Links, tools and lit

I think someone should save threads like this and to a pastebin or whatever, and eventually we make a more complete one for the purposes of sticky

>marxmyths.org/index.php
What parts of the website relate to that statement? Only thing I've found is how the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" changed meaning from the majority dictating things to a stronk leader ruling in the name of the proles.

Glad everyone's appreciating this.

Do as you please. I'm sharing this for lurkers so if it ends up reaching more people that way I'd be much obliged.

Here is one: marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm
It should be added that, altogether, Marx never saw socialism and communism as two different things altogether, rather as two different stages within the same post-capitalist mode of production.

To summarize: the criticism is that socalled "Marxism"-"Leninism"* only has a very superficial understanding of what capitalism, socialism and communism are. It is implied that these MLs haven't understood Marx's critique of political economy.

For MLs, a planned economy which is managed by a communist party already is socialist, and it needs post-scarcity of all goods to become communist. They see the law of value as transhistorical until post-scarcity. Marx would have rejected this on several levels: the idea here is that private property is an emergent property of commodity production: the fact that goods are produced for exchange. It is wrong to view private property in a false dichotomy between individual and state. The important feature is exclusivity: as long as there is an instance restricting free access to the means of production, private property exists. It doesn't matter whether that instance is an individual, a state, a corporation or even a cooperative. As long as commodity production continues, you have capitalism, nothing else; you reproduce wage labour as a consequence of reproducing capital as an automatic subject.

* : Yes, Leninism is also put in parentheses in ML there, because Lenin himself was actually well-read and honest when it came to Marx, and he correctly categorizing things capitalistic or not capitalistic when he did so.

Communist Party never managed Planning. It was overseeing the vetting process on the people that were allowed to work with it.

Are you being disingenuous? What I alluded to is: the "communist" party appoints planners for the People under red banners and you have the capitalist mode of production reinvented but instead of a liberal bourgeoisie acting as planner and decentralized owners of the means, you have the state's bureaucracy. And meanwhile, you exchange with money (rising commodity form embodying exchange value) on the market, extracting surplus from the labor power employed to sate these aggregate demands impersonal market forces want from you. "Planning" here only means that the state apparatus itself gets direct control over the reigns of this process instead of a multi-faceted bourgeoisie.

Should have known. Why did I even ask if you were being disingenuous or not? You will get the proper anti-revisionist, official papers from esteemed comrade Stalin any second now to dispel the bourgeois anti-communist lies from marxmyths.org, I bet.

The State and Revolution
by Lenin

Chapter V: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State 43 k
Presentation of the Question by Marx
The Transition from Captialism to Communism
'''The First Phase of Communist Society
The Higher Phase of Communist Society'''

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

+
Frederick Engels 1847
The Principles of Communism

— 17 —
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

— 18 —
What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

to give you a tl;dr

Stop LARPing as a commie, liberal shitposter.

I'm pointing out factually wrong information. Party never meddled directly in state affairs.

So? What is the alternative? Popular democratic vote? In the Russian Empire where half of population can't read? I doubt USSR would've lasted long enough to be founded.

Sure, you might argue that Communist Party should've transitioned to this at some point, but I'll have to point out - I do not support post-Stalinist revisionism. Therefore, you can only claim that Communists were wrong by not turning over process of choosing planners in 1953 (or earlier).

However, I should also point out that even people in 1953 simply did not have time to get education and understand economy/sociology to make informed decisions about planning (which is pointed out in Stalin's later work, where he argues for necessity to reduce working hours for the next step to Communism).

Therefore, even in 1953 someone would've been representing people and making a decision. Now you can only argue that Party was not actually ruling by popular decree. If this is the case, I'll need you to present something concrete that proves that Party wouldn't have been chosen by people to vet planners.

No longer relevant, as of 1930s.

And "money exchange" loses all meaning. If all products already belong to the state, how would it even implement market economy? Trade and compete with oneself?

