I don't think I get it when people say they want to get rid of commodity production. Like I can see getting rid of the money part of the cycle by using Cockshott's version of labor vouchers which aren't money as we know it. People still need to consume and therefore they have to get produced in the first place, so instead of being sent to a market to get exchanged what happens with distribution? Does each individual consumer send a direct request for x amount of product and it goes directly there? Do we still have stores?
Commodities are created specifically for exchange on the market regardless of whether they're socially needed or not. Getting rid of commodity production is needed to shift societal production away from capital gain and towards social need until there is a society comprised of producers with free association. A society that gives what they create to society and takes what they need from society.
"Liking" has nothing to do with anything. Are you mentally stunted?
To try to put a finer point on it, the issue of commodity production is that products exist for the purpose of being sold for profit vs producing them for the purpose of being used. Most people have a sense of many problems with that when it comes to shit like planned obsolescence etc, but in terms of capitalism vs socialism, commodity production behaves almost like a natural force. Because the profit feeds back into the cycle and grows the business, profit is able to not only sustain itself, not only grow, but comes to dominate everything else. Exactly like cancer. You could hypothetically try to contain commodity production within a larger system, but feudalism tried doing that and it's how we got capitalism as the dominant mode of production.
Don't be so unnecessarily rude, it's a incredibly ugly personality trait, I'm just confused as to why so many people on a communist website defend and excuse commodity production when the goal for communist is to abolish it
I understand the general outline of what you're saying but I would like to know some of the more granular details if possible. How do you acquire what you consume when we've switched from m-c-m to I don't know what you would call it. Direct distribution? Request-manufacture-consume?
My guess is that because the US exists you can't really do that, so the priority has shifted from economic liberation to a strict anti-US geopolitics
It depends on how developed the productive forces are, in the lease developed nations of the world a person would squire their needs by way of labour vouchers which get products that took the same labour time to produce that you have put into society and labour vouchers unlike money are destroyed on use. This would only really be applicable to the absolute least developed nations on earth, for the much of the world there are more than enough productive forces to meet societies needs so you would just take what you need from society as at that point society has set production to be social
That's really stupid, you could have used that argument about the British empire or any other global power
So why still call yourself a communist at this point?
Just being “anti-US” isn’t an ideology, you can be slotted with groups such as the Taliban, countries like Iran, ideologues like duginists or whatever
Oh so like how Kropotkin proved there was enough food in Russia that it should just be a stockpile that anyone can just take freely, assuming I'm remembering the first half of Conquest of Bread correctly
Do you have a script or something that checks the catalogue for keywords like "anti-US" or "geopolitics"?
There weren't enough productive forces in Russia at that time and commodity production can't be abolished in a single entity which is why from before the revolution even started the Bolsheviks were banking and relying on being able to work off of other European revolutions
his retard american brain couldn't write that
Nope, I just read the thread and notice how proud half this board is to basically reject communism in favor of just hating America
It’s just a symbol of the ideological collapse of communism, it’s not any sort of political or working class ideology for people like this, it’s practically just seething
>>1108021>Hurr durr u is Murican u should respect me for worshipping third world eastern porky and having no politics other than America bad
I respect communists and no one else, keep seehing, vulgar campist fuck
And why does it matter who you respect? Since you can't even act like something even approaching a normal person?
It's a legitimate question
What does this even mean?
You mean I act like a communist rather than some shithead teenager on GenZedong or Left Twitter?
Because I have actual principles rather than>Le Western porky bad le Eastern porky good, Mao meme, seethe dilate XD XD XD
The thing is, I’m actually an adult, and that shit is retarded to me
What do you mean 'what does this mean?'
Think about how you present yourself
It's not, it's a non answer to a question and a shit insult
The question is a retarded-ass loaded question
It's impossible to abolish the commodity form what is possible is to create the material conditions for it to stop existing
If that's true why do I always see MLs and Leftcoms debating around the nature of the USSR? If it couldn't abolish commodity production without access to seized western capital (including raw resources from thr colonies) what's the point in debating the nature of the nature of the thing?
