Who's in the right here?

Who's in the right here?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Peter Woods

"But every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social inter-relations. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production. But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations — i.e., in exchange — and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers, and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producers. […] *With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer.* Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. […] Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. *Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible.* The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. *In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.* marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Literally been told the opposite on this board.

Marx himself barely wrote a couple sentences related to central planning. But something tells me both are retarded.

Marxism is a theoretical framework to analyse capitalism.

This board never knew fuck all and especially recently has been infested by tankies.

Read a book instead.

facebook feuds are hilarious, gunnar is basically phil greaves while peter woods is an ultra who gets constantly mocked by tankies

north korea did nothing wrong

Don't listen to the retards on this board, Marx literally recommends economic planning in his works.

That doesn't mean that Marxism is a method of economic planning.

Economic planning isn't the same as Marxism. It is, however, true that Marxists seek to bring forth a communist society, which likely will need central planning to function.

Both of these people are idiots. I've banned Peter Woods from my groups and pages and Gunnar rarely understands shit, and will shill psuedo-science to defend his position that tankies never did anything wrong.

In this case however, both of them are idiots it seems. Marxism is a diverse field of thought. Marxism isn't exclusively the idea of how an economy is planned. That's just retarded.

Woods, because Marxism is merely a method of societal critique. It is neither a readymade prescription, economism, a (hard, at least) science or synonymous with socialism or communism.

Angeles is wrong because he equates Marxism with scientific socialism, scientific socialism being a term used by Marx and Engels to describe socialism as envisioned through historical-materialist thinking rather than economistic, ahistorical or outright idealistic thinking, which could for them be contrasted to scientific socialism as "utopian socialism". A planned economy means virtually nothing: all human activity when interacting with economic laws or even just necessity is planned. Central planning can mean something: either the state-centralized management of wage-labour and commodities or community-driven management of labour and surplus distribution.

Which can again mean anything depending on how one describes social. For Marx, even production under capitalism was social, but not directly social as it was mediated by objects (commodities) and the impersonal forces that govern this. For Marx, communism would be directly social production, now no longer mediated by objects or the laws they impose.

A brief look at their Facebook profiles confirms my suspicions: Woods is a type of Marxist communist, likely a type of ultra, and Angeles is your bog-standard veteran FDCK.

Woods gets my preliminary seal of approval.

For those unaware Varn is a fucking amazing guy. People frequently think of what actually intellgible and well-read person would be ready to debate reactionaries on the internet and I always say we should approach him. I mean he has reactionaries on the various podcasts he's on all the time and he's put them in their place frequently. I discovered him through Diet Soap/Zero Books podcast where he was always great on.

gunnar is a goldmine of next level tankie shit

Well how is Woods wrong?

lmao

What groups and pages? Is that guy everywhere?

He isn't, however he probably is anyways, somewhere in that conversation.


A group I used to admin and Revolutionary Memes Extreme

Got it, he's wrong because you dislike him.

Now you've got it

...

jesus
seek him

read lenin you piece of shit