No.1771398[Last 50 Posts]
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htmJust reading over this 1954 political economy textbook written by 1950s Stalinists. Absolutely hilarious to read them talking about profit, private property, commodity circulation, the law of value, wages, etc. Just to then add the prefix "socialist". It's filled with retarded garbage, it was commissioned by Stalin himself and he went around giving interviews to various economists on how it should be written, though he died before it was finalized. These talks that he gave that led to the creation of that textbook can be read here, they're hilarious at points and extremely revealing.
https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n2/5convers.htmAs to who they dug this up they were probably recorded in Soviet circles but the group that translated them from Russian are a bunch of Indian Hoxhaists who published them without realizing how retarded they make Stalin and his cronies look.
No.1771403
Eh, a statement against equalisation could be made also by referencing Critique of the Gotha Programme and I think you could argue for rent extraction through the state as collective landlord with a reference to the platform in the Communist Manifesto, even though IIRC the idea of socialist rent extraction was criticized as indirect and convoluted in some other text by Marx (don't remember which, Theories of Surplus Value maybe?).
No.1771405
>>1771403none of this shit makes sense under socialism and why would you have rent under a dotp when youre going to be busy fighting the bourgeoisie as capitalism withers away lol
No.1771411
Historical records indicate that stalin and the 1930s and 40s russian communists were true believers. But then you have stuff like this. Perhaps the reality of governing causes stuff like this to happen. Where reality and theory creates a form of schizophrenia.
No.1771412
>>1771411>Historical records indicate that stalin and the 1930s and 40s russian communists were true believerswtf does this even mean
No.1771413
>>1771405>none of this shit makes sense under socialismhey, all this shit makes sense under socialism because there is no such thing a socialist production, only communist, capitalist, or a compromise that sacrifices parts of one another.
needing accumulation to stablish a economy on a capitalist world is one of these compromises, no matter how small the persentage of the sallary the rent was compared to capitalist nations.
No.1771416
>>1771405A DOTP implies that the bourgeoisie is still a class force in society. As you said it "withers away" not vanishes overnight because one declares all property belongs to the people and that everyone shall have equal pay regardless of effort.
The fact that you have highlighted Stalin talking about the proven issues they had with equalisation vs piece work shows you are too ignorant to hold a serious opinion.
The workers rioted when Khruschev later took away piece work and tried to replace higher income as incentive with brutalisation for failure to meet the plan.
Go actually read the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
No.1771417
>>1771412Soviet archives were open in the 80s and 90s. Russia became more "open" in 80s and 90s. Historians outside of russia came in and read. Realized oh these guys actually believed in the shit they were saying in public, since in private they used the same language and shit. yadadada. And some of them were extremely dedicated to it like stalin. yadadadadadada
No.1771418
>>1771416>>1771417if your dotp programme isnt communist then youre just a regular bourgeois country. the ussr wasnt even a dotp when stalin was in charge either
No.1771419
>>1771413>implying socialism isnt communism>implying socialism in one country>implying you can have a 'compromise between capitalist and communist production' (wat)>implying you need 'accumulation to stablish a economy on a capitalist world' (wat)i think youre confusing the dotp with socialism
No.1771420
>>1771416You can't develop the DotP nationally because the function of the dictatorship is to destroy capital internationally as a social relation, not accumulate it within national frontiers. You are braindead.
No.1771421
>>1771411>>1771417It was a dictatorship of the proletariat in 1919, and not one in 1941. Pretty simple.
No.1771422
>>1771421even in the 40s and 50s they still believed it in. But believing is different than practice. Perhaps the realities of ww2, fucked over the soviet state and turned it into barracks communism. I think stalin mentioned this once post war.
No.1771424
>>1771418>if your dotp programme isnt communistAbsolutely infantile drivel. What is your definition of "communist". Does the revolution have to push the "fully automated luxury communism" button to count? Is there no process of developing from workers seizing control of factories and state functions to a "communist" society?
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! No.1771425
>>1771424asking for a dotp programme to be basic marxism is now 'infantile' LMFAO
the dotp has capitalist elements only insofar as they are rapidly being removed, not expanding. mls are so cute
No.1771426
Leftcoms obsessing over commodity production thread 72940471810
No.1771430
>>1771422No amount of willpower can magically transform an isolated backwater into a self-contained "socialist country". The only way the revolution in Russia could ever have succeeded was through international proletarian revolution. It’s like me asking you to walk but insisting you don’t use your legs.
The Bolsheviks held out for as long as they could, waiting for revolution to resume in the west. They did the only thing they could under the circumstances until Stalin came along and liquidated them. It wouldn’t matter even if Lenin had all the genius ideas in the world. He always accepted that ‘if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed’ - and he was right. Pretending you can dream or ‘plan’ your way past material conditions is pure idealism.
