplus-value has been extracted somewhere. Zizek would point at "surplus enjoyment" as a sign to this phenomena.

>>1784519
>Surplus-value is the unrealized substance of Value
it is literally realized in profit you theorylet

>>1784573
No, in the contract of employment, what is paid out is the labour and what is sold is supposedly equivalent values made by that labour (smith's labour theory of value), where marx cites smith as seeing profit as a function of saving and not in extracting a surplus. To smith relations of economics are eternally M-C-M; its marx in his critique who creates the concept of the surplus as the true source of profits.
Here then the "unrealized" surplus is only realized later by the sale of commodities and by the creation of commodity-money. Profits arent automatically gained by the contract, but by sale after a capital turnover.
This is why marx sees the contract of employment, not as the capitalist "buying" labour, but in *borrowing* or lending it, thus making the capitalist a debtor to the workers promises of labour.

>>1784519
Use value is not like utils because it expresses usefulness as quantitative trait while the other expresses it as qualitative trait. You yourself said that C-C is impossible and this is precisely why. You cant company two different qualitaties you need an intermediate - money - to do it. Value is abstract human labour put into a commodity that allows it to be compared with other commodities, it cant be qualitative.
Also I can not agree that "the point"of socjalism is reduction of socially necrssary labour time. Capitalists do that as well in pursuit of the profits. Socialists instead want to pursue the state in which the total amount of socially useful labour meets the needs of that society as a whole. No wrongly allocated labour anymore.
>My feeling however is that dialectically there is no Value at all without surplus. There always has to be a surplus.
Reread critique of Gotha programme. You dont need psychoanalisis to think that. The surplus is necessary for reproduction.

>>1784633
Is the quantitative aspect not just exchange-value?
I understand a use-value cant be "more" than the Value put into it, but this is also where marx talks about C-M-C as a closed system of equivalent exchanges.
>The surplus is necessary for reproduction.
Yes exactly. But marxists want to get rid of the surplus to end the capital accumulation process while i am just a realist about it. Profit is profit either way you look at it.

>>1784600
>Profits arent automatically gained by the contract, but by sale after a capital turnover.
no shit
>This is why marx sees the contract of employment, not as the capitalist "buying" labour, but in *borrowing* or lending it, thus making the capitalist a debtor to the workers promises of labour.
the capitalist rents the worker, yes. that is, they only buy the labour-power, which may or may not result in the use-value of labour, which in turn is the subtance of value

>>1784639
>marxists want to get rid of the surplus
no they don't. every society that makes investments must also make a surplus. the issue is who gets the surplus and how much

"Socialism is when SOE exist" is one of my favorite things that some people here actually believe. Petrobras and Aramco are truly the vanguards of the coming revolution

>>1782570
>What a disgusting looking alien.
im gonna barbecue it once I get the chance

This thread gave my brain cancer's cancer another cancer.

>>1771398
Today I will remind them

>>1785175
>conditions of intercourse
communism cannot happen until the SÈX improves!

>>1784641
So the Value of labour is held in suspension then by the market, so profit is an unrealized substance within the formal bounds of employment. Marx's point is dialectical, that the content of Value is self-separated between its formal properties and its excessive reality. But my contention is that in all contracts there has to be the realized and unrealized thing, and the idea of having "capitalism without capital" (as per zizek) is being uncritical. I think marxists are uncritical when they think they can have 20 hour work weeks without the benefits we reap from our developed economy, which is built on unpaid labour. I simply accept the gambit. All societies are built on unpaid labour.
>>1784642
That is a contemporary revision. How can you have a surplus without a value-form? Holding products in reserve like a grain silo is different because the informal qualities of money is what generates a surplus in the first place, while a 1-to-1 purchase of labour revokes the contradiction. Marxism is about overcoming contradiction, no?

>>1784672
I remember listening to a richard wolff video where he literally says that scandanavian countries are a "form of socialism" like china is a "form of socialism". He's literally fulfilled the prophecy of his meme by saying that socialism is when the gubbmint does stuff. But then ofc the USSR is ebil state capitalism whenever these people want it that way lol.

>>1785175
>Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce socialism in the countryside forthwith. Introducing socialism means abolishing commodity production, abolishing the money system, razing capitalism to its foundations and socialising all the means of production. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to leave all this intact and to socialise only the land, which is absolutely impossible. If commodity production remains intact, the land, too, will become a commodity and will come on to the market any day, and the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be blown sky-high. Clearly, they want to introduce socialism within the framework of capitalism, which, of course, is inconceivable. That is exactly why it is said that the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is bourgeois socialism.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/x01.htm
Response?