And if we are getting all theoretical, I'd like some explanation on your definition of Private Property:

We have 10 people who want to work on the new machine (MoP). We have only one such machine.
1) If one person gets the workplace, then remaining 9 will be restricted access to it. Private property!
2) If machine becomes public (state) property and is managed by popular decision, then it will be 4 workers working on it in 6-hour shifts. But remaining 6 workers will be restricted access to it. Private property!

Is this correct?

as synonymous with distinguishing between a lower phase of communism and a higher phase of communism? You're either blind or retarded. Once again, Lenin here is consistent with Marx, not his supposed successors.

>emerging as the necessary result of existing relations
Literally the equivalent of posting the last pages of the Communist Manifesto (also points of reform to be aimed for while still under bourgeois society, to remind you) as an argument for what post-capitalism actually looks like according to Engels (and Marx), lol.

You can start reading the link (here again for you, nerd: marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm) I've given you any time and get to the actual brunt of the critique any time now.

Apply yourself.

lol.

How about communism: the free association of labor around use values?

Have fun with Ismail on that one.

Ignorant or just disigenuous again, pick one.

No, people using means of production for exchange is private property.

You too may now actually give the text above an actual read.

Ok.
/You.

Also, nice link and non-quote to a second hand source on Marx to get someone to say Marx said what you want him to have said.
Really convinces that you read Marx himself there.

It was a question about practice, not theory. Learn to distinguish things.

Ah. You simply don't have any answers.

You said something different before, did you not?

Also, an illiterate faggot tankie like you using that flag is a great disgrace. Switch to the tank or the stache if you want to be seen as an "M""L"; the habitual guy using the Lenin hat is actually well-read and you're soiling that with your tankie spergouts.

These two are two different wordings for the exact same thing.

Don't expect any more replies if you can't first even get through a text that's barely a few pages long; the text all commentary hitherto has been based on, I remind you.

dunayevskaya please

*sigh*
so how are you gonna register demand without the end consumer market, genius?

also, please provide proof that central planning was planning for exchange and not use
also, your arrogance is annoying

Lmao left-coms still trying to virtue-signal to the anti-Stalin bandwagon of anarchists and Trots. Pity that Lenin vociferously disagreed with their "theories" and, let's be honest, at the bottom of things, left-coms are opposed to Lenin and Leninism in principle too.

Great argument.

Great argument.

I should say "what is the communist mode of production?", but evidently all such things seem to escape the supposed communists ITT, including you.

What do you think the Rouble (cough money cough) was for the whole time; decoration?

I'm more than tired of being courteous to disingenuous tankies on Holla Forums.

This is literally what being a left communist was always about. I mean, it's quite literally what the left communist wing within the Comintern stood for: a critical outlook of Leninism and a complete opposition to Stalinism. It took Trotskek almost ten more years before he actually got kicked out of the Comintern, unlike the left of communism before him.

Beats me, and it beated the communist left too. Even pre-left communist critics of Lenin, like Luxemburg, always critiqued Lenin with all respect still intended.

Not if you ask the Italian left communists of the time (and today, really), but knowing your ignorance on the subject I doubt you even know what the Italian left advocated.

>tfw too retarded not to take the bait

Marx and Engels were for labor vouchers in the lower phase of communism. Is that not communism according to how you define the term?

Something between money (you could give it to others) and labor vouchers (you couldn't buy means of production with it).

Indeed, they have.

Yes, labor vouchers: a currency, unlike money, non-commodified as it is representative exclusively of labor time, and consumed to obtain goods from surplus produce of equal labor time only (unlike their exchange values, were it money).

A simple type of currency does not constitute the entire basis for a mode of production, but the labor voucher is certainly an option for a currency under post-capital since it functions with an abolished law of value.

And purchase goods for their exchange value on the market? And find its exchange value embedded in its social value when making said purchases?
The Soviet system forbade by law that workers have any kind of traditional capitalist liberties under its system; such muh privileges were left entirely to the single bureaucratic system.

The comparison of labor vouchers to the monetary form and function of the Russian Ruble you make is honestly beyond ridiculous.