No.1771431
>>1771426The point "leftcoms" make is not that the Bolsheviks simply pursued the wrong policy, but that defeat was inevitable so long as the revolution failed to spread to Europe. Stalin signaled the failure of the revolution.
No.1771433
>>1771426>>1771431None of you morons ever actually attempt to prove that the USSR had a socialist economy, because you know it’s laughable and that not even Stalin seriously pretended this.
Every bourgeois revolution has ‘expanded the productive forces and deepened socialization’. Capitalist production is marked precisely by its social, large-scale character as opposed to the individualistic, subsistence production of pre-capitalism.
No.1771437
>>1771425>>1771428Define "basic marxism" as it relates to actual production and distribution of goods in society. And then how that would have looked like in your version of revolutionary Russia.
No.1771439
>>1771430>They did the only thing they could under the circumstances until Stalin came along and liquidated them The thing is stalin and his supposed cronies were also true believers. Theres an argument to be made that stalin was a "zealot". But the failure of the international socialist revolution, the rise of fascism in the 30s, ww2 in the 40s, and the rise of the cold war in the 50s, forced the soviet state to adapt and go to one directionr. And well we know what happened.
No.1771440
>>1771416>>1771424>>1771437Autonomous national industrial development is incompatible with a DotP because the DotP is the movement to abolish the market whereas you are suggesting that a DotP could literally accumulate enough capital to be "successful". Do you have mush for brains or something?
>>1771439Stalin presented socialism in one country as being in line with what Marx, Engels and Lenin thought. Failing to export revolution is one thing, but to openly abandon it as a goal is quite another. The latter is what Stalin did.
No.1771442
>>1771437youre looking at the failure of the ussr and trying to make it fit backwards into a vulgarized enough marxism to consider it socialist or even just a dotp. this is sad
No.1771443
That textbook is based as shit. Thank you for sharing it
No.1771444
>>1771440>Autonomous national industrial development is incompatible with a DotP because the DotP is the movement to abolish the market whereas you are suggesting that a DotP could literally accumulate enough capital to be "successful".No, I didn't suggest that and you failed to answer the question of what "basic marxism" actually would be in a practical sense.
No.1771447
>>1771442No, I'm trying to understand the critique. You can't just say "the USSR didn't do basic marxism". What does "basic marxism" look like against Stalin talking about piece work.
No.1771448
>>1771445>how much of the problems is due to historical and material circumstances…All of them?
No.1771449
>>1771447theres nothing else they couldve done. doesnt mean we have to call it something it is not. the communists held on in the ussr for as long as they could, waiting for the european revolution, until they were overtaken by stalin and his counterrevolution
No.1771452
>>1771449Okay so a counter-factual where the European revolution happens. What does that look like economically. How are goods produced and distributed? Is capital just overthrown one night? Is there a need to fund a standing army to fight against capitalist holdouts?
No.1771454
>>1771448yes, exactly. which is how I view stalin and the "stalinist" era of the soviet union. They had to adapt, to a lot of the problems that appeared in their enviornment. And while some of these adaptations were questionable, overall the policies of the 30s and 40s were a reaction to the enviornment they found themselves in.
You can argue that this adaptation fucked them, but it was still a reaction of genuine communists even in the 30s and 40s. I dont think stalin and "his bloc" were counterrevolutionaries.
No.1771455
>>1771454lmfao nah
stalin had huge discrepancies with marx and lenin, youre trying too hard to still cling to your idol
No.1771456
>>1771444You're arguing with two different people here. I already laid out many elements the DotP must have to help with worldwide socialism: expand internationally, abolition of army and police replaced with bureaucratic worker councils, regions that have already reached socialized production supply machinery and technique to those that haven't, etc. It goes roughly like this: transition stage (DotP) → immature communism (or the first 'stage', generally called 'socialism') → full communism.
Revolution is supra-individual: Lenin or any other individual could not have done anything otherwise. The Russian DotP was always sick from the start, it was mostly evaporated by the early 1920s and completely vanished at MOST by 1926. When the Marxist program is forsaken, the proletariat ceases to become a class-for-itself and hence ceases to be the ruling class, ie, the DotP is gone.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/8.htm>>1771452The DotP economy is ultimately still capitalist only insofar as it is mercantile, ie, commodity-producing.
https://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/LyonThes.htm No.1771458
>>1771456>regions that have already reached socialized productionSo not having socialized production doesn't rule out a region from being "socialist".
>The DotP economy is ultimately still capitalist only insofar as it is mercantile, ie, commodity-producing.Oh so we can have DotP which is still economically capitalist!
No.1771460
>>1771458The DotP isn't socialism.
>Oh so we can have DotP which is still economically capitalist!Which Russia isn't past late 1920s.
No.1771461
>>1771460>The DotP isn't socialism.So what does this have to do with the complaints in the OP?
