So lets talk about the critique of the Gotha programme. Its a short read and got some interesting bits

>Another good text is also this one: marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/epilogue.htm#h1, one
Do you mean the epilogue specifically or the entire text?

Just fyi, take anything from A.W. with one or several grains of salt (he should have plenty enough to share anyway).

Now now lets not bully him too hard.

I've blocked no one on twitter except one person: Rebel, for the reason that I was tired of seeing their shitposts even though i didn't follow them.

Perhaps you mean 'mute'. I generally don't do that unless someone seriously can't top repeating the same shit for the 3rd time in a string of 20+ tweets.

Alright lad whatever you say.

BTW I wish people just started offering epubs, would be much easier.
Polite sage.

It goes back to the prior notion of the lower phase "still being in the womb of the old"; you still have everything capitalism produced, socialized production units, isolated production, etc., but because of either planning or the labour voucher system it all functions without producing any value.

"We" don't necessarily reject that shorthand ("socialism" for lower phase of communism, "communism" for higher). In fact, such shorthands if mutually understood are all fine, and as you can see Bordiga, ardent critic of the USSR as being little more than capitalism, accepted it. The point is that socialism/communism must in all cases overcome capitalism, conceived in Marx as the society of generalized commodity production, having money-capital, economic classes (a proletariat, etc.), and so on.

That text I translated actually is titled "Dialogue with Stalin" and it features their back and forths in the late '40s and '50s. I might translate the whole thing once as on this subject specifically (nature of the USSR) Bordiga explains that the mere existence of money-capital and the State disconform any notion of socialism/lower phase in the USSR, and at best it is in the transitional stage (proletarian dictatorship), although this is also dubious since the working class is not directly in power, and the Party does not represent any type of directional policy towards the abolition of money-capital or the transformation of property relations. But yeah that'll maybe be for another thread, let's keep that debate and all the sperging it will incite out of here.

Yeah I linked the epilogue here, specifically for the second part subtitled 2. From Money to Labour-Time Computation.

This has been completely and utterly refuted by Yassen. Read a book nigger.

I believe he does not think it's exchange: he's saying that the principle (of equal amounts of labor being considered equivalent) is the same in the lower-phase (when there is no exchange of commodities) as when there was commodity exchange. However, as he says, "content and form are changed"; in particular, even though the abstract principle may be the same, there is no exchange which would imply an equivalence of abstract labor "embedded" within commodities - rather there is a distribution system based on concrete labor.

You cannot have isolated production in communism; it must be co-operative production. Division of labor would persist in the lower phase, though.

Ah cool.

BTW i read that text from the Japanese dude (well almost all of it but
i saw your post so I might as well ask now) and I had a question about these two passages:
Does he mean, for example, "I trade one fidget spinner for two loafs of bread" as opposed of using their labour value?

So this one combined with if i got the last one correct the last one paints a clear picture that if a distribution system for social labour is based directly on labour time, the law of value does not apply.

Now I personally like cockshott's system, since it follows this pretty well, but there is one thing which I am not sure if it would make it "unpure" so to say. Cockshotts system has central democratic planning, people are paid one hour for one hour of work, all good. But the consumer goods are not "priced" exactly according to their labour cost. Their "price" is adjusted so that, if the social distribution of labour is not optimal, there are no pre-emptive empty shelves or unclaimed products. This would prevent products that are too scarce for whatever reason (sudden change in societal demand, failed yields for a certain crop, etc) from being claimed by first come first serve basis, and also prevents the need to directly ration by limiting the number people can buy (which leads to lines). It also does the inverse, it makes sure no products remain unclaimed, it makes their "price" cheaper so that all of them are claimed and nothing goes to waste. The difference between these numbers then indicate whether to increase or decrease production to better approach optimal distribution of labour in society.
Now it would seem that this wouldnt cause the law of value to emerge because there is no commodity production and no exchange. But at the same time products are not directly expressed in their pure labour value in their cost to claim them for personal consumption (although their labour cost would still be written next to the sales price to better inform everyone). Does this "express a product in term of the use-value of another product"?

Litterally who

Pretty sure that is what he said.

Actually my favorite thing I've ever read. Especially the beginning.

leftcom plz respond

That's kind of a recurring theme.

bump to save from Holla Forums autism