Should use one, checking every single thread every single day and scanning for stuff like this can get pretty exhausting. You could make a career and good money with this sort of stuff if you found the right employer.
Explain what it means
You’re not saying anything of value, you’re deflecting to personal attacks to not interact with what I said, namely that there’s no point in calling yourself a communist if you genuinely aren’t one
Why are you dancing around the point? You have to be a GZ poster, you have the feel of one; this is how teenagers behave
you are a mentally stunted westoid chauvinist
you don't have "points"
No it's not you, literally just asking why so many people on a communist website don't take issue with commodity production
Man, sorry people don’t just blindly agree with you
Sorry that some people on a communist board are actual communists and not just self-hating burgers that worship eastern capitalism and theocratic militia organizations like the Taliban
Sorry you have to encounter communists on a communist imageboard bro
sry are you still fucking your mom?
I'm not making fun about the mentally stunted part
I'm not a clinician but I have a couple theories
If you think commodities can't be abolished then why go on a communist website when communism requires commodities to be abolished>>1108039
The talk of the USSR is what prompted me to ask this question, the USSR plainly stated it produced commodities and a lot of people here don't take issue with it which is strange >>1108048
Your brand of humour is u n p a r a l l e l e d
Yea whatever it takes to dance around your own admission that you’re not even a communist and just the self-hating reflection of a western lib
I am sorry officer only communist, I will immediately convert to pan-africanism. And when I find these taliban-lovin' america-hatin' commoddity-lovin' capitalists they will be destroyed with upmost care.
You are literally a self-hating lib who also manages to be incredibly chauvinistic
>>1108016>Businesses already do market research and inventory to determine how much to produce.
Yeah, that's why they need to dump out huge amounts of unsold food, and why the US government subsidizes farmers and ag corps to slaughter millions of animals and let their produce rot.
Because it's a commodity.
“There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificates—died of malnutrition—because the food must rot, must be forced to rot.
The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”
>>1108059>Dammit why won’t you simp for non-Western porky damn you, why!? You’re such a fucking chauvinist, only supporting communists you fucking piece of shit, you fucking American, how dare you have principles, how fucking dare you!?
What leftism has devolved into
make more unhinged rage "points"
>>1108051>the USSR plainly stated it produced commodities and a lot of people here don't take issue with it which is strange
How is that strange when it literally wasn't possible for them to do so when revolution in Europe didn't take off? Should they have just stepped down from power? Allow some reactionary like Kornilov take over from Kerensky?
you can't sully the good name of whatever this dude subscribes to by actually effecting things in the real world
that is heresy
>>1108066>How is that strange when it literally wasn't possible for them to do so when revolution in Europe didn't take off?
them maintaining commodity production when it was literally impossible for them to abolish it isn't the problem, the issue i have are people who identify with the communist movement taking commodity production as something that is itself socialist.
call it what you want, call it camels, windowsills
what are you talking about?
if you don't want to call it socialism just call it a camel or something, camel country
are you having a episode or something?
>>1108074>>1108077>he knoweth not the works of the philosopher Parentius
shiggy diggy, verily
anyway I am bored of libs now
>>1108065>U r mentally ill>U r enraged>U r abnormal
And other statements to issue when you have no actual principles worth defending or standing for
What’s next, you’re gonna call me an American again?
>>1108078>the philosopher parenti
Your entire values in this thread consist of "anti-americanism isn't an ideology, it's literally taliban dugin and iran" and if that ain't the purest expression of american thought I don't know what is
>>1108087> Your entire values in this thread consist of "anti-americanism isn't an ideology, it's literally taliban dugin and iran"
Because you think this >>1107999
is an actual communist position, it isn’t
Also>U r a fucking American
Lmao you self-loathing GenZedong fuckers are as easy to predict as the sun rising in the morning, holy shit
I'm not even that guy >GenZedong
Not a maoist
You don’t need to be “that guy” you’re still defending his position>Not a maoist
Funny enough neither are the teens that post on GenZedong
I didn't, also I'm the guy calling you a fed
>>1108098>U r a fed<Why?>Why you didn’t support anyone that opposes the West regardless of their actual beliefs or positions of course
No, because you appear in every single thread that includes someone calling for support against america
>>1108102>You appear in every thread on leftypol
Holy fuck you’re retarded
>>1108087>anti-americanism isn't an ideology, it's literally taliban dugin and iran
Where's the lie, it's literally just virtue signaling for leftoids in place of having actual principles
Vulgar anti-americanism makes sense for countries that have a bone to pick with the US, for everyone else it's pretty absurd. There's a stark difference between "The US is a monstrous abomination of a country that I hate" and "The US is ontologically bad and uniquely terrible, therefore any country that opposes them is le good". It's a cheap replacement for class analysis for complete brainlets. As someone not from the West I really fail to see what the difference is between US bougies being the big boys globally and multiple countries bougies being equally big boys together, it's still the same shit
Nae, didn't say that or anything resembling it. And it's not like every thread includes it.
