How do we achieve production for use without any form of exchange?

How do we achieve production for use without any form of exchange?

Legit question

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/market
libcom.org/files/The myth of Mondragon Cooperatives, politics, and working class life in a Basque town.pdf.

...

Central Planning.

Legit answer. Seriously. That's the answer.

why exchange is bad?

exchange isn't the problem, a society constructed around exchange value is the problem. Goods will always be exchanged, the question is the method of exchange, through soviets, or through markets, or through a state

These are two oposing answers

The first one doesnt involve planning, the second does

It isnt, the idea I am trying to understand is how production for usage is better

How can exchange without exchange value, of every kind, exist?

There might be more than one way to skin a cat I suppose
Im more fond of number one, because central planning is not favorable

Broadly speaking, both answers are the same. First answer simply doesn't explain what happens if you have less things in "distribution centre" than there are people wanting them.

> What will this new social order have to be like?

Market economy sucks. You are really better off reading a proper book about market.

????
???
Nevertheless, you can have multiple solutions to such a simple question.>>1380373

Mine tl;dr on differences of Capitalism from Marxist Socialism: >>>/marx/5290


Also, my recent post that gives a very simplistic example of one of the market mechanisms:

And I recommend that thread for asking economy-related questions, btw.

Central planning is a market, you should be the one studying economics

The first one is not a market because we dont follow supply and demand, we would simply produce what each of us wanted

And before you go the labour voucher route, those serve the same purpose as currency


See above, following a plan is producing according to demand, even if this is an artificial one, on the first one we would simply produce according to the individual desires

May you provide a source on this most unorthodox point of view?

A market is a system of production where production is stablished according to demand

Central planning has an artificial demand set in place

Really, have you ever read anything about markets?

OH BOY THANKS FOR CORRECTING ME ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF MY OWN POST GLORIOUS MARKET AUTIST

A Communist gangster computer god. No, seriously.

user, analyze the first two posts, if you have a plan determining production, then you have an artificial markets, the soviets toyed with this in the 60's

No. Market is a system of exchange.

And you did not provide a source on your opinion.

So you can have a system of exchange without a system forr allocating production? What do you exchange, ideas?

Neither did you

user, stop being retarded, and realise that neither I, in the first post, nor the stalinist, in the second post, say "artificial market". You can have a planned economy without paying wages and charging money from it. You simply measure the demand, the need, for products by how many are asked for, and make dicisions on how to plan the economy, and the rationing of the produced goods in cases where they do not adequately fullfill the demands of society.

With what? And again, if you will localize production according to demand, you have supply and demand curves and therefore a market

You pick up goods off the ground and try to exchange them, of course. Just like capitalists got their capital.

So then the system of producing goods is based on original apropriation

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/market

How do you ban black markets and money under a centrally planned economy? FSB?

Mutual Aid, Exchange of value require a quantifiablity of an immediate debt "i OWE you this A for the B you give me", instead human history largely operated in systems of Unquantifiable debt "gift econ, mutual aid" where you give some one things that he needs effectively obliging him to do the same to you in future, Read Debt the first 5000 year

You are absolutely retarded aren't you?


Supply and demand curves only exist within the context of a system that uses money. Demand can't change by price if you dont have money. You asked how a system without exchange would work, so i describe to you a system without exchange, and therefore without money.

You are delusional aren't you?
Form the same sentence you quoted

> the area of economic activity in which buyers and sellers come together and the forces of supply and demand affect prices

Therefore markets have a method of producing goods

Seriously, are you doing this on purpose?

Stuff in brackets is an example of use of the word with that meaning.

Are you twelve?

So you need accountants to make production curves for you, and then engage in production to meet demand andmallocate supply accordingly

Money is a method of accounting, you still have accounting in the situation you described

Production for use, and a centralized market has exchange

Mutualists are like sexually confused teenagers

They don't quite understand which way they swing so they'll just be this other thing that doesnt make sense

Very good, you understand! That wasn't that hard was it?

