Even if you don't agree with Bordiga on tactics and organization...

Worst meme on this site.

Anyway, I guess this is just semantics. In my mind, a true socialist economy is one which has abolished the law of value as it presently exists. At the same time, I may be willing to characterize a society consciously working towards this abolition as "socialist". Ultimately, communism is the MOVEMENT, not the moment of realization itself.

No, but they are things that constitute it.

But he doesn't. In fact he says quite the opposite, that socialism, the lower form of communism, will continue bourgeois right and logic of exchange to a limited extent, because it maintains some aspects of the capitalists society it was born from. Or as Marx says "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society" Also see pics Can you even into dialectics m8?

I'm pretty sure he would disagree with that assessment of socialism as "it's own thing".

t. marx
Certainly, we should be capable of modeling that. And, if communism was just " a movement" then I guess any revolution that called itself communist would be so, by definition. It always bothers me when you leftcom sorts whine on about "no this is what Marx REALLY meant" "communism is the negation of everything capitalism!" and then refuse to picture what socialism or a transition would look like because "u just gotta let it happen, it's a movement, man~". Why should workers or anyone for that matter listen to us if we have no idea how to reach communism?! When we have nothing to hold up and say "we're going to do XY and Z for you and your families"!

This is just pedantry. The point is that the dictatorship of the proletariat must be formed, private property must be abolished, and the lower stage of communism must be put into place. The leninist notion that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat doing all these things need not be thrown out needlessly. For, is not socialism, even in the most orthodox conception as the lower stage of communism, a transition to the higher stage of communism!

Marx critiqued Lassalle for his fixation on distribution, knowing quite well that unless the workers owned the means of production, a "fair share" will always be given on bourgeoisie grounds, with wealth and culture going to non-workers as workers are given poverty. Marx also critiqued Lassalle's theory of the law of value, which can not really be said to be the law of value, but the "iron law of wages" which is a simplification and primitive form.

What does it matter? It is necessary to reach the higher stages of communism either way. Marx never said the dictatorship of the proletariat wasn't socialism, or even if they were two different things, that they are mutually exclusive. Certainly, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is the process which produces the abolition of the proletariat and private property, then the abolition of the proletariat and private property are by definition a part of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It is defined as much by its selling of labor power as it is by it's lack of ownership of the means of production. If it was only defined by your definition, that would mean the proletariat wouldn't exist in a state with UBI.

That is clearly the higher stages of communism defined by Marx, for sure, "to each according to his needs" but his description of the lower stages paints a picture where each person still has ownership of their own labor and receives back from society what he puts in.

But, enough of appeals to Marx, use your own head! Are you physically capable of imagining an economic system without the law of value immediately born from the one we are in now? If you can, describe it!

The point is that labor in the lower stages of communism, unlike in capitalism, is directly social.
But, in case you didn't actually read the excerpts:

If that was the case, then the USSR would be in full communism by now.

'no'

...

liberals leave

The point is there is no fucking trade in communism, hence no law of value. Deal with it.

Ever heard of this little thing called "counter-revolution"?

Lenin was a liberal.

I'm a worker. Tell me how the working class collectively owning the means of production is not in my intrest.

Crap, I forgot to greentext.

It's in your interest only insofar it allows you to socialise production. Otherwise you won't own anything for long.

he was a revisionist, sure as hell
muh vanguard != dotp

It is in your interest and is something that I support. It's not socialism in of itself, though, and it doesn't resolve the many contradictions inherit in the law of value.

Now keep in mind I'm not that well read, but isn't socialism usally definded as a worker controlled economy (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat) and communism as a classless, stateless society?

...

"Revisionist" is a Stalinist term, anyways. Lenin only tried to adopt Marx's thought to the society he observed in Russia at the time. He was well aware that the lack of automation and capitalist development prevented them from abolishing the law of value (especially with the pressure of imperialist states and the global economy), thus his emphasis on internationalism and joining up with the revolutions in Germany, etc. When that failed, retreating to capitalism was the most logical solution. The failure was when Stalin and the rest described this as socialism or communism instead of "state capitalism," the term used by Lenin himself.

lel k

so is social fascism, no one is wrong about literally everything.
that is not an excuse to redefine the basic fucking definition of the word "socialism", was right the entire time

No. The dictatorship of the proletariat ("workers controlled economy") is the form the revolution will take. It is still capitalism. It is a transition: either it completes the revolution, or it fails and is destroyed by counter-revolution.

Communism is a tradeless, classless and stateless society. It comes after capitalism.

Socialism is merely the first phase of communism.