Nigha this is leftypol, vast majority of the threads here are anti-American, you ignore the ones with entirely different topics that I either post myself or do post in because you’re full of shit, you’re full of shit because you have no principles to defend
I think that commodity production should be abolished for products necessary for loving. It is simple to understand and tactics is strighforward. It will obsolete exploitation and unemployment, no one will have to work more than necessary by labor productivity and everyone can easily get a job in necessary production, do whatever they want in their huge amount of free time.
Abolishing all commodity production is confusing. How will it work, someone will mine coal and someone will be an actor full time? Why do you think they will want to be full time actors? The coal miner will have a vote in this or he will just work 8 h/day? Will coal miner have a vote on how much surplus they give away?
So I think abolishing commodity production in necessary for live products is way forward and may be it is not socialism, but should not stop anyone. If you concluded that abolishment of all commodity production is somehow.. ok, you do not need to do that, I mean this should not be a roadblock.
>>1108125>If you concluded that abolishment of all commodity production is somehow.. ok, you do not need to do that
commodity production has to be abolished in order to move onto socialism >Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their productshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
>>1108107>Vulgar anti-americanism makes sense for countries that have a bone to pick with the US, for everyone else it's pretty absurd.
For every others as in friends of the US? >There's a stark difference between "The US is a monstrous abomination of a country that I hate" and "The US is ontologically bad and uniquely terrible, therefore any country that opposes them is le good".
It's pretty uniquely terrible at the moment since no other country comes close to being as bad as it is atleast right now, but I don't see massive amounts of people supporting the taliban for anti-imperialism expect in the hypothetical scenarios of herr pan-africanism in the PRC thread, and that one trot thing.>I really fail to see what the difference is between US bougies being the big boys globally and multiple countries bougies being equally big boys together, it's still the same shit
I think the idea at the core of multipolarism is the small bourg toppling the US big bourg would be good because weak big bourg means chance at revolution, not the small bourg being better. So you are correct about them not being fundamentally different, it's the consequences of their actions that matter.
You are setting your self up for somebody to reply to you, "but my anti-Americanism isn't vulgar , i have sophisticated anti-Americanism "
I think that Americans in general aren't bad , but the US ruling class on the other hand might be "ontologically bad and uniquely terrible"
Think about the sanctions tactic, it's an economic weapon that targets the civilian population, the collateral damage is staggeringly high, it's not a particularly effective weapon, it's not toppling governments, it has a lot of blow-back, but they keep using it.
It doesn't invalidate class analysis to admit this.
Generally, sanctions are used because there's nothing else in this hostility "range". As international policies go it's the only thing there is between nothing and violence. That's why China is using sanctions at the moment for example, they have to do something, they won't declare war.
>>1108131>It's pretty uniquely terrible at the moment since no other country comes close to being as bad as it is atleast right now
That is precisely the point, vulgar anti-Americanism is short-sighted when America's position is temporary. The US isn't doing the things it is doing because it was summoned straight from Hell, it is precisely their position as world hegemon that compels them to defend it, ruthlessly. Any country, or coalition of countries, put into the same position would do the same thing, and even any "multipolar" order would be temporary as someone else inevitably takes the mantle. A multipolar order of cooperating bougies would actually be the nightmare scenario for communists, at least America has a talent for alienating their allies and creating needless conflict between imperialists>I think the idea at the core of multipolarism is the small bourg toppling the US big bourg would be good because weak big bourg means chance at revolution, not the small bourg being better.
