What is the alternative to commodity production?

what is the alternative to commodity production?

Other urls found in this thread:



what will the form of a product look like then under communism?


products sold for use-value rather than exchange value.

I say "sold" but it's more like "distributed"

Thanks but how will use-value be determined?

Production for use (rather than for exchange), with equal participation in the product (rather than remuneration). In other words, communism.

It won't be, per se. Production for use doesn't entail inventing some way of measuring utility (which is impossible). It entails democratic planning of the economy.

by looking at something and determining whether it is useful?

Why would you need to determine it?
You need stuff, just make/ask for it.

so you wouldnt even need to pay for it?

That's an oxymoron, and you are retarded.

how is that an oxymoron?

Selling is exchange

You seem pretty new, so let me break communism way down.
Instead of making things for the purpose of selling them (which is what we have now), you make things for the purpose of using them. (This includes services.) Generally, the things made under this system are usually confined to necessities (based on the current cultural definition of what is "necessary").
Instead of getting paid for working to produce these necessities, you get an equal share of the necessities. (If you refuse to work, you don't get anything.)
This allows society to produce things in order to meet people's needs, rather than for the purpose of enriching people who already own capital (which is what happens under capitalism).

it was an accident you pedantic nigger

I just noticed that. Sorry, comr8.

Production for use. The whole primary characteristic of the commodity is that it is always necessarily first produced for exchange.


Also, there are some socialists who don't really have a problem with commodity production, and focus more on the problems of private property.
We tend to be hated around here, though, especially by leftcoms.

how the heck do you have commodity production without private property? let me guess: private property for you is "when the workplace has a boss"?

Commodities are produced for exchange value.

So, yeah, communism.

Private property is a social relationship in which a property owner takes possession of the product that someone else worked to create, because the production involved the owner's property. Under capitalism, capital is private property.
Nothing about private property overlaps with commodity production.
So under market socialism, for example, where businesses are organized as worker cooperatives, you have commodity production without private property–since the workers retain ownership of the product of their labor. But they could still choose to sell that product.

Subsistence farming?

You're talking about level of technology, not mode of production.
A commodity is something produced for the purpose of equal exchange. While commodity production it's been around for a long time, it has been the dominant mode of production for less than two centuries.
Lurk or read more.

The alternative is communism, free distribution of goods and services.

The real question is how we get there. No other question matters at this point.

you have an odd definition of private property, one that basically says that the only difference between private property and not-private property is that there's not a boss in the business that is not-private property. in this way capitalism is define not as a mode of production but a mode of management.

the most common definition for private property in socialist theory is any instance where access is restricted to the means of production because profit is to be made through that limited form of ownership. in other words, a means of production and those allowed to operate it become an isolated producer, where the output of their product (a commodity) is distributed in a fashion that follows the whims of whoever, be it the boss's or the collective's concensus, according to what they believe will most valorize that output.

the reason why you can't say "the workers retain ownership of the product of their labor. But they could still choose to sell that product" is because it defeats the whole purpose of limiting that particular (collection of) means of production's ownership to those employed. "but" indicates that the whole point of limiting ownership was ever for any other reason than to turn a profit. if this weren't private property, would you mind if i, without being employed there (i trust i don't need to be a part of your non-private property) walked into your firm, took some materials, made myself a widget and then left with it? i doubt it.

moreover, what is a market? a relationship between two isolated producers. how are they isolated? through private property. if anyone could just enter and do their business and leave without being restricted by the need to be employed there, it wouldn't be a business, hence also not private property, there'd be no market and no profit. and this is all without going into the details about what this need to profit all demands and produces.

But subsistence farming was a mode of production back in the Neolithic or something, when it was the highest technology available. It still is, in entirely too many places to this day.

was ronald reagan a socialist: youtube.com/watch?v=rJFcpRxju2g ?