No.1771466
>>1771461Russia wasn't a DotP once Stalin arrived but a bourgeois nation-state, despite Stalin desperately pretending otherwise.
No.1771467
>>1771461>what does the ussr not being socialist have to do with mls calling capitalist elements socialistnot very smart are you
No.1771469
>>1771467By that users claims the USSR would not have been socialist even if it was by their standards a DotP.
But as you are a most infantile of left-com breed you can't even grasp that simple point made by one of your educated brethren.
No.1771473
>>1771454There's nothing communist about "socialism in one country" and other such nonsense being embraced and basic proletarian positions being abandoned even decades before the country fell. Their behavior was completely different to Lenin who never pretended to be something they weren't, they should've taken the L.
Even the International was international in name only by that point, it was a vehicle for Russian national interests. Internationalism is a staple of the proletarian movement!
The USSR was a bourgeois, capitalist state using diplomatic, economic and most importantly political (i.e. military) means to overcome foreign barriers to its capital accumulation and expand its exploitation of the proletariat. It was imperialist, just like any bourgeois state.
No.1771474
>>1771454>>1771473Most of Stalin's foreign policy rested on the assumption that Socialism In One Country was possible. Saying you're working on exporting the revolution and actually doing it are very different - Soviet policy was mired in realpolitik and national considerations. They dissolved the Comintern!
Bordiga makes a very similar point regarding the way in which the USSR would still have been counterrevolutionary even abstracting from its economy.
No.1771477
>>1771433You'd just dismiss whatever proof so kill yourself.
Reactionaries like you simply wish to smear the USSR and promote the idea that communism is impossible m
No.1771478
>>1771474>Soviet policy was mired in realpolitik and national considerations. They dissolved the Comintern!Lmao. Dissolving the comintern is literally the opposite of the point you were trying to make. The comintern subordinated other communist parties to the national interests of the USSR.
Just shows how poorly read you people are.
No.1771479
>>1771477The USSR was not socialist because it didn't have a DotP (source: trust me). It was also not socialist if it did have a DotP! The USSR was a capitalist state, except capitalist economics will still exist under the DotP!
No.1771483
Admittedly I have yet to read the whole thing so here is a quick draw response.
>As long as profit has not been extracted it is not accumulation.
He's right.
>Surplus is embarrassing
>We educate the worker that surplus is needed by us
He's literally right, surplus is quite literally the secondary defining factor in post Neolithic society that helped progress things. Surplus is not bad, it's a necessity, if your socialist production, no matter how close to the vision it is, cannot also account for surplus and produce it anyway, you are on your way to societal collapse.
>If you only look to Marx for everything you will get nowhere
He's literally right as well, Engels and Marx got a lot wrong about anything outside of Capital and a few other in the moment writings.
>We had such theories, collective wages, communes, and this will not move us forward
I'm not sure about communes but collective wage is indeed retarded if not antithetical to socialism.
>People think that it is possible to run economy on the basis of equalisation
And they were right to politely call these people retards if anything, this isn't socialism it's liberal retardation.
If those screenshots are your examples of
>them talking about profit, private property, commodity circulation, the law of value, wages, etc. Just to then add the prefix "socialist". It's filled with retarded garbage,
You're actually illiterate.
No.1771486
>>1771483>Surplus is not bad, it's a necessity, if your socialist production, no matter how close to the vision it is, cannot also account for surplus and produce it anyway, you are on your way to societal collapse.look at our 'marxists' dawg
No.1771487
>>1771486Yeah, surplus wage extraction, the defining characteristic of capitalism in comparison to socialism is literally the thing Marx critiques. Again surplus is quite literally a necessity in any society. You are actually a utopian if you deny this because this is something history has shown is important in any developed civilization.
Even More stated in Utopia surplus was a important part of his civilization. If you are actually so retarded that surplus supplies are antithetical to socialism for you then–
Actually before we continue this argument, could you do me a favor and look into the barrel of my gun and tell me if my bullet is properly chambered or not?
That's the only adequate response to someone like you.
No.1771488
>>1771486A Marxist is certainly not what you see when you look in the mirror.
How is the DotP supposed to drive the revolution forward and supply goods to regions that haven't achieved socialised production if there is not a surplus beyond the workers needs for consumption?
No.1771491
>>1771477>>1771479>it didn't have a DotP (source: trust me)I'll repeat: internationalism is a staple of the proletarian movement and the USSR didn't have even that. So yeah, you're just being intentionally obtuse like all cultist leftoids whenever their sects are criticized. Marxism is a science, you know?
No.1771493
>>1771478That wasn't the goal of the Comintern at first back when Lenin was around, as stated literally in the same posts you're replying to.
<Even the International was international in name only by that point, it was a vehicle for Russian national interests.Again, MLs are genuinely braindead.