It is exactly the window of opportunity created by bougies fighting eachother that is good, whoever comes out on top is completely irrelevant. There's no "big bourg" and "small bourg", there are only bourgs taking turns at ruling the world
people ain't gonna revolt against capitalism until the masses are impoverished, cold, hungry, maimed, and miserable, while the bourgies have riches, warmth, food, peace, and happiness next door, and there's weaknesses and structural instability that prevents them from effectively replying to popular unrest.
>>1108146>That is precisely the point, vulgar anti-Americanism is short-sighted when America's position is temporary.
Do you think it's being done out of pure principle of "america bad"? Things have to actually apply to what is happening here and now. If you were to act in opposition to the primary thing holding back socialism, at the moment that would be anti-American, at other points it would be different things. The entire argument against multipolarism always seems to come back to this "no you can't apply this in a kantian manner to all periods and times otherwise it doesn't work"
>>1108113>vast majority of the threads here are anti-American, you ignore the ones with entirely different topics that I either post myself or do post in
I'm talking about you being in every single one of them that specifically include supporting someone against the US, not just the ones saying they are bad. I don't see how this relates to the you claiming that I said you are in every thread here. Your "defending muh principles" on some website 24/7 propably ain't healthy to be constantly online. Why do you obsess over principles anyway? Are you a moralist of some kind? No need to be so mad.
It depends what is meant by a commodity; If its a good/service that is produced for profit then the goal is eventual total abolition.
If it just means a good/service that is sold, then commodities continue to exist in socialism and communism for final consumption (ie. A consumer goods/services market continues to exist to balabce supplies).
In the USSR under Stalin, large swathes of the economy no longer produced commodities in either sense; In the first sense it continued to exist in the worker artels, kolkhozes and petty production trade with the state, as well as the state's trade with the rest of the world.
So that's it, huh? We're some kinda Grapes of Wrath?
I don't see anything to disagree with here, of course capitalist/non-marxist anti-americanism is bad. I just think it's silly to always assume that anyone saying iran defying america=good is literally satan and retarded.
>>1108158>If it just means a good/service that is sold, then commodities continue to exist in socialism and communism for final consumption
this doesn't exist in socialism >Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their productshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
Not only land, but everything necessary for biological living, including eduction and what else, depending on the moment, it is not stationary but can be enumerated. It is a big system.
If it is land only, I think I understand what Stalin meant. Say you need new machines to process the land, bank gives you the money but under condition and if you can't pay back, they take the land. But my system has it's own bank.
I'm saying, if you confused about abolishing of all commodity production, this should not stop you. >>1108130
The system produce by plan for it's workers. It is a big system and can produce almot everything necessary for biological living. The market is used only to trade with non-system people.
>>1108154>Do you think it's being done out of pure principle of "america bad"?
Yes? >If you were to act in opposition to the primary thing holding back socialism, at the moment that would be anti-American
How? America isn't "holding back" socialism, America's ruling class i.e. bougies are fighting against it tooth and nail, as does every country's bougies. What stake do proles in an inter-bougies struggle except seize the opportunity to fight against their own? It's not as if America losing their place as global hegemon would magically bring about socialism, we've seen in Kazakhstan that the ebin multipolaristas are just as skilled at putting down proles when they get too rowdy as the Americans. Once again, the fact that they are fighting one another is what is good, it means they lack the coordination and cohesion to successfully put down proletarian revolts, but whichever bougies come out on top in this struggle is completely irrelevant.
>>1108186>The system produce by plan for it's workers. It is a big system and can produce almot everything necessary for biological living. The market is used only to trade with non-system people.
the market fundamentally does not dictate production for use
>why do so many people on this site like commodity production?
point out one (1) example
Maybe there’s a problem when half the fucking people you support aren’t communists and are literal enemies of communists and maybe that problem isn’t with me?
Maybe you’re just a cynical piece of shit that doesn’t believe the working class stands a chance against capitalism and hope that religious fundamentalists or porkies will save you from other porkies?
