Difference between anarchists schools and marxism

let's distinguish socialism from communism, saying socialism is an intermediate mode of production where the law of value still aply and there is markets, meanwhile communism is when the law of value is abolished.

then it's:


is this right?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htm#intro
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3
marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/video-the-incoherence-of-transitional-society.html.
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No, even with a little bit of reading you can know that the law of value implies the existence of capitalism

Socialism is not capitalism with red flags.

Marx: capitalism → socialism = communism

excuse me, are you trying to tell me that a labour voucher-based economy system in which the means of production are of public access wouldn't be socialist at all?

because that's what i meant for socialism you moron

excuse me, i should have posted
leninism= capitalism → socialism → communism
my fault

Bakunin was for revolutionary syndicalism - anarcho-syndicalism. Although, the union governed society, after the big general strike, is as much of an intermediate state like the dictatorship of the proletarian is.

Let's not.

If the law of value is not abolished you have capitalism. Labour vouchers do not require it.

Stop spreading lies. Engels BTFO this retarded leftcom position more then a century ago:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htm#intro

Unless you want to claim that capitalism has existed for 7,000 years then I can't possibly see how you can reconcile your position with Marx and Engels.

labour vouchers require the law of value operating, it's the definition.
but if labour vouchers are implemented, exploitation couldn't exist., as well as the cyclical crisis; it pretty much looks to me like another, clearly different mode of production, between capitalism and communism.

bump

For Marxism (as in Marx) it would be capitalism → communism = socialism.

Since the other three had no working understanding of capital and value-production, they would in rhetoric believe themselves to transcend capitalism which two of those would call "socialism" (two, because Proudhon did not consider himself or his ideals socialist) but would in their ideal's practice merely obtain various types of worker-managed capitalism.


The law of value develops with the development of commodity production, to the extent that the mode of production is dominated by commodity production is the extent to which the law of value is operative. Capitalism as a system takes commodity production as the general mode of production and therefore the law of value is developed to the fullest extent therein. Socialism will be a mode of production wherein commodity production and therefore the law of value is abolished, and that is generally how it is understood by people who are not saddled with notions of what would effectively be a worker-managed capitalism.

So, after linking us to an Engels text that states the obvious, you are now welcome to link us to an Engels text that truly describes the event of a post-capitalism as holding the categories of value, wage labour, money, commodity production and the state.

you mean
stalinism/'marxism'-'leninism'=capitalism -> socialism -> communism

tbh

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

Kinda sounds like Marx endorsed the idea of a transitional society to me fam. Likewise, Marx and Engels absolutely ridiculed the anarchists those who preached abstention from seizing the power of the state on behalf of the working class where possible.

Will you correct Marx and Engels on this point and prove they were petit-bourgeois anarchists? Or will you cede to the fact they were neither children terrified of the power of the state, nor mindless state-worshippers but in fact proletarian scientists who saw that it could be a useful tool in the battle of the working class to transform society?

Maybe you can show the world what a transitional society under the dictatorship of the proletariat without any commodity production or the operation of the law of value will look like in to prove your not at variable with Marx. But until you can your really just splitting hairs and talking in circles, your quarrel is with the Marxist concept of a transitional society and not in the fact that the law of value or the state existed in the USSR.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3

Leftcom literally cannot be real. How can you have communism without a state?

You mean how can you have communism WITH a state, right? COMRADE?

BTFO pol


Not and anarkid, but, wasn't Bakhunin also all about "from capitalism straight to anarchy AKA communism"?

itt: people arguing on the best way to build a society that none of them can describe in any detail

Do you all maybe think that your arguments about how best to achieve communism might be a little retarded considering that you you have no clue about what it is or how it's supposed to operate?

ignore the post identical to this one in the post-left thread

Wew, so where are the counter-arguments? I thought only Holla Forums and Marx himself truly understands Marx.

Bakunin was a collectivist not a communist

It doesn't say transitional society; it says revolutionary transformation, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat. And just as Marx hypothesizes a difference between a lower and higher stage, so is he clear in saying that in the lower stage we are already in communism, but merely a lower, less developed part.

The concept of a transitional society is ML garbage; the USSR wasn't "transitioning" anywhere except towards and increasingly more pressing need to liberalize to accompany the demands of the existing law of value's effects on society. Russia ceased to be a DotP around the earlier 1920s, and the proletariat hasn't infinite time to hold out in power if the revolution stays isolated, and the Russian insurrection died when the German revolution didn't come, which Lenin was incredibly clear about.

Andrew Kliman, complete with direct citations and references to Marx's work, explains in complete detail again just why the concept of a "transitional society" is complete and utter bullshit, that was actually retroactively devised after the NEP, particularly in the "socialism in one country" garbage phase, to justify the defacto Taylorist capitalist society Russia became: marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/video-the-incoherence-of-transitional-society.html. Have fun arguing against Marx yourself, friendo.

You're not the first leftcom to spout this bs line, but not one has been able to explain how the period of War Communism, where production collapsed below even Czarist levels all the way back into the stone ages and there was mass starvation, rationing and violence everywhere due to the extremely bloody civil war going on etc. was somehow closer to Marx's vision of a socialist society then the Stalinist period. You might as well consider Cambodia's period of """War Communism"""" along with Year Zero to be a true DotP while your at it.

If you consider the NEP within your vague subclassification of "the early 20s" as the ideal period of DotP in Soviet Russia then I don't even know what to say, you're not even a socialist at that point but a capitalist in disguise. Something had to be done and it was done by Comrade Stalin who carried out the collectivization of agriculture and the petty-bourgeois left has been lashing out ever since they see themselves in the small property holders who were expropriated or forced to join a cooperative. Seizing big industries owned by monopolists and state-run war-related enterprises? Cool. Cracking down on "small business" and small exploiters? Not so cool. That's why the Western social democratic fanfare always ends with Lenin who didn't live to enact such measures himself.

