Tell me why we shouldn't start with market socialism

is already vastly different from

I suggest you keep trying; you're clearly getting closer to obtaining the basic idea.

Where can you download that game again?

no it is not, you are unable to comprehend the difference between market exchange and capital accumulation

you see the image you posted? you can clearly see that there is a m-c-m' cycle, yet a market socialism or market anarchism would look more like c-m-c, where money is used simply as a method of exchange, because self-sufficinecy is impossible and so is full automation

but keep evading the facts

colestia.itch.io/crisis-theory

There is none.

Investing a commodity into money to obtain a commodity. Sublime maymay, I give it an 8/10.

>the facts
*tips*

Thanks famalam.

lol

or rather, work in a certain co-op where there is a production of certain spceialized commodities, which means the workers are in need to trade in order to obtain basic goods for example

I will ask you again something that you have literally never been able to answer, If I, a teacher, is supposed to obtain products to feed, dress, clean, heal and entertain myself solely by my own labour, as exchanging my labour power for something is capitalism, how exactly am I supposed to obtain them if I only provide a service and I am not allowed to trade? are people not going to be teachers?

but be aware, that you cannot commodify my labour, as that implies market exchange

yet markets being capitalism are facts, right?

Instant trash.

The only difference is that the latter is a thing, and the former is not a thing, and is in fact a meme born from illiteracy and high quantities of autistic contrarianism.

el oh el.

Holy shit, all you did was change from using one autistic flag to an even more autistic one. Am I ever glad I won't need to keep replying to your amazing spergouts and that I will be able to comfily look at you from the sidelines, seeing you bring up ebin memes like commodity-money-commodity cycles.

Ah yes, this makes sense

really, so if I produce a commodity (english classes) trade them for money at a market price, and then I use that money to buy food, clotheing, soap, medicines and videogames, ams I breaking some sort of universal law of some kind? because that is precisely what I do

you failed to reply how am I supposed to obtain basic commodities as a teacher If I am not allowed to trade, why? are you unable to form a coherent system that adresses this?

Markets are shit and prices don't contain enough information for proper planning.

Not sure if you are having a laff, but if you are familiar with Marx you should know what that means. What c-m-c means is that a commodity is exchanged against money, which is exchanged against a commodity. Note that it doesn't say c-m-c', so unlike with m-c-m', even though the c at the beginning and the c at the end are not identical commodities, there is no growth or accumulation implied in that.

Whether somebody's market socialist proposal has m-c-m' or not depends on what the actual proposal is. The name market socialism is rather fuzzy.

thats because planning is even shittier than markets

central planners btfo?

Marx says that capital's starting point is with the circulation of commodities. The ultimate product of this commodity circulation is money. We see this every day, when capital enters various markets in the form of money. Marx distinguishes two kinds of circulation. C-M-C (commodities transformed into money which is transformed back into commodities) is the direct form of circulation. In this case we sell commodities in order to buy more, and money acts as a kind of middle-man. However, there is also another form, M-C-M. In this case, we buy in order to sell; money is capital. The first phase transforms money into a commodity, the second transforms a commodity into money. Ultimately, then, we exchange money for money.

What Marx demonstrates here is consumer interaction with a society in which the money form acts as currency; it is not and cannot be the constituent basis for an economic system without M-M-M' dictating the money form's value.

Yes: marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/08/nonsense-planning.htm.

At some point the marginal gain from spamming primitive accumulation becomes so low that you get near-flatlined diminishing returns on it and you still hit a crisis of overproduction via the M-C-M' cycle anyways.

When will they learn?

It's not about what you personally want to do, it's about the dialectic between exchange value and use value in a commodity.

M-C-M'*

ok, that does not explain how I will get hold of commodities without trading my labour power for them

again, I am a teacher, how would I obtain commodities if I cannot trade my english classes for them, I cannot eat the english class I produce

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

...

...

pretty much, again, why do you belive you can engage in trade and at the same time not call it trade?

...

again, feel free to explain

Don't hate on armchairs, mate.

We aren't talking about the division of labour. I'm sure you've read "Debt: the First 5000 Years" and realize Adam Smith was wrong about his theoretical underpinnings of the division of labour. This is completely different from production for exchange value.

Now, when I go to purchase a commodity I purchase it because it serves as a use value to me. At the same time I the buyer of commodities, present the seller with my money - I am viewed as a seller of money, he is viewed as a seller of commodities. Both the commodity, and the money have a duel and contradictory character as use value and exchange value.