There is no "first phase" of communism, society will naturally end up there out of necessity when placed on the right path through revolution. Socialism is a related, but distinct concept, one that predates Marxism.

K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha programme:
>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society.
Who is being revisionist again?

Communism also predates Marx, and there wasn't even any clear distinction between communism and socialism up until 1917.

and yet, in order for there to be new machinery and more food, someone must produce the food and machinery, and unless all goods are in a constant state of abundance (hint, they won't be) there must be limits on what people can consume.This is exactly what Marx means when he says that people in the lower stage of communism only get out what they put into society in terms of labor. If people can simply go into a supermarket and get a good for free, without putting in labor of equal value, then you will have shortages. On a macro scale, this means that sectors of industry must have as much labor put into them as value they put into society. The soviet cannot ignore this basic rule. Nor can they ignore the need to invest in new technology and machinery, the pressure here not coming from capitalist competition, but from political pressure (which can be ever great that competitive pressure thanks to a desire for growth, and depending on demographic trends, this can indeed be out of the control of collective consciousness, lest they doom future generations!). The situation you just described must still operate with the law of value.

"First phase" in this sense refers to the first step past capitalism in general. Marx did say that socialism would still have contradictions after all, just not as egregiously as capitalism.

lenin thought socialism =/ communism

When speaking of a transition, a transition must by definition contain both socialism and capitalism. There's no need to get so worked up about this, the point is just to take measures that will abolish private property and class, or move the process forward.

Trade is simulated in the lower stages, Marx admits this, and anyone who's created a believable planning model has been forced to recreate the law of value without markets.

oh yes because Trotsky getting kicked out was really what put the lid on the revolution. give me a break. any analysis of the Bolshevik party and the USSR that doesn't look at structural problems in the party and government is incomplete.

State and Revolution actually has [Lenin] literally say that the lower phase of communism being called socialism or lower communism is pedantry; what matters is that there is no "transitional society" that is its own mode of production. This "transitional phase" is the dictatorship of the proletariat and is in fact still a capitalism getting transformed into the lower phase of communism (or socialism if that's your preferred pronoun). Andrew Kliman here completely solidifies this: youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg, also illustrating that there is no such thing as "worker ownership" to define either the lower or higher phase of communism in Marx.

Types of ownership are only relevant to capitalism (joint-stock, democratic-horizontal, etc.); communism is the termination of the historical cycle of capital, and the institution of (private) property for which this is required is in Marx also defined as any instance in which free access to the means of production is restricted, be it through a state, a corporation or a cooperative.

...

That's not the basic definition of the word "socialism," though. If you consider Marx's primary critique of Capital and the political economy to be the ownership of the means of production, I employ you to re-read capital. "Socialism" which only changes who owns the MoP only changes who is fucking over who. It does not in of itself defeat the inherit instability within the law of value.

To my knowledge, Lenin did not claim the USSR was a socialist state during his rule. He may have been working towards "building Socialism," but that is very different.

it is you who needs to reread marx because socialism was meant to be a less shitty next step from capitalism, not a resolution of its contradictions.

I'm re-reading Marx right now, so no skin off my back. Where does he say this?

Clearly there are some contradictions within "socialism," otherwise it would not be in motion towards "communism." That doesn't mean that those contradictions are exactly those which exist in capitalism, except those resolved by changing ownership. If I am mistaken, I'd appreciate a citation where Marx says something along the lines of "Socialism is where the proletariat own the means of production, but still engage in an otherwise capitalist mode of production."

who was saying otherwise?

Said the law of value would exist under socialism. If the law of value is left unaltered, the contradictions from capitalism are as well.

The law of value is not even close to being the only contradiction of capitalism.

shit-tier-OP

The law of value is the nexus of many of the contradictions of capitalism.

Most of which are made irrelevant by social ownership, even if the underlying forces of the law of value continue

You are aware that a dictatorship of the proletariat is by definition not socialism/communism? It's the proletariat class under capitalism using statist violence to overthrow the bourgeois one and end commodity-production. When the class relation is abolished, so by necessity is the dictatorship of any class.

I feel this depends strongly on how you define "social ownership." If it's just co-ops, I don't see how this is true. If social ownership is instead the society as a whole actually arranging production for use-value, then sure, but this also is a fundamental change to the law of value.

It is a transition to communism, just like socialism in some strains of thought. Socialism cannot exist without the dictatorship of the proletariat

I see now. Capitalism evolves into Socialism at level 16 and into its final form, Communism, at level 34.

...

I agree with it. He was the first to provide a much more coherent and theoretical conceptualization of Stalinism and the USSR under it as not state capitalist, but just plain capitalist. He was purged from the Comintern after calling Stalin the gravedigger of the revolution in person, too, and his historical account of how Russia went from a successful and authentic proletarian revolution to the state it ended up in is much more comprehensive than to say it was a "workers' state" that degenerated.