Not sure I understand, but so what? The system produce products and services neceaary for biological living. So it do not have to produce every consumer sutpidity poorely for pofit to keep working, the food, etc is necessary, will always be required.
>>1108218>>Why do you use leftypol instead of reddit?
Hard to tell the difference these days, I wish we could exile the genzedong immigrants
>>1108216>Not sure I understand, but so what?
Commodities are not products that are made for social use, they're made to be sold on the market, commodities and the market do not exist in socialism
I still do not understand in relation to what I'm saying. My first message was on if ALL commodity production have to be abolished. If workers produce for themselves, planned, everything necessary for biological living. But they do not produce everything, so they have to trade food for say video games, but on their terms. I ommit implementation details, but it is transparent for workers.
Why is this not socialism? I did not say it is socialism, I no longer understand what socialism is. But what I'm talking about allow the workers to work only labor time necessary by labor productivity, lots of free time, no unemployment.
>>1108241>so they have to trade food for say video games
workers do not trade their products >Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their productshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
>>1107982>regardless of whether they're socially needed or not
Not only that, but what actually matters most is the bourgeoisie of your own country being incoherent and disunified; it doesn’t matter whether international porkies are fighting if your own porkies have the unity to put you down
if youre such a fucking marxist then why dont you start answering the question instead of being a massive uyghur about bullshit
Answer what question reddit shitter?
You didn’t ask me any question, you asked me why I post on leftypol and why I don’t simp for ebin non-Western capitalism you dull fuck
>>1108143>Generally, sanctions are used because there's nothing else in this hostility "range". As international policies go it's the only thing there is between nothing and violence.
No sanctions cause harm and death to large numbers of people. This is a very violent weapon. The distinction between mechanical destructiveness of a cannon and structural systemic destructiveness of economic weapons is no reason to classify this as any less hostile. If the result is that people are harmed or killed, it's a weapon of war, end of story. Starving people to death or depriving them of vital medication and supplies is brutal barbaric shit.
The US sanctions in the Ukraine conflict are going to cause mass starvation in parts of the global south, those will likely kill more people than the Russian artillery on the battlefields in Ukraine.
The ideological reason why sanctions are seen as less aggressive is because it doesn't affect wealthy targets as much as it does poor targets. A big bomb indiscriminately kills the wealthy and the poor alike if dropped on their heads. But sanctions do discriminate, they affect poor people much more than wealthy people.
Your attempt to downplay structural violence is infuriating.
the thread question answer it faggot
How tf should I know, I’m not some multipolarista to begin with
Maybe they browse too much GenZedong and watch Grayzone idk, Grayzone are the ones promoting that you can be a communist that loves and supports reactionary porkoids
i think commodity production will still exist until trading with capitalist nations is needed, that is until at least a sizable part of the world is under socialism.
stalin posts on leftypol?
>why don't you just press the communism button?
more like why do you think socialism is just capitalism
But they do not trade their products between themselves. If some communist tribe will exchange with aliens from space, they will not stop being communist.
Communism is utopian. Commodity production and profits are a necessary part of industrial economies. When commodity production is abolished it has catastrophic effects. Instead of viewing PROFIT as some capitalist aberration with no social place, you should consider it as another critical social need. Economies that do not produce profit are failing to fulfill a need, producing 0 profit is like producing 0 food or energy. It starves out everything else.
The grayzone has a nuanced view on Russia, and they just promote conditional critical support for anti-imperialism.
Their stance is pretty much just the standard leftist position. The center mainstream in the west has shifted more towards the right, and now you are trying to police the discourse to force everybody else to shift rightwards as well. >>1108268>stalin posts on leftypol?
Necromancer Stalin is among us.
you can still extract surplus value without commodity production
Nigha Ben Norton was making arguments in defense of Muhammad Bin Salman like two weeks ago, fuck those unprincipled nighas>>1108286>Communism is just utopianism!<If your society isn’t geared around profit accumulation it is failing
Leftypol 2022 everyone 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Capitalism is utopian. Corvées and tributes are a necessary part of agricultural economies. When corvée is abolished it has catastrophic effects. Instead of viewing TRIBUTES as some feudal aberration with no social place, you should consider it as another critical social need. Economies that do not produce tributes are failing to fulfill a need, producing zero covées is like producing 0 food or energy. IT starves out everything else.
what is this graph needed for? it's pretty easy to understand the process, marx lays it out very clearly.
