Yugoslavia's economy and USSR's economy

?

The fuck was this ban for?

Other one was the dominant world power that changed the history. Other betrayed the revolution.

you see, this is because people take shit way out of context and have absolutely no knowledge of history

The soviet union after Hruschev's coup d'etat could be called a form of market socialism and only differed from Titoism in the fact that it had more strict government management.

the split was between Tito and Stalin, yet people always compare Hruschev's and the laters economic policies to Titoes, which is historically illiterate, since they both mended their relations and had very simmilar economic policies.

the USSR economy under Stalin however was very different and it is what caused the split in the first place. Under Stalin's administration the MoP was nationalized and administrated by government sectors made out of worker elected soviets, and specifically the farmwork was collectivized. The difference being in that under Tito you had state funded and created factories privately owned by workers in those factories, competing on the market with other such factories, owned by workers, and this ownership of factories was much more loosely controlled by the state. Generally speaking the manager of these factories was a member of the party 70% of the time, and if he wasn't he was regularly checked up on by the party.

In the soviet system the factories and the general industrial complex were more closely tied with the state, with 'manager's that were elected by the workers of the factories, being promoted trough the worker's voting into the council of the soviet county they are in, so technically the MoP is directly administrated by the state but the people administrating came from workers themselves, and can be voted out of office whenever.

I hope I explained it well english ain't my language.

they will first go on defending Tito and then they'll say that they don't want another Yugoslavia when you point out the huge pile of stinking shit it became :^)

and this is coming from someone who's from former Yugoslavia.

bullshit familia, the fall of Yugoslavia was due to its economy being not able to compete with other states. They literally had no money by the end of their experiment and were depending on IMF loans. The rest is history.

Nice infantile disorder, leftcom.

Infantile disorder is about participation in elections. What does it have to do with the topic?

leftcoms and ml literally won't recover from this

Wew lad. Wake up and have a look outside. This is the 21st Century and it's full of bread.

One half of leftcoms will tell you planning should be limited to exclusively pre-automated conditions, the other will outright tell you planning is idiotic (marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/08/nonsense-planning.htm) and a labor voucher with simulated markets (arkets) is optimal.

If only they actually liked planning as much as they claim they do: sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipo/lipoebubie.html.

Excellent work comrade, an extra labor voucher has been added to your allowance.

You still don't understand the difference between a commodity market and an artificial market (I'll give you a hint: one involves generalised exchange, the other doesn't).
Also that last part is fucking retarded: planned production wouldn't mean trying to produce the exact amount of a given product to be consumed (which is literally impossible), there'd be a fucking buffer stock to prevent shortages like that from occurring.

Oh, and all marxists that aren't titofags know that commodity production is incompatible with socialism, it's not just leftcoms and fucking stalinists (many of whom seem to think otherwise).

>One half of leftcoms will tell you planning should be limited to exclusively pre-automated conditions, the other will outright tell you planning is idiotic (marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/08/nonsense-planning.htm) and a labor voucher with simulated markets (arkets) is optimal.
Paul Mattick is attacking the notion of planning in a capitalist context, not in a socialist context. He's rightly calling planned capitalism a contradiction in terms.

Can I have an extra height too?

I know; I'm replying to a (ethical/horizontal) capitalist, or market 'socialist', who believes private enterprise producing commodities for exchange on the market equals socialism as long as every member of said enterprise has equal shareholding and does participatory voting meetings every now and then.

what kind of meme is this, just because you label it as "artificial" doesn't mean its not a market

think about the man in my meme, the iron he produced might or might not have use-value for him, he is producing it solely for its exchange value

it is a market

reading this right now, thanks

...

Please, really, stop disgracing yourself.

...

fucking TRIGGERED me

It's not being produced in order to be exchanged for other commodities, and as such the value form doesn't exist in this particular context.
The only thing that can really be said to be exchanged for the product in the context of an artificial market is time.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

He keeps digging.

He doesn't indeed. Society does.

It wasnt market socialism in the sense that the government owned all of the means of production. All industry was owned by the state, all profit was for the state to use. The state plans things, builds them, produces commodities, sells those commodities and uses the profit to invest in new industry.