The fact that you can't have C-M-C without M-C-M' (unless the productive forces were very underdeveloped) is part of the duel nature of commodities. The commodity is both a use, and exchange value. Capitalist commodity production is production for exchange value. It is ludicrous to think you can abolish Capitalism, without abolishing the duel nature of commodities or commodity fetishism. This is what Marx means when he says to abolish Capitalism, you must abolish the conditions that gave rise to it.

If you want to discuss how production under socialism should be planned, this is a completely different discussion from whether market "socialism" is genuine socialism or not.

...

👌

I see you still don't grasp what the black-flag poster's position even is. And again, the proper formulation is
C-M-C
and
M-C-M'
Get your eyes checked.

And before your next epic maymay response, try first saying in plain non-jokey language what the position of black-flag poster is. You can't. Because you are functionally illiterate.

Yes, displayed in (What Marx demonstrates here is consumer interaction with a society in which the money form acts as currency; it is not and cannot be the constituent basis for an economic system without M-C-M' dictating the money form's value [for C-M-C to be plausible].)

His position, if there even is one outside of just contrarianism, is that an economy in which economic units are democratized and engage in market exchange (so called "market anarchism" or "market socialism") is not capitalistic.

Demagogue.

He's saying you can have simply commodity production without a regression (well, you could say evolution) from simply commodity production into Capitalistic commodity production.

you can very much have such cycle, we understand the intial C needs the use of the three aspects of the prodictive forces, labout, subject and means of labour,

capitalists need to invest money to obtain all 3, however we understand that on an anrchist society or a market socialist one, where there are no property rights, both the subject and the means of labour are unowned, so I don't need to invest money to obtain them, I would only need to invest labour, my labour or rather our labour in the case of a cooperative, therefore it is easy to understand how I could create a commodity without needeing to invest capital, i am not exchanging commodities but my labour power

if I don't need to invest capital, then I don't need to obtain a surplus of capital at the end of the productive cycle, thus the C-M-C is not only a possibility but a desireable thing

market exchange being one if them doesn't mean you have capitalism, there is planned production, self sufficiency and full automation under capitalism you know?

meant 2 quote

you can pretty much have one since capitalism not only requires a fucntion form of economic exchange but also property rights

Property rights enlistened not simply to a (single) proprietor, but to the name of the firm. This has always been the constituent of market exchange, not the reductionist one which puts the single or few capitalists as the only upholders and prerequired condition for the operation of the capital cycle. What property then consequently does, you should know.

wrong, there are no property rights under anarchism

read "What is property?" anytime now labour does not entail property rights as Locke used to imply

Indeed, there aren't, because anarchism features no markets or economic firms.

An interesting piece, but be sure to follow it with "The Poverty of Philosophy".

I'm having a hard time deciphering this, are you trying to say that means of production will be produced for their use value, but commodities will retain their duel character?

Capitalism is not contingent on private property. Private property has existed for many generations prior to Capitalism. The defining characteristic of Capitalism (if we are viewing the way labour is allocated in Capitalism) is Capital on one end - the self expansion of value. And labour on the other - the producers of Capital.

>C-M-C (commodities transformed into money which is transformed back into commodities) is the direct form of circulation. In this case we sell commodities in order to buy more
More what?

The answer is that it is more from the point of view of the persons who engage in that trade. And when two people exchange products, whether directly or mediated by money, it's not a miracle when this is an improvement from either person's point of view, as people have different talents and taste. People have different needs. Win-win is possible.

In that it is fundamentally different from m-c-m'. Counting the winner in terms of money means if I win you must lose, and by the same amount. If country A obtains more dollars than it spends in its trade relations with country B, this implies country B must have a relation with country A where it loses more dollars than it gets, we are talking about exactly the same amount here.

says who?

you mean, "The Philosophy of Poverty"

you are not exchanging commodities, you are exchanging labour power, when I produce english classes, I exchange my labour power, not the class itself, my labou power is exchange for the labour power of others

explain how you can have capitalism wihout a state or state-like institution defending the firm

something that does not exist under a C-M-C cycle, there is no capital at the beginning, as the subject and the means of labour are unowned, and labour is not commodified via wage labouring

If this system does not follow what you describe as the capitalist cycle, it is not capitalism

Depends on how you define money.

