Where does the generic hatred for commodity production come from on Holla Forums? I know that the typical argument is that "markets are unsustainable since they rely on scarcity", but what about commodities that are actually scarce?
Say I have a new invention that would improve the overall production of a socialist economy (high use-value). Something like, say the modern PC for example. If I created the first compact PC in socialist, how can I rely on the people to fund my production? What if they don't realize that it's in their best interest? (which is often the case).
My suggest would be, as a market socialist, that he freely gathers a group of like-minded innovators (and some laborers) to form a democratic co-operative and produce it as a commodity for exchange. They will see with enough advertising the demand for that product will rise and equally the amount of labor-power that goes into that product.
The problem I see with soviet-style centrally planned economies (democratic or not) is that people will not always invest in something if they aren't completely sure that it's worth investing in. Commodity production offers a way for your product to easily be introduced into the homes of individuals if it increases their productivity. Can someone tell me if I'm getting this all wrong?
People against "Market Socialism"
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
archive.fo
twitter.com
This sounds like capitalism
yes, commodity production tends to do that
your post also sounds like not an argument.
ewwwww
I'm not talking about big-company-tier billboard advertising. I'm talking about going around your local community and telling people that your product exists.
C4SS typically has left-market articles. I suspect they won't fly very well here, though.
I've always been interested in the issue mostly because of the complexity of pricing and production without state centralization.
Because commodity production (good produced for exchange value) implies a system operating within the capitalist mode of production.
I recommend watching youtube.com/watch?v=Hb6dXR6AfXE Too long to webm, sorry and reading Wage, Labor & Capital and Critique of the Gotha Program.
This is where the problem already begins. Without making overreaching statements: What about just asking people to join you in making a prototype?
It's labor that makes these things possible, not money.
So basically capitalism?
This is essentially neoclassical thinking. I recommend reading Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises or check out youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go It's very long, but absolutely worth it, I suggest watching and digesting it in stages
this still doesn't address the fact that the people making a commodity that has use-value will need to fund their production.
"What about just asking people to join you in making a prototype?"
okay, what about factory machines, materials, assembly lines? you don't just make these things out of thin air, you need people to give you resources. Commodity production allows you to do this (working in exchange for other commodities) and gives your product the possibility to make greater supply.
*making a product that has use-value
abolishing commodity production is marxism 101, marx said it and basically every flavor of marxists agree that as long as it exists, the law of value still applies (even Stalin).
but I don't understand why though, thus my shitpost.
Yes, but that isn't socialism. (See Marx)
Now, how do you allocate labor and resources for maximizing use-value - which itself isn't quantifiable - without resorting to the commodity form, wage labor, etc.?
I don't have a clear answer to that, but economic cybernetics attempts to deal with that.
archive.fo
Because it is inherent to what defines capitalism. Production for exchange.value rather than use-value. This in turn enables all the other characteristics of capitalism: Wage labor, worker exploitation, etc.
It's the defining aspect of capitalism.
From what I understand looking at the threads about this book, Cockshott's economy still relies on the direct consent of individuals in order to provide resources for the production of that product.
This relies on either a) everyone in that society recognizing the use-value of that product, which they don't always do and consenting to its production or b) a central planner doing the same thing (which no individual is always able to consistently do).
"the alienation of labor" as you call it allows people to exchange their labor to fund the production of another product. I'm not calling for a complete market economy, I'm just saying there might be scenarios where production of exchange is still necessary, even if it's temporarily.
yeah because central planning has always just meant one guy does all the paperwork for the entire national economy
right guys
see a)
No they don't. What they'll need is:
And what they will do is asking to those who produce factory machines, materials, assembly lines.
If these producers can't face all the demand for reasons, then you'll ask the Soviet to make you a priority; in order to do that, you'll give your arguments about why it is very important to produce whatever use-value you want to produce.
No, because everything I've described happens in capitalism as well, including the "ask to the Soviet" part (except this time you present arguments not only about utility of what you want to produce – it has to be useful to some extent if you want to sell it – but about prospects for a profit). Market mechanisms do not float in thin air, they are not magical.
FTFY
...
Even the soviet union had product reps
...
...
The bad thing about the firm isnt the fact that there is a boss in it, but that there is one. In market "socialism" we have production for exchange than for need, some might say that what we socialist want to achieve is workplace democracy (of course we want that also but still) where we can decide upon how we are going to work, but for me and im pretty sure that there are other people that agree with me here is the massive shortage of work and of course that everybody gets his needs, in market "socialism" that would be a lot more different.