>>1108062>Yeah, that's why they need to dump out huge amounts of unsold food…>Because it's a commodity.
Would you say a society that doesn't do that doesn't have commodity production?>>1107982>Commodities are created specifically for exchange on the market regardless of whether they're socially needed or not.
There is no communist crystal ball. So some things will be produced without need (in hindsight) under communism as well, it will just be less common.>>1108130 >>1108180 >>1108244
According to CotGP, in the lower phase of communism a working person's contribution gets a score and consumer items are also scored. And what a working person can cosume of these items is based on how high the sum of their scores is compared to the contribution score, minus deductions from the contribution score to cover the infirm etc. Yet this is explicitly declared not to be commodity production. What fraction of people who refer to themselves as Marxists against commodity production align with that, ten percent? Do you align with that?>>1108286
What do you think profit is? Picture a big-ass state-owned factory can produce stuff and react to demand by increasing or decreasing production of this or that. Suppose it operates on a break-even basis. Why would that be bad?
Read the first few lines of Das
>>1108307>There is no communist crystal ball. So some things will be produced without need
Commodities aren't things that don't meet a need, especially since alot of them do, commodities are things that are made with specific purpose of being sold on the market>>1108306
It's a very big part of it, there's a reason why capital starts with the analysis of the commodity form>>1108286
Yeah, they're not necessary for meeting societies needs however>When commodity production is abolished it has catastrophic effects
Commodity production has yet to be abolished so idk how you can say that>Instead of viewing PROFIT as some capitalist aberration with no social place, you should consider it as another critical social need.
The entire concept of profits do not take social need into account
read my text again and search what is only in the dictionary.
>>1108298>Nigha Ben Norton was making arguments in defense of Muhammad Bin Salman
Yeah that's bullshit, Norton just explained an intra monarchic feud between princes struggling for power since the old king is half dead. Norton just said that Bin Salman was more independent from the US than his predecessor.
He may sound a little bit enthusiastic about the US and Saudi Arabia growing apart, but that has nothing to do with him defending middle eastern oil monarchs. There is an economic oil-money cycle between Wall-street and the Saudis that is particularly detrimental to leftist US politics. If that grows weaker, the US might get more room for leftist domestic politics.
the ussr doing commodity production in a limited capacity (kolkhoz -> state and state -> international trade) doesn't mean the board is pro-commodity production
imagine if all of M'
was either redistributed to the workers, or reinvested in purchasing more means of production. If none of it was skimmed off the top for the personal benefit of the company capitalists (board of directors, shareholders, CEOs) and all of it got reinvested in the labour power and means of production, that would allow for growth without profit, and fairer payment for labor power. This is what I think a lower stage of socialism where commodity production still exists and the state hasn't yet withered away would look like. Instead of having a CEO/shareholder/board of directors you would have state-owned-enterprises.
>>1108513>or reinvested in purchasing more means of production
That's how capitalism works, how do you think that local burglar joint on the corner was able to open up another franchise?
this. Some people think Stalin should have just abolished commodity production by wishing to a genie. They are failing to understand that the territory of what became the USSR was ravaged by Russo-Japanese War, WW1, the civil war, allied intervention into the civil war, etc. And that's before WW2 killed 24 million soviets and destroyed 2/3 of their industrial capacity and the marshall plan rehabilitated Japan and Germany as anti-communist US puppet states.
The USSR was never, in its entire history, really in a position to stand up as defiantly as they wanted to in a capitalist-led world order ready to surround, blockade, sanction, and invade the fuck out of them. They had to play ball. They had to sell grain on the international market. They had to import foreign capital to rapidly develop. They actually got help from US capitalists during rapid industrialization. The US capitalists were willing to work in a socialist market because of the 1929 crash. The socialists accepted help from the US capitalists because they needed to prepare for encirclement by European Great Powers.