Until communists solve the economic calculation problem, markets seem to be the best option for socialism.

actually the money concept can remain the same, what is important is that the ´productive forces are not commodified, that is not private owned land, factories or tools

if money cannot buy these, capitalism cannot reproduce itself

The economic calculation problem never existed tho.
jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

Labour power is a commodity.

By not abolishing the duel nature of the commodity.

Labour is commodified via wage laboring, the laborer is engaging in self-exploitation. Mutualism does not abolish the duel nature of commodities, it does not abolish the competitive nature of production due to decentralized production, it does not abolish the disequilibirum from the turnover of commodity capital into money capital, it does not abolish commodity fetishism - it does not abolish Capitalism. The argument isn't whether simple commodity exchange could be maintained for X amount of time with a conscious effort, I'm arguing that mutualism does not change the core structure of Capitalism and thus lends itself to regression.

revleft.com/vb/threads/193185-On-the-Calculation-Problem

you gotta be kidding me
markets have the same calculation problem, you delusional faggot

one price vector is not enough for reflecting state of the whole economy

Why the fuck do people still argue for Market Socialism. Fucking stop it.

does that make black markets capitalistic? Capitalism requires the absence of a centrally planned economy, by definition:
investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

The only "explanation" you will get is Hegelian gobbledegook from our religious Marxology nutters. It's interesting that many Marxists buy into the myth of the magical market doing all sorts of things by itself. This is something leftcoms are especially guilty of, those who don't have a self-image of being intellectual wizards, e.g. generic stalinoids are more down to earth.

labour power is a commodity only in an m-c-m' cycle there the labour power is treated as a simple part of the productive forces theory, labour power is aproprieted by the capitalist class

without a proprietor class no one can commodify labour

you are not engaging commodities, you are not buying commodities which were apropriated by the capitalist, you are exchanging labour power

the commodity has an use value, but what you are exchanging is not the commodity, but the labour embodied in it

in an c-m-c cycle you are exchanging labour and using values

ok, there is no wage labouring where the proprietor class keeps surplus value

I just explained that it does, you are not exchnaging commodities apropriated by the proprietor class, but exchange your labour for someone else's

again, just because something exist under capitalism doesn't mean that entity alone is capitalism

capitalism is the dynamic interaction of a multitude of characteristics, a characteristic by itself does not make it capitalistic if the whole dynamic interaction cannot realize itself

does planned production does this? and if it does, there is planned production under capitalism

You are going to claim planned production isn't capitalism yet claim that markets are, when both are found in capitalism?

I just explained to you that you are exchanging labour, not commodities, thus you are exchanging labour with another worker, there is no commodity fetishism

the relationship between people is one of labour, of human labour, not of commodities, as a worker is not fixed to a single job, he can freely decide where to produce as there are no bosses forcing him out of the productive chain

but according to your logic, neither would planned production, as planned production exist under capitalism

it seems like you are conflicting market exchange with capital accumulation again

hmmm, I belive that black markets could lead to capitalism, that being private property, however black merchants would have to create their own state and abolish the existing one

not true, there is planned economies under war-times, there is planned economic policies in mixed economies, which are capitalistic

proof? also, this statement contradicts this:

there is not one price vector. prices vary between different buyers and sellers and alternative goods, locality of resources, etc.

capitalistic qualities but not capitalism by definition. those examples are mixed market system.

A meme so stale it's been mathematically proven to be a farce.

But that's part of how Marx defined money, so this thread is mostly about people disagreeing because they use different definitions without being explicit about it.

then there are "capitalistic" qualities under market anarchism, but no capitalism by definition

you are between the rock and a hard place

yes, but there is both a planned demand and a planned supply of products and services under planned economies, so planned production is also found under a capitalist society

claiming that market exchange is capitalism because it is found in a capitalist economy yet thinking you can get away with labeling planned production as not capitalistic when both are found in a mixed capitalist economy, is sophistry

there is no way i can calculate what i expect to need in a year, especially giving emergency situations. it needs a quick response system.

>revleft.com/vb/threads/193185-On-the-Calculation-Problem
Labor is appropriated by capital, not the capitalist. Labor power is a commodity, if those in a cooperative vote to hire more workers it's because the labor power of those workers is both a use value and exchange value.

Irrelevant, the duel nature of the commodity is an inherent aspect of a commodity. You can't abolish it without abolishing markets.