No.1771494
>>1771491>I'll repeat: internationalism is a staple of the proletarian movement and the USSR didn't have even that.Source: trust me bro
No.1771496
>>1771494>internationalism is a staple of the proletarian movementSource: Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
>and the USSR didn't have even that.Source: Stalin's change of policies.
Lmfao.
No.1771497
>>1771492>>1771493Then Stalin dissolving the COMINTERN was actually good because he'd corrupted it.
Also, I'm not the one double posting.
No.1771498
>>1771488>supply goods Only machinery and technique, not commodities in general.
No.1771499
>>1771496>Source: Stalin's change of policies.Source: trust me bro
No.1771501
>>1771498For machinery to be given it must still be made in surplus. Again you people are weasels who will make a critique using your imposed meaning of a word and then redefine the word when defending your own incoherent theory.
No.1771502
>>1771497>>1771499>I win because you deleted your post and posted it again with a minor fix and I can only respond with memesSmartest ML.
No.1771503
>>1771486What do you believe the word surplus means?
No.1771504
>>1771501>using your imposed meaning of a word and then redefine the word when defending your own incoherent theory.Are you talking about the USSR since Stalin here?
No.1771506
>>1771502You don't even deserve memes.
No.1771508
>>1771504Again a complete failure by the left-coms to give any actual examples. And they cry about being responded to with memes!
No.1771509
ULTRAS LIBERALS, IS THIS REALLY YOUR BEST? TELL ME WHY THE USSR WASN'T COMMUNIST. Give me your best and I will use it for my pamphlet against you if it is considerable
No.1771582
>>1771398>Deng was a successor to StalinismWow, who would have thunk?
No.1771587
>>1771584I love how we’re literally moving to pragmatism (Mao) as a basis for class struggle, not only as individuals, but as a general consensus.
The refusal to engage the overall capitalist system except in a state of deep exploitation weakens us constantly, and looking to adapt and transcend gives us power.
No.1771601
>>1771398Why should we care? The soviet people were perfectly happy to accept their socialist wages from working in state-owned factories. It's not like anyone serious was clamoring for the USSR to "abolish the value-form" in the 1950s.
No.1771610
Why is it so hard for some to accept the Soviet Union was a myriad of contradictions? That is leadership held contributory opinions brought on by the time and place they were in. Neither capitalist, nor communist. The usage of the socialist prefix was meant to denote this incomplete stage of development. This is why reading theory is useless if you only do so as a reading list.
In Marx's time, emphasis was placed on the Proletarian because the proletarian was the only class which survived capitalist development. It's why I don't decry the idea of Stalin's brutality. He carried out the primitive accumulation phase of capitalism with a DoTP at the head but did not see how this would ultimately lead to the absorption of Tsarist mechanisms and all their inefficiency.
>>1771601Because the Soviet Union is no more. Burying our heads in sand and behaving like liberals to create a false explanation of why paradise was lost isn't useful.
>not like anyone serious was clamoring for the USSR to "abolish the value-form" in the 1950s.Wrong actually. Khrushchev was had several plans to do so, but ultimately could not break through the bureaucratic morass. Soviet economist even presented a plan to abolish the money-form to be considered during a party congress as the Soviet Union produced enough to handle its own internal calculations.
This was the last symptom of authentic bolshevik struggle and attempts to realize the promises of both Lenin and Stalin. The Brezhnevite counter-coup made sure Gorbachev would rise to power only 14 years later as people no longer felt the Soviet system was developing toward a goal.
No.1771621
>>1771587It's part of the same old argument of "how do we make socialism in such a way that we don't need to struggle at all", i.e. a recipe of economical and political system that will never-ever could be coopted even in theory. No, dumbfucks, there will be struggle, there will be all kinds of power configurations, there will be discussions, there will be class politics which look at which policies benefit which class, and not just look at the dictionary of allowed policies
No.1771624
>>1771610>Khrushchev was had several plans to do so, but ultimately could not break through the bureaucratic morass.What fucking nonsense. Khruschev's reforms were aimed at nationalization of people's property while simultaneously giving directors free reign of their enterprises i.e. they quite literally tried to recreate capitalist class from zero
No.1771647
>>1771624Retard. Khrushchev was Stalin's golden boy. He was carrying forward the exact ideas Stalin had post war. He denounced Stalin just as Stalin denounced the old bolsheviks. Marxist-Liberals showing how little they understand about Soviet politics of the era. Instead, preferring the comforting fantasy of Khrushchev as the Judas of Stalin.
Khruschevite terror opened up important avenues of debate and allowed for new ideas to take center stage. This was the contradiction of his tenure. He did oversee the growth of private property but also made the communist party accountable to the proletariat class. During Khrushchev, Glushkov proposed the first indications of a Soviet internet. Under Khrushchev's final years he was presented with a plan to abolish money as a mechanism of exchange. He retreated because self-negation is always a hard process to oversee. What capitalist class? And if they were created why did Brezhnev, the arch-stalinite do nothing to destroy them? Could it be like Apostle Paul, the traitor to socialism was the one who claimed to speak for Stalin?
