ITT: Describe how you would abolish the law of value

And everyone has free access to your butt hole.

Bump

...

Currency destroyed on transaction

In other words: no currency.

Why law of value should abolished? Who was the down syndrome that said people to fight against it? Marx, Engels, Lenin? No. It as ridiculous as trying to abolish money.

Fucking leftists.

Wtf I hate communism now

Most of the world functioned perfectly well without currency for the majority of its history

Good look with your caves and starvations.

But money played a secondary, relatively unimportant part in the economy for most of history. Educate thyself.

I'd prefer less starvation, actually.

That's generous.

I'm sure you'd prefer to live without modern medicine too.

Enjoy your fight against History and your caves with starvation.

Ask the utopians, because Marxists explicitly state that this method of adhering to "models" of socialism is the doomed-to-fail approach to post-capital: endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory.

...

It's fact that pre modern economies functioned mostly without currency. Or are you being a pedantic dipshit by interpreting "functioned perfectly well" as some kind of utopian assertion about the quality of society, like a fucking idiot

Enjoy your debt slavery.

It's also a fact that reflected the underdeveloped forces of production. Referring to a prior mode of production which functioned "mostly" without money is worthless today. So if anyone is making a kind of utopian assertion it is you, dipshit.

I would make the organs of anni posters the only accepted currency. Once you're all dead and buried, money will cease to exist.

And the fact that capitalism functions with money also reflects the underdevelopment of its forces of production compared to communismC's.

Not according to Marx, who considered the conditions ripe for communism in his own time. Imma state this real quick: the forces of production today are in conflict with the mode of production. We are so fucking productive it's crazy, and it's outgrown the capitalist mode of production; has so for a long time. All our crises stem from overproduction. And money, the means of circulation, ceases to function when there's a crisis of overproduction. In other words, products accumulate which go unsold. But money isn't the root of this phenomenon. The abolition of money would mean attaining a new mode of production. Marx advocated, at best, labor vouchers, in the context of areas in his own time which were underdeveloped (e.g. Russia) but considered it possible to reorganize developed capitalist society enough that money is no longer necessary. I'm just not the sort of starry-eyed leftcom who thinks we can just do away with it at a stroke while still not knowing what a communist mode of production will look like.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're a disingenuous retard. First you behave like the concept of having no money is absurd, then when it's pointed out how stupid and wrong you are you try and pretend that it doesn't matter. It's even more retarded when faced with the fact that the world without currently live in is progressively moving in a moneyless direction, both in terms of real currency and even its imaginary counterpart. It becomes obvious that money isn't done objective necessity in regards to economics, much less production, and that subsequently the system of value on which it's predicated isn't either. It only underlines your stupidity by needing this drawn out for you.

You shouldn't embarrass yourself by trying to talk back to your intellectual superiors. You only compound your idiocy.

wew lad

And he was right.

Indeed.

Trade is. So yes, for all intents and purposes, money is.

Indeed: it means attaining communism.

The productive forces won't be constrained by an outdated mode of production anymore, and thus can keep developing at a normal pace. Does it mean that we will keep producing more and more? No, we will produce less, and work way less (although on the long-term a communist society will probably produce way more than a capitalist one ever could).

No. First, Marx did not advocate for labour vouchers for underdeveloped countries, but for everyone. You seem to think labour vouchers are a form of money: they're not. Then, it's not the reorganisation of society that makes money unnecessary. It's the other way around: the development of productive forces in capitalism have made money unnecessary, and thanks to that we can reorganise society… by abolishing money.

We know exactly what communism will look like and how to attain it.

No, it's the mode of production rebelling against the mode of exchange. It's socialised production being antagonistic to individual (private) appropriation. So no, it's not "trade" or money, it's capitalism.

I don't have my notes on me so I'll leave this one.

I know they're not a form of money – they don't function the same. Nonetheless Marx didn't say what was beyond them in a concrete sense. We have a few short passages here and there, but nothing we can point to and say, definitively, this is how a communist society will function (without money).

It's not capitalism without money. There's a lot more to it than that.

Trade is the essence of capitalism.

Communism is not what is "beyond labour vouchers": this is then upper phase of communism. Marx described very what the lower phase will look like in the Critique of the Gotha programme.

And yet yes it basically is: capitalism with central planning rather than trade.

Damn, nice argument dude. u've completely changed my perspective, im gonna go browse Holla Forums now

That seems to me a suspicious claim, historically speaking. Looking back over history, it looks a hell of a lot like we know pretty well how to fight capitalism, and the kind of political forms that struggle will take, but we actually have no fucking clue how to run things once we've won or gotten close to winning.

To me it looks like, time and again, workers rise up and fight back against the system, but have no idea what to do to actually make a communist society, and end up either getting put back in their boxes by middle-class forces (Iran, Egypt, Portugal, Italy, the list goes on), or getting led into some horrifically dumb shit by people who thought they knew what they were doing but were in reality just taking the long way around to build authoritarian capitalism (China, Russia, Cuba).

So please, if you have the idea that so many millions of workers and theorists over the past 100 years have missed so far, please let us know.

...

You think you're clever don't you?

You seem to think that knowing what to do and being able to do it are the same thing.

Care to elaborate with some examples? Save us both some time and include the cause of the war.

...

Are you retarded

I assume basically revolution and war, and a reduction in available means of production and distribution, which isn't to say they couldn't be rebuilt to suit needs.

If we have a real social revolution, we can abolish the economy and production as a separate sphere of life. Gift economy, reappropriating natural alienation by turning production into games, etc