I have no idea what this means.

Right which is why I said you engage in self exploitation.

Correct. Which is why I said that about private property.

No it doesn't. The turnovers of money capital into commodity capital are related to volume two of Capital. Marx goes over how in an anarchic market, growth can happen at all. The same forces that bring on growth by bringing about the conditions for growth bring the market into disequilibrium.

Commodity fetishism is the needs of the community being imposed on each other through commodities due to the decentralized nature of a market. Commodity fetishism arises from decentralized production, not property rights.

………….
The relationships among commodities is the fact that in order to fulfill human needs, a commodity must be purchased.The only way around this is planned production.

You can't abolish the law of value, you can abolish the capitalist law of value. Mutualism abolishes one aspect, while retaining the rest.

Didn't mean to link that at the top.

I have to go to work now, but I'll be back to talk about this in 7 or 8 hours.

great depression etc…
inb4 exogenous shocks

I'm different user

I meant only price vector as a sole indicator

for proofs read this

>jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
The difference is not mathiness. Classical econ is fundamentally different from neoclassical economics, it has very different notions of equilibrium and competition. I don't get the impression that the author is much familiar with the history of economic thought. Not particularly informed article that gets posted regularly for inexplicable reasons.

Jacobin is mostly shit, but the part about the empirical relevance of the calculation problem is why the article gets posted often.

It's an interesting idea, but how would you maintain markets, and get rid of capital accumulation at the same time?

Is this OG Marxhead? Is he finally back, to kick some tail?

>revleft.com/vb/threads/193185-On-the-Calculation-Problem
Kill all the fetuses! posted:

>Rafiq, I am not so sure if actually got the essence of the Calculation Problem right. I don't think it's that much that "…in a planned economy, the wants, desires and needs of the population couldn't be adequately calculated consciously in a way that is similar to a "free market" economy." One can easily do that through surveys, stock-based systems, computer technology and whatever else. That isn't what Mises et al. were criticising.

>What they were criticising was the allocation of capital goods, of the means of production. The problem lies in the fact that once you make decisions as to what people actually want and so on, you have to allocate capital goods in order to produce the things which people decided ought to be produced. But there are many intermediary steps in that production - one has to take into account the level of education and number of workers needed, relative labour-time needed for production etc. But one has to take into account not only that, but also how much of these factors are necessary for production of raw materials, means of production themselves, intermediary goods etc. Another problem is that there presumably wouldn't be a way to allocate resource in time, as well as space. In other words, how, without the law of value, one is to decide between the trade-off of producing now and at some point in the future. How one measures all these things, how one measures the trade-offs in space and time - that's the essence of the Calculation Problem. It seemed to me that this was missing from your conceptualisation of the problem, although, maybe it was implicit in your post, I don't know.

No, sadly not. This is the flag of Orthodox Marxist, and while I'm not sure I'd call myself an Orthodox Marxist because I reject economic determinism a lot of Orthodox Marxist were pushing, I align closer with someone like Mandel when it comes to the interpretation of Marx than other 20th century Marxist.

goods, as proposed by Lange to provide information on final requirements,
then the process of deriving a balanced plan is tractable
so how does a non-market system solve it?

I'll respond to this later I agree that Rafiq misinterprets Mises to a degree, I think his point that the social needs of a Capitalist society (we need 102 types of gum!) will necessarily be different in a socialist society is a good objection to Mises's premise.

>labour is apropiated by a spook
yeah, thats not going to work

labour is apropiated by the capitalist, the capitalist can be a private entity charging rent, paying wages or as a state

there is no democracy in anarchism, there is total freedom, I want to work in a factory, i go and work there

a cooperative cannot hire more workers, the workers decide to join one cooperative or another one

no it's not

I already explained to you that we are exchanging labour power, claiming that commodity fetishims and markets go hand by hand as an axiomatic position is sophistry

ok, lets imagien the next situation, I want to learn czech, a czech wants to learn spanish

in an m-c-m' capitalists cycle, I have to invest money in order to rent a classroom I will use to teach, I have to buy paper, pens and so on
the intial point is money because I need to buy the subject and the means of labour

as a result I will try to obtain the same amount of capital or a higher amount after the productive cycle

in a c-m-c cycle the intial C is represented by the unowned productive forces, my labour and the subject and means of labour, I will make use of them to give my class, I do not need to invest in them, they are not apropriated. I will receive money in exchange of my labour, not in exchange of the commodities, as I never was the owner of the commodity, and use this money to exchange my labour for other labour, represented as consumable goods

the cooperative is not a firm, but the cooperative effort between teachers that make use of the school and its tools, intially we will cooperatively keep it functioning, but later one we will make a cooperative effort to automate its cleaning and maintenance

self exploitation is not an argument, just because I can produce a commodity in less time doesn't mean I am exploiting myself