Just as many internet MLs today are as ignorant as the followers of Paul's church.
Lenin's On Ascending a High Mountain advocates for exactly Khrushev's approach to socialism's construction. A willingness to walk back down the mountain and find an easier path.
No.1771662
>>1771647>denounced Stalin just as Stalin denounced the old bolsheviksGo away false flagging cunt.
No.1771667
there's nothing wrong with accumulation
socialism isn't when wage labour is abolished
No.1771698
>>1771647You trying to somehow tie up Khruschev into Stalinism is profoundly retarded. "Khruschev was presented with a plan to abolish money", lmao. All it takes to refute your ridiculous claim is to offer you to read Stalin and then read Khruschev
>And if they were created why did Brezhnev, the arch-stalinite do nothing to destroy them?<arch-stalinite BrezhnevAre you high or something? Why did "arch-stalinite" Brezhnev didn't undo destalinization, then? Fact of the matter, however, was that Brezhnev came to prominence out of Khruschev's Virgin Lands campaign
>A willingness to walk back down the mountain and find an easier path.Nationalizing people's property and giving directors an autonomy of action with little to no oversight from the top is now an easier path towards socialism? Fuck you
First thing Khruschev did when he came to power was to seek VALIDATION FROM THE WEST. As such, Soviets themselves HAVEN'T SEEN KHRUSCHEV'S 20TH CONGRESS SPEECH AT ALL UNTIL 1990S. Westoids, though? Oh, they immediately got the copy of the speech :^) In fact, they've trolled Soviets via radio with this speech, radio freedom, VOA, all those shitholes mentioned excerpts from there while Soviets had no access to the full speech till 90s. Why's that, eh? WHY'S THAT?
Khruschev went as far as to give one-sided gifts to the West such as giving British the right to fish in Soviet waters without paying anything for it. Lena Goldfields got paid huge amounts of money, hell, Khruschev even went and admitted to bogus American numbers in regards to Lend-Lease and started negotiating payments. Fucker sold out Cuba for good relations with USA and let Americans put nukes in Turkey while pulling out of Cuba! Fucker went on to try and ally with quasi-fascist Tito, who've let British intelligence services guide fascists over his border into Hungary! Fucker did so much fucking damage to communism that FASCISTS rebelled in Hungary!
No.1771729
>>1771698Are you high or something? Why did "arch-revisionist" Khruschev didn't undo stalinism, then? Fact of the matter, however, was that Khruschev came to prominence out of Stalin's Great purge
No.1771747
>>1771398Retard. What they're saying makes perfect sense.
>they used the word profit, only capitalists do thatThey explained what it means. Surplus product is by definition necessary for any society to do anything but keep going, and building a proper socialist economy is one of the most materially demanding tasks out there. These are just the words already used to describe production giving more value than is put in.
>they had wages, capitalist word yet againOne of the first things in Capital is the fact that different kinds of labor add different amounts of value to the product. Different quantities do as well. A socialist society at this stage has to deal with that directly: "from each by their ability, to each by their labor". There is nothing capitalist about this either, every society prior to communism had to deal with that one way or the other.
>stalinismMeme word.
Stop repeating memes like
>le bureaucracy is LITERALLY capitalism>le socialism in one country is LITERALLY against the WORD OF MARX>le socialist production hasn't unquestionably defeated all other modes of production by the end of NEP, it's dotp guysYou uyghurs are not slick or smart with this, these are the first things any child sees "leftists" say about the USSR and then unquestioningly repeats. These were both debunked in words and shown to be wrong in practice all the way back in 1930s.
You can shit on the USSR all you want if you actually analyze what went wrong, because at the end there were contradictions and it DID destroy itself and leave us in this shitshow. These are just not it.
No.1771752
>>1771398>https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n2/5convers.htm<We have filth in our factories, but we want to go straight to communism. But who will let you in there? We are sinking in garbage and we want communism. In one large enterprise about two years ago they started breeding fowl – chicken and geese. Where does all this lead you to? Dirty people would not be allowed entry into communism. Stop being swine. And only then talk about entering communism. Engels wanted to go straight to communism. He got carried away.bruh
No.1771753
>>1771729>Why did "arch-revisionist" Khruschev didn't undo stalinismHe did
>Khruschev came to prominence out of Stalin's Great purgeNo, that's historical revisionism
No.1771755
>>1771753>He didHe didn't
>No, that's historical revisionismHe did
No.1782600
>>1782570That's basically a tax that goes the company which is owned either by the state or collectively
No.1782611
>>1782570The historical conditions of capital's existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities.