Alpha af

Ah yes, the State and Revolution, where Lenin says the postal service is socialism. From everything I've seen of Marx, and just plain old reasoning, I'd say that considering how previous economic stages have been declared in past, that because the relationship of labor to the means of production would change significantly under a transitional phase it should count as its own mode of production.

Also
TSSI was empirically proven to be dogshit compared to original Marxist LTV.

This is historically not true, just look at feudalism and slavery.
Also, Marx says this of the lower phase of communism:

...

Yup.

No, this means that people must work. A communist society ensures this by evaluating and rewarding the concrete labour of its members, which it plans to make it so there is enough use-value produced, ie: no shortages. There is no value involved.

Which is communism.

Oh yeah? Can you name them?

Which Oasis album is that pic from?

Lenin, The State and Revolution:

It's more: the transition features relations of production that will be the basis of socialism. But as long as the transition is not complete:
1) There is always a risk of a counter-revolution wiping down the progress, that is: replacing the planning and production-for-use we managed to put in place with markets and production-for-value.
2) The only way to avoid 1) is to go forward in the spreading of the revolution.
3) The society cannot be called "socialist" yet; it is still capitalist for all intents and purposes.

As for the USSR, they failed in 2) in the 1920's, and as a consequence succumbed to 1).

>lower stages
My gosh, you are wrong on so many levels.

Wtf?

You have never read Bordiga, have you?

That marx quote proves his point you twit, common ownership is equivalent to the abolition of ownership as exclusive control by a subset of society no longer remains.

If this triggers you, Marx has also said public forms of transport are crypto-socialistic and Bordiga also considered firefighting to function on communistic principles.

Provide quotes. You've said before "there's evidence that…" and then never actually delivered.

Pure ideology.

Marx called the DotP the DotP for a reason: because it's not its own mode of production.

Watch the fucking video; it's completely unrelated to the TSSI.

If this is really your method of thinking: that we can't infer someone's words because you dislike another one of their arguments, why did you invoke Lenin first to make a point and then start screeching about someone else's mention of Lenin?

Besides, the TSSI for Kliman is not meant to replace the LTV; the LTV calculates (exchange) value. The TSSI is a price calculation system, and price != (exchange) value.

Feudalism knew the very first Ltds and cooperatives (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viamala#1473_Viamala_letter_of_intent) as well as many other ownership-distribution schemes operating on primitive accumulation. The structure of a feudal lord's house also varied massively. What mattered, as always, was the mode of production and that which was enabled by and conduced in it.

Marx did not foresee the emergence of state-capitalist or other "transitional" systems such as are presently recognized as actualizations of "Marxian socialism." For him, socialism was, first of all, the end of value production and thus also the end of the capitalist relations of production. "Within a co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production," Marx wrote, "the producers do not exchange their products. Neither does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as one of their material qualities – since now individual labors are directly component parts of the total labor, and not indirectly, as in capitalist society." In Marx’s view, no real social change, as regards the conditions of the working class, was possible unless it involved a change in the social relations of production. "The distribution of the means of consumption at any period," he wrote, "is merely the consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves […] Capitalist methods of production for example depend on the condition that the material conditions of production are distributed among non-workers under the form of capital and land ownership, while the masses are only owners of the personal conditions of production, i.e., labor-power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the contemporary [capitalism] distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. But if the material conditions of production are the collective property of the workers themselves, then, naturally, a different distribution of the means of production from the present one will result." This is all in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

This implies that the Bolshevik party could have /ever/ achieved a successful transition to communism, that it was ever a dictatorship of the proletariat to begin with. Just stop and think about what a party is to begin with. Those in control of the state will always have a different set of interests as the people at large, so as long as the proletariat in its totality was not in control of the state, it was never a dictatorship of the proletariat.

READ NIGGA READ
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/why-law-of-value-really-applies-in-socialist-economies/

I read his schtict on the democratic principle. All that analysis just to conclude that the problem with the USSR was its fixation on democracy in democratic centralism. Centralism is exactly what doomed the communist project in the 20th century. Even the most basic analysis of political history will show you that systemic centralism will always doom a state to a short life, for when things go wrong, people will blame the people in charge, and when the party is the people in charge, and the party has a systemic monopoly on state power, guess what, people are going to blame the party. The reason liberal capitalism has lasted so long is because they can constantly switch in and out ideologically similar parties. If communism is to succeed, even the opposition to the transition state must be systemically forced to fight for communism.