Money is >>>>A

You are an absolute retard, if we understand that the sentence producing goods for a market makes absolute perfect sense, then it doesnt matter if its an example, as this exemplifies that in the context of a market, there is a necessity or desire for production, otherwise the sentence wouldnt make sense
How do you exchange goods in a market if you dont produce them?
Are you autistic?

You are litterally retarded. The fact that a market system produces shit doesnt mean other things do not produce stuff, or that anything that produces therefore is a market system.

All pugs are dogs, but not all dogs are pugs

But you dont need buying and selling to have a market, see barter economies, there is no buying and selling because there is no price or money

A production without exchange means that there is no need to account demand to allocate production, the planners still have to make an exchange value judgement. "Do we chose to produce wheat or corn?" "Which one is more demanded now?"

Literally miles away of what I am discussing with the tripfag, I agree with this post of yours, however he said that a market does not involve production of goods, see

how fucking mentally disabled are you?

The world according to this guy

moustache man says markets themselves do not produce, but things are produces and then exchanged on a market. A market is therefore not a system of production, but a system of exchange.

Bartering is exchanging however buying and selling needs a price

They are both methods of trading

Sure, the act of buying and selling doesnt produce value, but that is merely one aspect of the market economy, moustache tripfag is a strawmanning idiot, we were specifically talking about methods of production, and a market economy has its own way of producing, this is allocating supply according to demand

He starwmanned because he refused to accept the fact that planning production follows artificial demand and therefore is an artificial market

Im sorry to say this, but fucking read Marx. Kapital 1 covers your delusion about the divinity of "prices" in great detail. Whether you sell your stuff for a designated value transmitter or directly for the things you need makes no difference at all. The distinction is meaningless.

The distinction is "meaningless" because they are both methods of trading, Marx says in volume 1 that money is merely another commodity, however he also makes the distinction that this commodity is above others because it is the basis of the system used to determine prices

Money is a commodity because itnfollows the same laws as other commodities, but its social relationship compared to other commodities is different, as it is the basis for exchange

Do read Marx

You vote.

How would these two work together? Is a gift economy democratic by default?

The social position has no impact on this because buying and selling doesn't explicitly mean "with money". Merely because money enjoys a special position as a commonly chosen intermediate commodity, doesn't mean it is actually special. In the end, money and so price are placeholders for the value of one commodity to another, so trading grain for silk is still trade, because people intuitively still know the relative rarity of silk and grain, the use value and the effort to produce it, even when they live in a society where the concept of money does not exist.

Money existing as a "special" commodity to ease trading doesnt mean you don't buy and sell your commodities. In the end, you sell your commodities for commodities you need, no matter how many steps you put between them.

Gift economy can't apply to an industrial society tbh since every single product is manufactured (and therefore "owed" to) by hundreds or thousands of people.

Yes, but do you measure every commodity in silk or grain? No? You dont have prices, or buying and selling. You do? Then silk is your currency, and you can buy and sell commodities priced in silk

There is a strict difference and Marx does point it out

On all aspects of industry? When are agrarian societies considered industry? The steam machine? Prodiction numbers?

Explain to me how me trading my silk for your grain is not "buying or selling".

(i will read your reply after i finish watching my animu)

When they start producing a lot for sale (or """"sale"""" in a Communist society) rather than the bare minimum for themselves.

No prices, I would only trade it to you if silk has use value to me or to someone i know whom I can have immediate exchange with, otherwise why would I trade it?

If silk is our currency, then I could use silk to buy whatever I wanted, so the use value of silk is irrelevant to me


So when they engage in commodity form? Does this mean that gift economies are somewhat similar to trading use values?

in barter, everything is "currency". just like you have now foreign exchange markets where every currency is backed by products produced in that country, the barter goes one step ahead and let you trade directly product to product

Yeah but how do you price a commodity with everything?

free market magic. State controlled "prices" in this scenario do not work, because you could find out that producing eggs, exchanging them for bread, then for milk and back to eggs and yada, you have twice as many eggs.
Supply-demand will decide prices - it's market.