No.1782625
>>1782620We will learn that China did the same support to communist rebel groups in like 50 years
No.1782667
>>1771398This is why I'm kind of a fan of cyber socialist ideas because it is an attempt of quantifying time as labor and rather efficiently and in a way that raises the "value" of individual work in the sense that if you were to quantify this labor time that it would be worth alot in monetary terms. Like if in monetary terms you earn 15 bucks an hour and under this cyber socialist quantified economy you'd get paid something like 60 bucks an hour and that would buy you exactly as much stuff as it does today which basically makes everyone collectively richer. The Soviet Union did actually have way more social equality than most places on earth at the time, in fact the majority of post war economies had less inequality compared to the guilded age and roaring 20s.
No.1782742
>>1782570it's socialist if it calls itself socialist. don't deadmode the USSR, bigot
>>1782696>all capital will be rolled up into a single holding company in which everyone has stock and all necessities are provided for, ending all war, famine and brutalitywow I didn't realize Arthur Jensen is a communist
No.1782767
>>1782570>no profit in socialism<socialism is povertyIn socialist economy, over and above the profitability of particular enterprises and branches of production, a higher measure of profitability, inaccessible to capitalism, is attained–profitability on a national scale. This signifies that profitability is determined not only from the point of view of particular enterprises and branches of production, and not only within the limits of a single year, but also from the point of view of the whole national economy and over a long period. At the same time an increase in the profitability of individual enterprises and of whole branches of the economy is a necessary condition for acceleration of the rate of development of the whole national economy.
>>1782742>Absolutely hilarious to read them talking about profit, private property, commodity circulation, the law of value, wages, etc. Just to then add the prefix "socialist".You didn't read.
No.1782776
>>1782767>there can only either be profit or poverty>mistakes profit for surplusprofit and surplus are two different things
>You didn't read.you can attach the prefix "socialist" to things that serve socialist ends, or communist if you prefer, so long as you make the meaning clear. neither Marx nor Engelse were ever very clear on this, vacillating between communism-as-a-goal and communism-as-a-movement as appropriate
No.1782778
>>1782767Moaning about profit is a sign of a person who thinks that socialism is fundamentally different from capitalism, that socialism doesn't come out of capitalism but rather that it exists in a vacuum.
Socialist profits? What a big deal, SOEs pay workers wages and put the profits into govt budget. How is this innately capitalist, anti-socialist?
On a historical scale, we can look at it like this. Landowner class, feudal lords, didn't want to invest into industries, they wanted to invest only into land, and the conquests of land. They were a rent-seeker class that found themselves in a situation of finite soil reserves and inability to invest into anything but war at a certain point in time; liberalism and capitalism arose as an opposition to this, as a desire to break the idiocy of feudal relations and start investing wasted labor into much more productive enterprises. Capitalist relations existed in feudal times, however, they just weren't dominant.
Socialism arises out of capitalism the same way - there's a need to break out of the chains of idiocy and inefficiency which exist because the ruling class cannot see a better way of doing things. Modern libs don't really see a difference between capitalism and feudalism and don't understand why would feudal lords oppose such an improvement to everyone lives not even at the expense of feudal lords, if done right. Socialism would be seen as beneficial to everyone the same way, in retrospect - that stupid people in power opposed the thing they would benefit hugely from.
No.1782784
This book is Capital, but for the socialist mode of production. Communists must understand the communist mode of production; therefore, Communists must read this book. This book is the sublimation of Capital. Capital could not detail the socialist mode of production.
No.1783545
>>1782778It's almost like there are already existing terms for macroeconomics from this little economist you might not have heard of, his name was Keynes and he talked about input and output. I also consider it funny that some self proclaimed communists only want to look to the Soviet Union and act like the state owning an enterprise is the only manifestation of socialism when cooperatives or nationally owned enterprises can both be qualified as socialist. This means that all nations have germs of socialism within it, some more than others, even the US has socialism spread out throughout the country. Vietnam under this lens (which is the only realistic, pragmatic, and correct lens to view this) is very much a socialist country because of the sheer quantity of these forms qualitatively makes it a socialist state. Trying to argue in terms of "profit" will only lead to nonsensical circular arguments that go nowhere and end up retroactively calling ancient states or feudal kingdoms as socialist which is ridiculous and equally just as ridiculous in liberals retroactively calling ancient states as "capitalist" because they had an export economy or some stupid shit like that.
No.1783557
>>1771486"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?
But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
t. Marx
No.1783636
>>1782778>Moaning about profit is a sign of a person who thinks that socialism is fundamentally different from capitalismRuthless criticism always goes completely out of the window whenever it comes to MLs and the sort, huh?