Socialism In One Country was not a magical sandbox simulator for socialist policy where you got to pretend you had a global revolution and there are no longer imperialists to fuck with you. It was fundamentally a compromise between what the communists wanted and what the capitalist-led world had to offer. I mean for fuck's sakes the USSR inherited tsarist/WW1 semi-feudal conditions that were so bad that Lenin had to rely on food aid from Herbert fucking Hoover of all people and institute the NED. This wasn't some kind of ideological betrayal. It was necessary for survival.
>>1108537>Some people think Stalin should have just abolished commodity production by wishing to a genie
I've never criticised the Bolsheviks for not abolishing it when it was literally impossible. I'm criticising why people are fine with it and consider commodity production to be socialist itself
I never said that wasn't how capitalism works. I'm talking about if *all* of M'
was re-invested in Means of Production and Labor Power. As things currently stand a significant portion of M'
gets skimmed a personal profit by the capitalist class. They get to live in luxury by living off a portion of M'. Under capitalism they get to own the means of production and labor power. I'm talking about a system where the cycle is fundamentally the same but the capitalist is removed and no longer able to skim part of M'
, and the workers' state gets to own the enterprise collectively, and decide how to divide up M'
between labor power and means of production (no capitalist skimming). the population is continuing to grow and the workers state must compete with the capitalist states so it is still of necessity that means of production be purchased to grow the state-owned enterprise. But pretending it's the same as a capitalist enterprise is a mistake.
>>1108544> I'm criticising why people are fine with it and consider commodity production to be socialist itself
nobody thinks commodity production is socialist in and of itself. we think socialists who create states in imperfect conditions have to work with some form of commodity production while they attempt to transition to something better. If anyone really thinks commodity production is A-OK with no asterisks, then they are not a socialist. You have my blessing to say that, not that you should need it.
Do you think the lower phase of communism as described in Critique of the Gotha Program has commodity production?
>>1108546>I'm talking about if *all* of M' was re-invested in Means of Production and Labor Power
That literally cannot happen as the capitalist needs to use some of that money for his own needs>>1108554>nobody thinks commodity production is socialist in and of itself
MLs and Maoists do>>1108562
imagine not investing 100% of M into means of production
Whoever runs and owns the firm
Do you not read to the end of posts before replying. Just go back a few posts in the chain: >>1108546>I'm talking about a system where the cycle is fundamentally the same but the capitalist is removed and no longer able to skim part of M', and the workers' state gets to own the enterprise collectively, and decide how to divide up M' between labor power and means of production (no capitalist skimming).
The state still acts as a capitalist and abides by the logic of capital, nothing fundamentally changes
Business don't operate internally under the law of value though, and if we posit the state as acting under the logic of capital, then the state appears as a hostile business to foriegn states but internally it does not act with valued actors.
>>1108629>The state still acts as a capitalist
1. A capitalist is a PERSON, genius.
2. The capitalist does not re-invest 100 % of the profits, are you insane?
>>1108638>Business don't operate internally under the law of value though
It still has to compete on the global market so the law of value still dictates production>>1108639
The state takes on the role of the capitalist, in a situation where the state owns all industry and has to compete on the world market it has to act as a capitalist
>>1108644>It still has to compete on the global market so the law of value still dictates production
That's not something the state can, on its own, change though. At that point you're limited to the rest of the world each nationalizing and then conglomerating.
>>1108646>That's not something the state can, on its own, change though
Then why did anon bring up such a redundant hypothetical "hey instead of a capitalist society how about we have a capitalist society but only run by the state"
Because that's the furthest that society can develop until the world catches up, i would imagine?
>>1108644>has to compete on the world market
Who says that it has? If there are enough resources within the region (in particular food and energy) foreign trade may be entirely voluntary. I also don't see how this would change the part with re-investing 100 % of the profits, you know, the part where it's different from capitalism. Looks like you have no argument.
The lease developed nation on earth has a larger manufacturing industry and urbanised populace than England did when the communist manifesto was written, what is being developed here exactly?>>1108652>Who says that it has?