But what are you going to use to express prices

Supply and demand also decide exchange values in barter, but not its price

Price as described by Marx involves a currency

you'll be able to exchange goods you produce directly for products you want. If you produce bread, and want computer, you can go on market and find out that one computer costs 1000 pieces of bread, so you go and bake them.

Let's say we are living in today's world. Imagine that you have factory in mexico producing gasoline. So you take 100 pesos, exchange them for x petrodollars (price based on peso/petrodollar market) and then buy x Oil (price based on petrodollar/Oil market) and then you can produce gasoline and sell them for pesos (price based on peso/gasoline market)

Let's say now you use barter and have gasoline factory in mexico. Instead of using two different currencies (pesos and petrodollar) you directly look at market for Oil/gasoline.

Hours.

No it is Mutual, Democracy require quantifiablity.

I am not proposing gift economy as a solution to today problems, i was pointing out that markets are not inherent human need to disrupt commodities, in fact commercial markets the kind that AnCaps today worship and see as the ultimate human freedom came about from a brutal Imperialist cycle,

Gift econ "Unquantifiable debt" >>"here alone another dirty story to be told later" >> Credit econ "quantifiable debt"
_____________.
Imperialist War > blunder of precious metals /enslavement / rape burning homes etc.. > need to pay mercenaries> can't write mercenaries credit because they can't be accepted everywhere outside of the empire > pay them by sharing the blundered precious metals > the mercenaries use it instead of credit > Markets as defined by their advocates are born. > repeat the cycle <

Markets literally came about from theft

Energy credits. Electricity, food, oil. A thing is worth the energy spent on it.

Why are you this totalitarian?

The THOT pictured in the OP is a menace to the species nad should be thrown in a gulag until she can be reeducated into not spreading satanic black magic everyway she goes


we shouldn't, production and capital are evil and should be ceased ASAP for the sake of the entire biosphere

Great post to copypasta.

So as technology to produce faster and at a lower cost increases, then what?

Are you seriously pulling out a bourgeois source instead of giving an Marxist answer to what markets are?

this is a new low for a Stalinist tripfag

"Prices" drop and people buy more stuff with their hours, or work less and retain their standard of living.
I advise not taking continuous improvement as inevitable, since it's just a liberal meme, largely spurred by usurious debt, and always dependent upon physical and net energetic limits. Technological advances made in producing more with less have almost entirely redounded to the benefit of capital, not labor. Automation is frequently used by the corporate media to threaten workers who might consider getting out of line. When hours are the unit of account, any benefits or losses due to automation accrue to all equally.

No retard. EVERY MODE OF PRODUCTION allocates supply according to demand.

A market economy is ONE SPECIFIC WAY to allocate supply according to demand.

Central planning is ANOTHER WAY to allocate supply according to demand.

So anything involving doing things and quantitative signals that are related to these activities are a market? Would you say bees are a market?

...

A "distribution centre" is essentially just a centralised market.

No. The term "market" implies that you will give something in exchange for what you get from the distribution center.

How would you not have to exchange something? Unless we're talking about 500 years in the future where resources are so abundant that there is no need to ration them whatsoever, how are you supposed to ensure that people don't take what they want, rather than what they need?

my damn porky gf is always making me do the dishes while she does the laundry, even my interpersonal relationships are capitalism

No.

I didn't know that having even a single market in your economy made it Capitalist.

You do realise there have been markets far longer than there has been capitalism, right?

Exchange isn't the only way of rationing,
but it's the best way

You don't really know what people need based on who can exchange the most for it. Prosthetic legs should be distributed to people who need them with need being determined in another way than who can pay the highest price.

Capitalism is industry plus market economy.

getting real tired of market shills

MARKET EXCHANGE

Yes, I read an insightful article about that, though I don't recall whether it was in the Anus Times or News of My Butthole Weekly. I'm sure you can give me a link in EXCHANGE for my attention.

Ofcoure they should, but no socialist is advocating for things that people actually need to be marketised. What about things like music, and art? Should someone not be allowed to profit off of their own creativity? As long they are not profiting off of others, what is the problem?

Post moar sloots, pls.