No.1783668
>>1783545>KeynesStealing from Marx and copywriting away what you don't like there does not make you a great economist
No.1783670
>>1783636Ruthlessly criticize your ruthless criticizm, lmao
No.1783680
>>1783670gottem XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
No.1783683
>>1782767>>no profit in socialism><socialism is povertydo dengoids really
No.1783689
>>1782767>profitability on a national scaleThe qualification has to be made here though. GDP already measures economic output on national scales, and we already see smith talking about liberalism as the key to the "wealth of nations", where marx sees the wealth of nations as the poverty of workers. So "national wealth" is already something abstract and rhetorical. We see the keynesians plug in inputs with stimulations tomake line go up, but things keep getting worse.
So "national wealth" doesnt mean people get a bigger share in that wealth.
No.1783700
>>1783683If society does not profit, then it stagnates and dies
No.1783702
>>1783689>"national wealth" doesnt mean people get a bigger share in that wealth.It does in socialist mode of production. See Communist China. The people are richer every year. See America where the people are poorer every year.
No.1783717
>>1783702Seems less about production and more about distribution
No.1783725
>>1783700if it needs to profit to not "die" then it was never socialism in the first place
No.1783726
>>1783702lol this place is hopeless
No.1783739
>>1783726What do you don't like? That China is getting richer, or America getting poorer?
No.1783742
>>1783678Keynes plagiarized Marx and renamed concepts in order to fit them in with capitalism. And has failed to save capitalism, just like so many other economists before or after him. Latest crap - MMT - didn't even get to TRY getting implemented anywhere, and already they are thrown out of the discourse
No.1783743
>>1783739>What do you don't like? NTA I rest my case
No.1783745
>>1783700If it does not occur to you to use the proper term
surplus instead of
profit, you are a dummy.
>>1783725If it does not occur to you that the other poster meant surplus, you are an autist.
>>1783742If it does not occur to you to that the basic accounting identities of MMT are true whether people are aware of them or not, you are an autistic dummy.
No.1783750
>>1783745MMT is a stillborn shit that nobody even remembers anymore. Marxism, however, is a real science, and it will exist regardless of circumstances, and bourgeois economics are antiscientific scams
No.1783753
>>1783750Translation:
<I am mad at MMT and I have to bring it up in any conversation and MMT makes me so angry I crap my pants and I don't even know what MMT is.Are you Doug Henwood?
No.1783755
>>1783717It is about production since America's production is outsourced and whatever commodity is domestically made is done mainly by migrants workers to drive wages down. This is the natural result of the free market.
No.1783758
>>1783750MMT isn't a policy position, MMT only describes how the Federal Reserve system of money works in action. The people who talk about MMT are just Keynesians who are just more knowledgeable of the US's finances than most other Keynesians who are stuck in gold standard thinking despite the fact that we left the hold standard in 1971. If you want to criticize Keynesians that's fine by me, but criticizing MMT is like criticizing Newton for describing gravity.
No.1783760
>>1783753Translation:
<I am a libshit who believes in bourgeois progress and that Marxism is outdated No.1783761
>>1783755>america's production is outsourcedFor some things yes, for others no. But thats what happens when wages are uncompetitive.
>and whatever commodity is domestically made is done mainly by migrants workers to drive wages down.We have the minimum wage so wages cant automatically "go down". The thing with illegals is that they all live together in some cramped property until their children are naturalized and then they pay the way for the parents to survive.
>This is the natural result of the free market.Seems more like the result of political meddling.
No.1783762
>>1783758This is true
People dont really get that fiat is just the way things work now. We could go back and things could change but thats a different assertion than like "fiat money is fake and has no backing" or whatever plebian econ garbage people believe.
The gold standard was just a way to limit the money supply, not because gold is a magical substance like stackers imagine.
No.1783765
>>1783761>We have the minimum wage so wages cant automatically "go down"By nominal value but not in reality. Hyperinflation makes it so the working class have less material wealth and worse living conditions by the year even with the same exact wage. To reiterate better, Immigration/Migrants are used to stagnate wages and inflate the domestic job market.
>Seems more like the result of political meddlingOpposite logic, the rich are literally free to produce anywhere in the world as long as they can make a profit.
No.1783767
>>1783762Gold was USA's reserves. USA dropped their reserves because those ran out due to costs of war and space program. They managed to finnagle others into buying dollar, and on top of that USSR started to feed USA with surrenders
No.1783768
>>1783765Inflation is due to governments ruining currencies
>immigrants stagnate job marketsSure, but again, if wages were allowed to be lowered there would also be more jobs available.
If a company can only hire 100 people lets say at $10/hr then they could hire 200 people if it was set at $5/hr, and if wages were set lower then the price of goods would also lower to reach consumer incomes. I dont think low wages are always a bad thing. Lets say, you are looking to hire young people or old people. I think the biggest issue is housing and rent. Lets say we had a flat rate of rent, or "negative income tax" to stabilise incomes to a standard so that people could then build wealth from a foundation, wages wouldnt matter that much since wages are mostly wasted on rent anyway. Raising wages are a red herring that harms business and employment when what we need is to lower prices of utilities.