On the other hand, in yugoslavia, the workers owned (a majority or all?) of the means of production and they we're managed by the workers. The profit was for the workers to devide (after taxes and all that). In the end, the workers we're the official owners of the factory and they got to keep the profit.

Because therefore the owners technically owned the means which they used to produce, people call it market socialism. However, this is debatable since socialism is often meant to mean collective ownership of the means of production, by all of society. This same view is why some consider the ussr to be socialism, because those people view the party vanguard as the representatives of the people.

Its all a bit nitpicky since marx himself never made hard, clear distinctions between socialism and communism.

As for a market, a market is any place where goods are sold and bought. The USSR used a consumption market too, but since it was not the main facet of the system, but merely a means of distribution, it is not characterised by it. Yugoslavia's system however was characterised by the market and the companies that worked in it, with a socialist stroke on it. Hence the distinction.

Correct me if im wrong.

How does that work, exactly?

Fucking overdue.

Didn't stop the leftcoms from sperging out and calling everything state capitalist. Heads up btw.

but that isn't a market at all according to orthodoxs marxist :>)

make a market just dont call it a market

Exchange without capital (dead labor resulting from wage labor) as enabled by a universalized non-exchangable currency form (labor vouchers, personal credit, etc.) as opposed to the money form. It is basically what Marx proposes in Critique of the Gotha Programme and what the communist movement later adopted and refined.

Ayy, I'm back already tho. The reason I was banned is basically because I went too far with the bullying on some of my posts by adding a few screenshots of reddit autism (pics related), which made BO/a mod(?) think I was a redditor that came here to ruin the cohesion or whatever. When I appealed I explained that it's the equivalent of posting screenshots of /r/fullytriggeredism going full idpol (which everyone does often) I was quickly unbanned.

Oops, forgot to take off shitposting flag.

Queue the leftcom porky jpeg lads.

I KNEW IT

that might not be capitalists money, but its a representation of commodity money

the most widely accepted definition of money is that it is an object that can be usedmedium of exchange, unit of account, and can store of value

literally the same a labour voucher would do

What did he mean by this?

So aside from the fact that you almost get the most common definition right (but for the wrong term), this type of reasoning is basically an appeal to popular ignorance. The common definition of capitalism is also 'free markets and no gubermand', but this does not make it the proper definition. The reason we utilize Marxist terms is because, as socialists and communists, we take reference a framework which functions in conjuction with our goal (a post-capitalist society).

Anyways,
[the definition of 'money'] is an object that can be used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, and can store of value
That would be the definition for 'currency' (both in the general sense and Marxist sense). Because 'currency' merely means 'universally accepted barometer for value'. Money is a specific type of currency which is dependent on capital (dead labor), because it is representative of exchange-value (this is where any currency becomes 'money').

A labor voucher, which is based on time worked, represents only use-value because it is directly representative of labor time, unlike the money form which represents the remnants of labor time after surplus extraction (this becomes capital; dead labor).

For the nth time, a labor voucher or personal credit is directly consumed upon use or purchase and is non-transferrable. This is not a very hard concept to grasp, and labor vouchers have even been used as currency in ordinarily capitalist economies during economic crises or times of war where inflation ruined money's market value to obscenely low levels and [a labor voucher] would, unlike money, be one-time use only and then be destroyed or deprecated. Such systems have even been implemented with computer systems, with the voucher being an encrypted digital signature that gets erased after use.

Oops, I sage'd.

Discoursive bump.

the labour voucher wouldn't represent the same exchange as in a bourgy economy, but it represents the commodities you manufactured, there will be a point where you will manufacture solely for its exchange value

no, currency is the physical representation of money

the US dollar is a currency, however it is also money
credit cards are not currency, but they are considered money

I agree completly, however you are something you are forgetting, you are still producing commodities in order for them to be exchanged for others, using labour vouchers as money, it is not a currency however

but there are several monetary systems that work just like that

true, they are not currency, but they represent the tool used to engage in an exchange in commodities, account them and store value, because you can store them

that directly implies they are money

the concept of money englobes the concept of currency

that sounds just like commodity money 2bh

As a non-transferrable currency form, it would not represent exchange at all!

It represents only the amount of labor time invested.

It is not. As you yourself further cite as an example (but improperly so)
(this still makes sense, but)
Credit cards are a medium for containing the money currency form, in the same way paper money contains the exchange value corresponding with the universally-agreed upon value of money's value as currency. You are here either making a crucial mistake or brainfarting, or an outright lazy sophism.