Copyright is literally the barring of the commons from the free flow of thought. Your suggestion amounts to intellectual blackmail. We can have better ways of rewarding artistic creation, without paying the price of your blackmail.

No.

t. Marx

WRONG! capitalism is Industry and private owenrship of the means of production

there is state capitalism, both left and right and mixed economies, markets are just one of many methods of exchange in capitalism

how are you going to have market without private property?

There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread which makes it hard for OP or anyone else to really understand (at least) the Marxist critique.

If you are looking for the critique of cooperative enterpriseā€¦

The work "The Myth of Mondragon: Cooperatives, Politics, and Working-Class Life in a Basque Town" is pretty great. It's an enthograpy of the Mondragon Cooperative system, which is typically held to be the paradigmatic cooperative. This book shows that there's still class conflict in workers' cooperatives, which is merely masked by the cooperative form of the enterprise. It is here available on libcom: libcom.org/files/The myth of Mondragon Cooperatives, politics, and working class life in a Basque town.pdf.

(Another interesting thing to note on the subject of Mondragon, is that Franco, while totally annihilating the CNT in Spain, held arrangements with Mondragon to let it remain an independent cooperative business, because it went along well with any regime, right-populistic, i.e. Falangist, or Spanish revolutionary, during the post-Catalonian revolutionary period.)

Don't mistake the fact that left communists are some of the few communists (together with the Marxists, or at least the few Marxheadflags) on Holla Forums to properly critique so-called market socialism for this being a trait unique to left communists. The Marxist critique of fellow left wingers is not a Marxcom movement-specific phenomenon; it is in fact the entirety of the Marxist tradition to properly critique all that exists. Supported by, as Engels put it in his letters to Bebel in Leipzig, 1882:
This truly hammers home the point that critique of political economy is much more important against the left, which holds the prospect of desire for change, than the right, which is already unanymously a "power that be"; ergo, a field which ought to be opposed in practice, in effect a complete banality.

To expand on the critique of self-exploitation: for Marx, capitalism is not to be seen as first a hierarchical mode of production. Marx very importantly called the historical stage post-feudalism capitalism, specifically to indicate that it is a society dominated by production for market exchange. This is important, and reflects itself in the term capitalism (and thus not capitalistism). Capital being such a ductile category, requires no hierarchy to multiply as automated subject; all it needs is the private proprietary form of the firm, producing for exchange. Self-exploitation thus means: the literal appropriation of one's labor for exchange, "exploitation" thus simply meaning "to extract use (from)"; "to appropriate for the purpose (of)".
(1/?)

In his critique of what was in Marx's time still a fairly popular idea: Proudhon's mutualist "market anarchism", Marx writes (in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, the 1844 translations):
>Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.
This is a similar realization Luxemburg raises over 50 years later, in her 1900 "Reform or Revolution", also posted ITT: that the cooperative, as the name implies, simply constitutes a cooperative approach at capitalism; one simply abolishing the traditional bourgeois firm, but maintaining the value form, and production following capital's law of value, disciplined by impersonal market forces lauding from fierce inter-firm competition for exchange.

So obviously, a cooperative is then the preferable position for a working man to be in, and I would strongly suggest working in a cooperative than an Ltd. if there were the choice, but material analysis of capitalism as mode of production conclusively shows that it does nothing to change capitalism, more specifically to tackle little more than firm hierarchy, while not touching the law of value and the commodification of labor and its proceeds, which are the essential pillars of what capitalism produces: capital.

Hope this cleared things up for you and others ITT at least on the subject of cooperatives and how they do not effectuate more than a reform of capitalism. I'll write up a conceptualization of abolishing exchange up next, but I have to do some things urgently right now so catch me later.

i want to work more, not less

Market is an exchange.

If I give you a broken leg I may get a prison sentence in turn. So this is a market?

You can't. Prostitutes will be able to collect resources faster than others and become the new porkies. There can be no prostitution. Gulag the hos.

You forgot your flag nogf nazi

The gulag part is a joke, but yeah you cant legalize it. They are going to create resource infighting within the community. Pimps are going to become extremely powerful.