Anon did with his hypothetical here >>1108546 >the workers state must compete with the capitalist states so it is still of necessity that means of production be purchased to grow the state-owned enterprise.
>>1108652>I also don't see how this would change the part with re-investing 100 % of the profits
Because that's literally impossible as the state has other expenses besides industry
Still doesn't change the part with re-investing all of the profits. So…>>1108662
Profits are considered here after tax.
Literally just capitalism, just accumulating more and more capital and for firms that achieve a profit in the first place
You appear upset about mere naming conventions
. What would be a meaningful difference between what >>1108546
proposes and what is proposed in Critique of the Gotha Program. Why would one be capitalism and the other not. Did Marx ever speak of a capitalism without capitalists.
>>1108673>What would be a meaningful difference between what >>1108546 proposes and what is proposed in Critique of the Gotha Program
Well for one thing commodities don't exist
>>1108677>Well for one thing commodities don't exist
Do commodities exist in TANS?
>>1108660>The lease developed nation on earth has a larger manufacturing industry and urbanised populace than England did when the communist manifesto was written, what is being developed here exactly
Social organization and the fact that the market systems still operate internally within countries instead of mass nationalizations. That is a form of development that seems to go ignored but is pretty crucial.
Not vague at all>>1108681
What does TANS mean?
Towards A New Socialism.
Whats confusing about the idea of social organization?
A chaotic array of firms each trying to gain a greater share of a single society's resources and wasting enormous amounts of a society's resources (see: advertising budgets, unemployment, structural failures of overproduction) is a much less developed form of social organization than planning out how production and distribution happens.
How is that relevant?
>>1108694>wasting enormous amounts of a society's resources (see: advertising budgets
What resource are as budgets wasting? Money?>structural failures of overproduction
Overproduction exists so long as capital exists and if commodity production exists then so does capital>is a much less developed form of social organization than planning out how production and distribution happens.
If commodity production and by extension capital still exists then so does everything you listed, your literally just wishing for a "nicer" version of capitalism
Towards A New Socialism
it's a book by Paul Cockshott and Allin cottrell
free pdf https://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
What the actual fuck are you on about?
You are aware that the money being spent on advetrising means labor time spent on just arguing over who gets what? Money actuly represents exhausted labor time and the resources it takes to get those labor hours into work.
So you want all money just dedicated to buying capital and hiring workers?
It's a great book , very concise and to the point (less than 200 pages), you should read it.
>>1108704>If commodity production and by extension capital still exists then so does everything you listed, your literally just wishing for a "nicer" version of capitalism
Im talking about developing the means by which the commodity form is abolished by expamding the "unit" of production until there is nothing external to that society.
People don't know about all the products in the world. Where is it written that all advertisement will disappear with socialism?
Theres more than just physical means of producrion that go into this sort of mass nationalization. Effort should be invested into, for example, setting up more effective means of transit and logistic, redesigning housing units, re-socializing people to fight the sociopathy of capitalist competition, improving rural resource distribution, etc.
But that's the goals for now
. Nobody says "thats far enough, we dont need to develop society anymore". Nationalized economies are, well, nationalized. They need to be internationalized next. You have to assemble the parts of a project, then assemble the parts with each other. Its a continuous process of building up networked layers on top of one another while taking out parts that arent needed anymore. I'm not saying "state capitalism is enough/cool and good", just that it's a necessary intermediate.
Kind of like engineering for production. You need various jigs and intermediate chunks and things dont all progress at the same rate.
do get to a stage where commodities no longer exist you would need to pass through a lower socialism and a higher socialism that would grow out of a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist class. Killing porky does not mean an instant end to commodities, it means an end to porky skimming M'
as proposed in >>1108546
, what >>1108546
is talking about is lower socialism, after the throw of the bourgeois class, and before the elimination of the commodity form. Use values and exchange values (which together form the commodity) do not disappear overnight just because we will it.
I think this concludes the thread>>1108019
also you don't need a script for that, there's a search function
it's how I found this garbage thread again
this thread, omg
to answer ur question, i place a lot of blame on popular marxian economists who give a watered down socialism
people just gotta actually read marx (and lenin), simple as
Unique IPs: 31