I don't think it's odd. In the words of Proudhon,
The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument without using it himself. To this end he lends it.
I wouldn't put it in those terms exactly, but that's sort of the gist. The point is that it's a social relationship, not a class of object (though the object itself often masks the social relationship, leading many people to confuse one for the other).
Yes and no. Management under capitalism (or any other exploitative economic system) is different than it would be under socialism, because managers are employed by the exploiters to further their interests rather than those of the exploited (or those of the managers themselves, though this often fails). Like any exploitative system, it must be continually reinforced, from the top down. At the same time, it really is a mode of production, because the ownership of the product is transferred to the capitalist at the end.
Of course it is true that access to the means of production are restricted. But I was using "private property" to refer to the abstract and essential form of social relations that govern the act of production itself, not those which limit production. If there's a better term to describe what I'm talking about, I haven't heard it, though I'd happily accept one.
Yes, under the definition of "private property" that you use, I understand that.
I assume that you're using "profit" in the colloquial sense here. If so, then yes, that's true, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you mean "profit" in the Marxist sense, then that's just not correct, because it doesn't exist in worker cooperatives. Anyway, "profit" in the colloquial sense is present in all production for exchange–the terms are practically synonymous.
This completely ignores the division of labor and comparative advantage. Even if a carpenter and a miller had access to each other's means of production, each would stick to his own sphere of activity, because it will produce more (both for himself individually and for society as a whole). Note that I'm not arguing for markets necessarily, just pointing out that means of production go unused by certain persons for reasons other than a lack of access.

It's subjective

For example, if my mum wants a cake and I bake it for her, it has the use-value of being delicious.
If I make a hammer for someone, it has the use-value of helping him build a house or whatever, it all depends on the situation


I really hope you're shitposting. "Use-value" isn't the same as "function."

Property rights, when enforced, are as real as it gets, fam. Social relations are material. Even Stirner knew that.

I wsih i could ignore it but cops keeps beating me when i'm trespassing :(

read bordiga


that notion of property went out of fashion when marx authored the poverty of philosophy. he reminded him that private ownership is not changed when the private proprietors of a particular piece of property are on the same legal level.

it's corrext in both senses. marx in critique of the gotha programme attacked lassalle on his notion of "equal proceeds of production". when you have private proprietors now all no the same legal level, the thing they still is still in every way a surplus of their labor. since they cannot exist as one isolated producer (they need other isolated producers to justifty their existence and maintain it alive through keeping profits up) they have to constantly uphold the exchange process and keep things in equilibrium. utility here is completely secondary to how much exchange value they produce. marx's definition of capital accumulation was explicitly not "the boss's profit" for this same reason.

it absolutely doesn't. the division of labor is that which produced the first class societies, which is only abstractly done away with in a private property of legal equals.

i don't know why you first started with proudhon's utterly outdated and discredited conceptions only to then add in marx. are you aware that on all these points marx rebutted proudhon?

this guy may be shitposting stirnernite but this is in a sense raising an important question for you. if property is as you defined it above and its imperative is not in all essence before anything the turning of a profit, then what is the obverse of private property?

in all cases you have workers, now abstract capitalists, busily competing with one another's (privately owned) businesses, recreating the exact same economic laws levied upon any other form of (capitalist, yes) mode of production. it is only by elevating the function of "boss" into a sort of mythical category that you can come to this conclusion.

and respond to this pls

he may have worded it poorly but use-value, utility, function, etc. are all synonymous if we use them to describe the importance an object or service has for us depending. i for example do not care for liquorice, so it has no use-value for me, yet it has a use-value for someone else. this use-value may be its taste, its nutritional value, etc. but with the labor theory of value we know that such subjective use-values do not govern society, rather it is their exchange-value, which is decided by the amount of time it takes to make them.

"The usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value"

the only point of publicly being an annoying stirnerite is really making anons think after they dismiss your shitpost, to be quite honest.

To a Stirnerite all property is his personal property, tho. All property comes under force.