This (and the rest of your post as well) indicates that you don't understand the difference between currency (legally-agreed universal system for value) and money (which is a form and type of currency), and that you do not understand the dynamics of non-exchangable currency types such as labor vouchers or personal credit versus exchangeable currency types like money.

I'm really trying to help you understand these things here, and if you want I can provide reading material.

But it would, think about gift coupons for example

They are not transferrable and can be exchanged for commodities

Manufacturing useful commodities, otherwise the mudpies argument would be correct, and we know its not

I am not saying labour vouchers would be a form ofmcurrency, but they conform to the concept known as money

For the 100th time: you will not exchange labour vouchers.

Would you mind writing out a few critiques of the system? There are too many marksocs here who just go "Eh, Tito did it so I don't need to think about it."

So you wonr exchange labour vouchers for commodities in the supply store??

I think you meant to write that vouchers cannot be exchanged between workers, but that is moot because the commodities that will get delivered to the workers after traiding the vouchers are exchangeable

We won't.

Why did you post that pdf? It appears to be a lame socdem wishlist, spread over more than 500 pages. From the end:

I just read the two first page of introduction, He started by rejecting lame socdem

So how are you going to get supplies?

I will walk in the store, take what I need, register it, and walk out. The exact same I do today, but without exchange.

So what if I grab everything in the store? What if I dont work either?

From a Former Yugoslavian.
Our economy was nuked to establish the heroin and rapfugee route into Europe, sponsored by the Clintons and the Saudis.
Same with Greece.

It was reasonably successful part market economy with workers initiatives. But when IMF got the control of the economy they basically shot it in the head.

Why do all central and eastern Europe are falling for Holla Forums views ?

More underclass workforce is always good.

And what do you think caused the nationalistic friction? Busted economy by the IMF. You just hear the flashy points in the media but no one mentions that 80' were full of inflation and a severe depression in the economy.

Lowers the average wage and D&C the population. Plus, we're just cattle to be exploited and moved about.

You mean the refugees that refuse to stop in any country between ME and Germany and demand free money, cars, apartments and women?
And FYI usually women and children flee from wars. The scum that comes to Europe is 80% male and commits rapes of women and children.
These are not refugees but invaders going for the carcass of Western civilization.

It's pure fucking logic. I'm not getting a goodthink filter installed just becouse the media and the EU praises these rapists.
I guess you sheltered middle class dandies have to be mugged and get your woman raped to smell the ashes.

No. Because :

1) Not all capitalists have an interest to the existence of unemployment : those whose productions are very capitalistic ( costs of production mostly made of machines and equipment) and sell "high" consumers goods and services (unlike basic needs like food, clothes, housing,…) would profit from a global raising of wages and consumption

2) But even those who do have an interest in the existence of an army of unemployment to keep the wages low only need a sufficiently wide army, not an infinite one : beyond a certain point, every extra unemployed wager do not add pressure on the already low level of wages

So, any country in the world susceptible to be pressed by international capitalist institutions would collapse into ethnic conflict ? If a single pressure from the outside lead to a civil war, that means your country already has serious ethnic issues, and so the IMF didn't caused the friction, only triggered it.

Do you see the world more as ethnic divided or class stratified ?

I have dim views on the media and the UE, but you are fantasizing this.

Those who doesn't agree your Holla Forumsack views on refugee are champagne socialists … classic. I'm lower middle class. Thank you to wish horrible things for me

Why would you do such a thing? And where would you put everything? In another store, so you could grab it again?

Then you don't get to grab anything from the store.
And more importantly: then the store is empty. So you do your part, because you're not stupid and you want to get shit done.

because reasons

in my house, stopping people from getting stuff

so are you implying my labour has some form of exchange value?
nice market fam

Yes, it is. If state owned enterprises are selling things for a profit, then commodity production certainly exists.
In a based upon planned production there are no individual enterprises dependent on selling things for a profit in order to continue existing. While I imagine the soviets/administration of things/whatever would discontinue the production of a line of products that aren't being consumed, it isn't dependent on a money circuit to continue producing, as it doesn't need to buy resources/means of production/labour power (these things are simply allocated).