>the rich are literally free to produce anywhere in the world as long as they can make a profit.And if wages are too high they cant make a profit, so have to move somewhere else.
No.1783769
>>1783767We can see from germany's war bond scheme during ww1 that holding gold as a reserve fund is extremely retarded. Fiat is literally much better than the gold standard because you can at least expand the issuing of currency in case of an emergency, while in the past taxes were literally treated as fundraising.
(Back in the early days too taxes were actually voluntary - today, taxes arent added into the governments reserves - the government has infinite money, and could print infinite money if it also had an infinite economic output).
No.1783772
>>1783760Accounting identities are bourgeois? Are they also woke?
No.1783773
>>1783736Reusing the same shitty reaction images over and over is tantamount to namefagging btw
No.1783774
>>1783768>Inflation is due to governments ruining currenciesLol, 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
No.1783775
>>1783768>Inflation is due to governments ruining currenciesIt'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 thingNot 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 elseYes 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 foundationThat sounds like socialism comrade.
No.1783781
>>1783774>Explain how it worksInflation 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 wageTheres 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
No.1783784
>>1783781>all this incentive talkYikes. 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".
>ElaboratePeople go where they get paid more. If you pay handsomely for scams, people will increasingly become scammers
No.1783786
>>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.
No.1783791
>>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 scammersWell 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.
No.1783794
>>1783786If 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.
No.1783800
>>1783794If 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.
No.1783803
>>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 livingThe 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 conceptSo did Japan, pro natalist policies are just a cope if there's demographical collaspe in the first place.
No.1783804
>>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 dayOh, 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
No.1783808
>>1783750MMT is fine and more Marxists should know about it. fiat money the way it works today didn't exist in Marx' time
No.1783810
>>1783808>fiat money the way it works today didn't exist in Marx' timeUh-huh, how so? Fiat money is the same as gold money
No.1783812
>>1783800Did 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.
No.1783814
>>1783804>SOEs, worker cooperativesUnproductive 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 entirelyYes, 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 reasonWell 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 incomesYes 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.
No.1783816
>>1783810It 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.
No.1783818
>>1783814>Unproductive and inefficientChina 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 economyJust 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 idioticNah, 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 thingThere's zero practical difference between kinds of money. That's why nobody takes voucher schizos seriously
No.1783856
>>1783810>Fiat money is the same as gold moneyno 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 moneythere'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
No.1783900
>>1783816I 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".
No.1783910
>>1783900Money 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.
No.1783911
>>1783818>There's zero practical difference between kinds of money. That's why nobody takes voucher schizos seriouslyThe 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.
No.1783912
>>1783818>There's zero practical difference between kinds of money. That's why nobody takes voucher schizos seriouslyWell 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?
No.1783915
>>1783912They 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.
No.1783947
>>1783915vouchers 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
No.1783950
>>1783947Exchange and payment
Whats the difference?
>circulationWell 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.
No.1783990
>>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 sortperhaps. but it isn't free circulation
>still money in the technical senseit 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 moviea 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
No.1784011
>>1783990>a mere product and a commodity are not the same thingRight. 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 senseMarx 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?
No.1784024
>>1784011>capital only exists with liberalismcapital 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?
No.1784053
>>1784024This 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
No.1784242
>>1784053>I dont see the leap in logicI'm getting at the USSR doing precisely this, while the ruble was semi-free to circulate internally within the Union
No.1784279
>>1784242Well 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.
No.1784356
>>1784279>Planned economies just dont worklol
>Capital is efficient by designlmao
>To marx, technology doesnt create value and therefore the rate of profit (surplus/constant capital) lowers over timethat 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 warit isn't surprising that you think this since you deny the possibility planning in spite of historical evidence to the contrary
No.1784381
>>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.
No.1784391
>>1784356What 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.
No.1784408
>>1784381Well 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.
No.1784433
>>1784408>Well a commodity is created in a society that already operates by exchangeMore or less, yeah. I was just point out a technicality.
>I believe marx says that before exchange, people just created "use-values" aloneI 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.
No.1784479
>>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
No.1784519
>>1784433The 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.
No.1784573
>>1784519>Surplus-value is the unrealized substance of Valueit is literally realized in profit you theorylet
No.1784600
>>1784573No, 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.
No.1784633
>>1784519Use 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.
No.1784639
>>1784633Is 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.
No.1784641
>>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
No.1784642
>>1784639>marxists want to get rid of the surplusno they don't. every society that makes investments must also make a surplus. the issue is
who gets the surplus and
how much No.1784672
"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
No.1785149
>>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.
No.1785401
>>1785175>conditions of intercoursecommunism cannot happen until the
SÈX improves!
No.1786401
>>1784641So 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.
>>1784642That 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?
No.1786413
>>1784672I 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.
No.1809364
>>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.htmResponse?
Unique IPs: 47