I would argue that it is the contrary, the more it takes me to produce a commodity, the less lesuire time I have

planned production and self-sufficiency also engages in "self-exploitation"

what did you say about private property again?

growth can happen in planned production and self sufficnecy economies, hell it can happen in command and in participatory economics,

remember, just because an entity that is present in capitalism exists in a different system, doesn't mean this other system is capitalism, this is sophistry

so you plan on ending commodity fetishism by imposed them using a cntrally planning authority? lel,
besides, that isn't what marx talks about fetishism, he talks about how the relationships between humans is reduced to the relationship between commodities, he uses fetishism in the religious sense

You are not purchasing commodities, as commodities are not bought by a third party and later sold in the market, no proprietor class takes the commodities out of the possession of the worker and sells it for a surplus of money than the cost it takes to produce only labour power is exchanged

wrong, labour is commodified under planned economies, as workers have to meet production quotas, again, the "commodity fetishism" you claim exists as a result of market forces, now exists as a direct imposure by the centrally planning authorities

no one is saying mutualism abolishes the law of value, the commodities have labour power embodied into it, and this labour power is exchanged on a market

no one apropriates labour power to later sell it on a market for a higher price, there is a key difference

no private property rights

for a surplus of money higher than the productive cost*

Before I respond to your post I'm gonna post some advice for our anarcho-edginess friend if he is serious about doing a critique of Marx's economics.

- Marx's premise for his entire critique of Capitalism is based in the commodity. This is how he opens up Capital - starting "with a great mass of commodities". The reason he does this is to highlight the fundamental contradiction of Capitalism - the dialectic between the use value, and the exchange value of the commodity. The duel nature of the commodity as a product of human labour is something that needs to be addressed in any critique of Marx's economics, because it forms the basis for why he rejects markets in the first place. I'll get to how that can be addressed later.
- Next, you need to address Marx's theory of the circulation of Capital. This is often an aspect of his theory disregarded by Marxian economist, but it's an aspect of Capitalist production I find wholly disregarded by market socialist. Market socialist tend to focus solely on the production side of Capitalism, not thoroughly addressing the unity between the two. The realization of value starts in production, but is not validated until it reaches circulation. Marx constructs this by using a two department model - department I, that manufactures means of production and department II that manufactures consumer goods. The formula for simple reproduction to occur (which is what you aiming for in market socialism) is Iv + 1s = IIc. Why is surplus value relevant in simple reproduction? The point is, different departments will have different turnovers of capital. There must be a money reserve so that the workers can eat, regardless if the commodities produced in department I have been sold or not, so the production of surplus value in market socialism is a requisite, and not something you can explain away. However, the two department model is constructed in such a way that commodities must be sold at their value and the goods produced in department I and II must be socially necessary commodities. If there is not consumer goods ready for the workers of department I, they will starve before they can produce MOP for department II. If there is not MOP ready for department II, the constant capital employed will be worn down before consumer goods can be manufactured to feed the workers of department I. This is why Marx takes great care to come up with intuitive reproduction schema's that map out the proportions between the two departments so that simple (and expanded) reproduction can take place. However, when you add more departments into the mix commodities do not need to trade at their value. For example, let's sub-divide departments I and II into A&B, and C&D, while we introduce departments E&F. A will produce raw materials for production of consumer goods, B will produce MOP for production of consumer goods, C will produce raw materials for MOP, D will produce MOP for the production of MOP, E will produce worker goods, and F will produce luxury items. When you do this, it's no longer necessary for commodities to trade at their value. For example. A could have a surplus with department E and a deficit with F.