Wrong. The functioning of the law of value became more restricted as time went on with the end of the NEP and the institution of central planning. Less profitable industries, services, and products were subsidized at the expense of profitable industries and harmful/redundant industries and operations that were curtailed etc. if it had the same function as in a capitalist society then the industries and goods that yielded the most short-term profit would've grown the fastest, that isn't what happened. In addition to that socially beneficial services that weren't profitable at all were provided freely and were typically subsidized etc. The whole economy grew according to a plan and not the anarchy, there wasn't a business cycle as is typical under capitalism etc.

This was changed under Khrushchev and his successors but it was fully-inline with the Trotskyite-Bukharinite ideas and policies that were and still are fetishized by the Western Left.

I've yet to see one leftcom explain what they would've done if they were in Stalin/Lenin's place. Most of them shimmy right the fuck out of the argument and refuse to specify what they would have done, they refuse to do anything as easy Monday Morning Quarterbacking! Some of them admit that nothing really could be done without a simultaneous revolution in the West and very few of them are brave enough to state that they believe Russia should've surrendered the struggle against capitalism and revert back to a typical open bourgeois democratic state.

Never change, leftcoms. Pic related its Bordiga the cuck of fascism.

Pick one.

It wasn't a socialist society because the DotP is not socialism.

Come on.

socialism =/= socialized capitalism

Why does anyone consider him Marxist?

Social democracy=/=worker ownership of MoP even Sweden refused to implement plans to make the economy majority-worker owned during the heyday of the social democratic paradigm of capitalist class control

Social democracy: Production for exchange-value, taxes are used to reinvestment into infrastructure which raises the standard of living cough* distribution of commodities. Doesn't resolve the antagonism of worker and capitalist. Only entrenches and fetishises the relation, meaning that workers still have to work more than what our needs demand, to keep the capitalist mode running.

Socialism/communism: Production for use-value. No capitalists who seek profit. All resources are used for useful purposes, such as food, homes, healthcare, infrastructure. All to raise the quality of life and not for profit. The length of workdays varies based on needs of the people.

How is social democracy a valid leftist orientation?

...

I didn't say all commodity production is capitalism but it being the dominant form of production is what distinguishes capitalism from previous economic organization nor did I say that class exploitation isn't important. What I did say is that worker managed capitalism isn't an alternate mode of production.

What the fuck does social democracy and Sweden have to do with anything?

Capitalism isn't only a mode of production it typically also has an active human agent that keeps it in perpetuates it, defends it, and keeps it inexistent. If you have a "worker-managed capitalism" then who are they exploiting, themselves? That would seem to imply that capitalism could evolve in such a way that it can survive while jettisoning its keep contradiction: class exploitation. In such a situation, the worker-elite within the cooperatives would gradually become a new bourgeoisie. So it really is an oxymoron of a term…

But, in the same way that cooperatives like Mondragon can adapt themselves to the conditions of capitalism, they also have the capacity to serve the cause of socialism and adapt themselves to their conditions. If the cooperatives in the Soviet Union had to produce for the market, put profit ahead of all else like your typical capitalist corporation or grew simply in relation to the profit they could sponge as any decentralized cooperative would under capitalist conditions I would say that it was "worker-owned capitalism" [insert other hip Western leftist buzzword] etc. But since cooperatives aren't inherently capitalist, nor were they set up in "mark soc" fashion like Mondragon I don't consider it to be capitalist.

What distinguishes capitalism from all other pre-existing economic formations is that its a system for production for profit whereas previous economic formations sustained themselves via rent and other forms of pre-capitalist tributary relations. It's not the fact that commodity production is more or less dominant, as Marx pointed out, had that been the case, Ancient Rome, the Byzantine Empire etc. etc. would have become capitalist along time ago, they would have been the seedbeds of early capitalism instead of sleepy North-Western Europe where market-relations, monetary exchange, and commodity production were at a lower-point in the middle ages then any comparable medieval civilization. Marx points out, contrary to popular Marxist interpretation today, that the expansion of market-relations and commodity circulation during the Early Modern period did not make those societies capitalist rather those trade revolutions only encouraged its rise. Reading Marx carefully we come to the secondary singular characteristic of capitalism which is that unlike previous modes of production where peasants and artisans owned their own means of production but were exploited in various ways, the peasantry was systematically stripped of its tools and means of production and thus the only way for the peasantry to survive was to hire themselves out for a wage thus transforming them into wage-workers. That's why England was the birth-place of capitalism and not Spain, Portugal, France, Hollande or any similar nation that combined colonial mercantilism with market-friendly policies that weren't inimical to the feudal mode of production. True, you can say that they were going in that direction and others have made the argument that India and China were going that way before colonialism, but England did it first and the revolutionary understanding of political economy oriented around profit combined with a new bourgeois-monarchy combined with the creation of a massive population of disenfranchised proletarians is why they did it first.

So, actually the fact that workers do not have control of the means of production is an essential characteristic of capitalism. That's why I said it doesn't really make sense as a classification.

I brought up social democracy because that's actually a good example of real social capitalism whereas even those who dickride Mondragon and factory occupations are a step ahead of social democrats in their view of the world. The promoters of social capitalism did not allow the crowding out of private capitalist enterprise by cooperatives in even their model nation which is allegedly the furthest left soc dem nation as well.

*its key contradiction