In other words the M-C-M' cycle would no longer exist.

*In a system based upon planned production

Then we leave reality, to enter the imaginary realm of pirateflag, where everybody live for the sole purpose of disproving communism.

No I'm not. Are you genuinely stupid?

the thing is, I don't want to disprove communism I want it to work, I want to live in said society, but my problem is you fail to understand that the theory you are describing and is not any different from it, which is stopping us from come up with a better theory

Do you have to produce commodities so that the rest of humanity can satisfy their needs? commodities that perhaps have no use.value to you? are you then using the value inherent to labour to somehow trade it for a variety of commodities to satisfy your own?

the idea of money being no longer necessary is not necessarily the elimination of the capitalist mode of production, you need to remember that the capitalist mode of production also existed in mercantilism, in barter economies

capitalist will exist as long as private property exist and as long as there is a drive for profit at expense of the workers

while planned production aims at eliminating profit from the workers exploitation it still mantains the idea of private property, not on the physical level, as the factories would be part of the commune, but as a system, the production cicle is still controlled, it is not of public domain

absolutely, but it is still determined by the productive forces (subject, object, labour) and the need to decide between allocating them to the production of one commodity over the other one
people will be determined to work in certain areas of the economy, there would be division of labour, It is easy to see how it wouldn't eliminate alienation

I would arguee that you could, since on market socialism, left-market anarchism, mutualism and so on people would not be forced to work on certain are of the economy, there would be no restrain as to where the productive forces would be applied

I would also arguee that you can eliminate the M-C-M' cycle, you could have some form of labour voucher on a marksoc economy, and the demand would determine the same numbers central authorities would come up with as you could use its exchange value as reference

You aim to eliminate exchange value by stablishing planned production, but I don't feel it would help in any way, because while the labour vouchers won't be either transferrable nor exchangeable, the commodities acquired via labour vouchers will be

forgot my attention whore flag

Yeah you're a regular Galileo.

The factories are all held in common by all of society but they are private property? What?
Market socialism on the other hand has private property in a very real sense of the term given that the workers in exclusive control of a factory in order to produce goods for themselves to sell to other enterprises and consumers. They would control a means of production at the expense of the rest of society.

If a labour market exists, which there certainly would be in a "market socialist" society as workers are selling their labour power to competing co-ops in a market, then people would tend to be compelled to work in certain areas by market forces, just as in a capitalist society.

As long as there is a capital goods market this is literally impossible. Under such conditions any "vouchers" would act as money.

Whether or not there exists a barter economy for second hand goods is neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with commodity production, though i expect a socialist society would take measures to prevent speculation if such a thing existed, e.g. punish theft of socially owned produce, repossess produce hoarded by speculators with a refund, punish people who attempt to create secondary currencies like bitcoin - such behavior is counter-revolutionary after all.

the factories are, but not the the rest of the productive forces

Once again: What?
For planned production to work the forces of production must, generally speaking, be held in common. All means of production (other than the things you have for domestic use) would be held in common and all (non-domestic) labour would be performed for society itself. Only the products of labour would be withheld from the individual until proof of work is presented (prior to this point they too are held in common).

The workers might own the factories, (subject) and their labour,mbut they wont own the resources (object), f they did, there would be no way for the central authrity to plan and contrkl production

Social ownership is incompatible with individual ownership, other news water is wet.

Oh but it's alright to try and disprove communism. What is not alright is to do so by assuming everyone would act according to this perspective. Your "what if?" is completely disconnected from reality.

Is it me or does this part of the sentence make no sense?

The term you're looking for is "products". A commodity is a product destined to be exchanged on a market. I know you think these products are, but this is what you are trying to demonstrate, so at this point you shouldn't speak about "commodities". That's just a detail in passing though.

Use-value isn't subjective.

No. And value isn't inherent to labour, or to anything for that matter. Value is inherent to trade.

War is a thing

I was talking about the late 70s and 80s, long before Yugoslavia's structural problems led to the rise of nationalism and thus to war

is that Hannibal Lecter

I think it's Hermann Goering.

They mended their relations for a brief period in the middle 50's. They broke down again after the Moscow Conference of 1957 and never reconciled after that. Wikipedia's article on the subject is incomplete.

Completely incorrect.

bumperino.