So how can you address this? There are two routes you can take.
- One, you can launch a Hegelian critique of Capital. This involves recourse to Hegel and other left (or right) Hegelians, in order to show that Marx's solutions to the contradictions he points out are theoretically unsound. This is the most difficult, but most compelling route you can take to critiquing Marx and thus, critiquing the dialectic between the use and exchange value of the commodity.
- Two, you can argue against the theoretical underpinnings of the labour theory of value. You can construct an argument for market socialism based on alienated labour (instead of appropriated labour),this is the easiest route. It gives you an opportunity to make use of the many critiques of the law of value, while absolving you of having to come up with or justify the anarchy in production I outlined in point two. Reproduction schemas - like Sraffa's or Leontiev's are already available for use. in any case, I recommend you at the very least read Ernest Mandel's introduction to Volume 2 of Capital if not the whole of Volume two. Another book that may be useful (though I haven't read it) is Kevin Carson's "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy".

Now, I will address what you've posted here.

I find it extremely odd that you're calling Capital a spook. The entire point of Marx's critique of capital is that in Capitalism, the needs of the population (both bourgeoisie and proletariat) are subordinated to the production of surplus value. If you want to make the argument that in market socialism you've abolished capital, and thus are free of this problem you should make that. But calling the core of the Marxist critique of Capitalism "a spook", is laughable. To give you an example, the Capitalist appropriates surplus value from his workers. Why? So he can reinvest it in production. Why? So he can appropriate more surplus value. Why? So he can reinvest it in production. There is no logic behind it, but the logic of capital. This critique of the logic of Capitalist production is one of the best parts of Marx's theory, and is to a degree applicable even if you reject the labour theory of value.

Well, I'm going to give you two reasons this it utterly ridiculous. One, unless when you say "market" you mean something that isn't really a market (I'll get to this when I address your confusion over your conception of commodity fetishism) you are implying a division of labour, but also the freedom to choose what you purchase and the ability of the firm to produce for exchange, provided your are in possession of the resources (means of production and labour). So what are the implications of this? Well one, the commodities produced are not necessarily going to be validated as socially necessary until you bring them to market, and exchange them for the money commodity (which would have to be a commodity in mutualism, unlike now where the State takes on the role of the national capitalist and we can facilitate production using fiat). This means that there isn't always going to be the exchange of equivalents (refer to my last post on the reproduction schemas to understand why), and thus workers will not always be reimbursed for performing labor. If you don't see how the firm loosing its autonomy, and thus its ability to be stringent with how much labor is necessary to be employed so that the workers can you know, get paid enough to eat will lead to collapse in about 10 seconds; then I don't think I can help you. Second, the rejection of democracy is puzzling due to the aforementioned division of labour. How will the firm be run, if not democratically when the division of labour requires that production is carried about not only cooperatively, but efficiently and mechanically.

See my post on reproduction schemas to understand why the production of surplus labour is necessary in a market, no matter who is in control of property rights. That's what I mean by self exploitation.

That it isn't the defining characteristic of Capitalist production. Therefore, abolishing it does not abolish the Capitalist mode of production.

See my post on reproduction schemas.

besides, that isn't what marx talks about fetishism, he talks about how the relationships between humans is reduced to the relationship between commodities, he uses fetishism in the religious sense
Okay, this is why I'm not sure if when you say "market" you actually are using a special snowflake definition I'm unaware of. This is what Marx means by commodity fetishism. Let us say I want to eat a banana. Since production is not planned, I walk to the store with the hope of purchasing a banana. Lucky enough, the store does have a banana. So I exchange my money for a banana, and I'm on my merry way. But let's look beyond the appearance of this transaction. I had a need for a banana, so I went to the store. The seller of bananas had a need for the money commodity, so he put his bananas up for sale.

This is what Marx means by commodity fetishism. The needs of the community being imposed on each other through the commodity form, not some mystical bullshit that some Marxist like to make it out to be.

This is the end of my post, I think your admission that mutualism does not abolish the capitalistic law of value is all I needed to hear.

Just use the pirate flag like you usually do you insufferable faggot, your marsoc bullshit has nothing to do with nihilist communism.

What do you mean by surplus value here that applies to pirate's vision that does not also apply to communism then?

Well, value is a specific social relationship under Capitalism. The production of surplus use values occurs under communism, but it is a necessarily different application of the law of value, with its own contradictions. The full realization of exchange value is not something you need to worry about in communism when you've abolished the commodity form.

bump for a forgotten theory thread

Who could get our beloved Leftcom Cat?

Leftcomcat needs to be rebranded to ultracat and needs to always be pictured sitting on an armchair, generally with books too.

Bump for interesting thread and to see theoryless memesocs get BTFO.

benis

sineb