Leftcoms are sophists, dont support their autism

Hi Rebel, glad you're still around.

Consider checking out some of the links in the OP, especially the document search engine for VK is useful for literally everything and everyone.

Bump.

Have you heard of online ordering and on demand production? Really still circle jerking about planning techniques from the pre internet age in an internet age is retarded af.

Its not money if I dont call it money! Reality in soviet states was that money acted exactly like money under capitalism for 99% of the population.

Really I am not as opposed to markets as most here but atleast I can acknowledge that my reformism tackles the managment of the means before the market instead of calling state run social democracy communism like you do.

He hasn't read critique of the Gotha programme lol

I have, and Gotha Programme is cited in the link precisely in support of the argument against central planning as functional with Marx's idea of communism, btw.

You only think in crude models and if reality doesn't fit, your models can't be at fault, so it's reality that must be chided for getting the theory wrong. Have you considered a career as an economist?

welp, guess no pensions for you or anyone else
no surplus extraction and concentration is allowed, right?

nice leap of faith there, buddy
you could've just said post-scarcity economy
but I was obviously talking about the scarcity economy

ah, I forgot
leftcom infantilists have no concept of transitional stage
my bad

yea, money that you couldn't buy MOP and hire labour with

so how are you gonna distribute those on-demand made products in the conditions of scarcity?

internet can't replace operations research theory in general and linear programming theory in particular

What a Marxist.

Because Marx didn't either: youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg

"Transitional stage" was a tankie meme created to justify the existence of opportune state capitalism; Marx never uttered it, and certainly talked about nothing state capitalism took the form of.

Decentralized systems "work" in a sense, it's just that you have to figure out a lot of stuff ex post instead of ex ante, which you could do with central planning. You have trial and error in either system, it's just much more erring in the decentralized version. Question is: Why would you want that?

central planning, anyone?

I couldn't care less, really
transitional stage in Marxist theory logically follows from the concept of time

Why would communists want communism indeed.

Tankie memes have fried your brain, or you never really read Marx at all.

Good, Stalinists are finally being honest about it at least.

At last we can finally see: "historical necessity" was just another way of being John Oliver decades before he was even born. Amazing reasoning. Marx must be stumped in his grave at these new findings in communist theory.

A proper labour-time voucher system requires centralised administration, else you contradict yourself like John Gray.

Like a commune could have?

Lmao

Proudhon never argued against centralized economic planning in Marx's time. Because Marx never argued for centralized economic planning: marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm (article currently being discussed).

Are you crashing the thread without reading the OP and the discussion had or are you simply here to shitpost while looking ignorant?

You can keep your stillborn cripple-memes to yourself. Are you familiar with what Marx wrote about John Gray, yes or no?

Some bits from the Demands of the Communist Party in Germany
>1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic.
>7. All baronial and other feudal estates, all mines, pits etc. shall be converted into state property. On these estates agriculture shall be practised on a large scale and with the most modern scientific tools for the benefit of all.
>10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm

There are also demands in there for taking the means of transport and giving people jobs and securing their existence, and in both demands there is no talk about regional bodies doing that, but simply the state. Call me crazy, but this sounds to me like Marx wasn't a big fan of super-federalized structures.

I will not stop memeing.

No.

Once again, this similar to what attempted: to bring up a document in which Marx or Engels cite plans for short-term demands for reforms towards a betterment as if this is synonymous to what communism is supposed to entail for Marx.

Similarly, if one were to be reading the ten planks from the back of the Manifesto one would be lead to believe that nationalization equals communism if one didn't realize that it's a simple primer for politics within the current capitalist system (as it was).

Sure, the letter of a text is not necessarily the spirit of it. Marx wrote over 100 years ago, so it's somewhat of an open question what he would recommend today. The same method of analysis (if only there was agreement what that consists of…) could yield very different results, so something in the spirit of Marx today could look very different from what people advocate who directly quote him in support. That said, the central-planning side has made their case, and the other side has shown nothing but a sarcastic non-response. So, take a guess which side looks more plausible.