Muke has officially killed tankies

...

youtube.com/watch?v=odhhGmwxZ5I

very good video about so called 'cultural marxism'

That's not quite what Marx means by wage labor. According to that, labor vouchers would be wage labor just as well. If you are not using the Marxist definition of wage labor, I don't see the point of trying to make a video of a "marxist" critique about the USSR.

NazBols aren't what's usually known as "tankies", dipshit

It was a better video because it was about right-wing memes, but I consider it still pretty brazen to make a video talking about post-modernism and the Frankfurt School while being completely ignorant on that topic. He should just point out how retarded such a conspiracy is and leave it at that.

You don't have an less idea about it than him if you're fusing postmodernism with Frankfurt Schule.

NazBol is Stalinism without the pretenses.

Labour vouchers are distributed democratically and in USSR you just had a contract with the kolkhoz and simply get paid for your extremely alienated work.

He never really talked about their theories in depth, he just gave very basic overviews of what they talked about to disprove their connection to any kind of subversion of western culture.

Do you understand what the word "and" means?

Lenin was more of a nationalist than Stalin.

So why you started to write offtopic about postmodern philosophy when it wasn't even point of video?

Comrade, I kindly recommend you when you defend USSR, try to do it on baiss of Soviet reality and how this system worked in practice, than just theoretical marxist works and full ideology that was produced only by bureaucratic ruling class to justify their power, in the same way as aristocracy or bourgeoisie created their justifications.

>"That's not quite what Marx means by wage labor"
>just theoretical marxist works and full ideology that was produced only by bureaucratic ruling class to justify their power

Only a minority worked in Kolkhoz and even then you are not quite right, since those things were cooperatively owned and sold their surplus to the state. Sure you are not conflating those with the Sovkhoz? Regarding payment in state industries, salaries were negotiated between the Gosplan and the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions within the cooperatively planned economy.

Yet nothing with that has nothing to do with what Marx defined as wage labor.

>"That's not quite what Marx means by wage labor"
>just theoretical marxist works and full ideology that was produced only by bureaucratic ruling class to justify their power

im not sure what the fuck just happened

Comrade, I wasn't talking about any Soviet works. I was referring to the Marxist definition of wage labor. You are entitled to whatever definition you like. But when Muke claims to be a Marxist, I can expect correct Marxist definitions in his analysis, can I not?

Board is fucked. I can't properly reply either.

Well I prefer to use definitions that aren’t made up. Seriously this is the original and standard deffinition of socialism.

Dictionaries provide definitions of words.

Does Jack Angstreich view the USSR as socialist? I saw someone say he was a ML. Anyway, if that's the case we should try to get him to debate Muke on the question of if the USSR was state capitalist or socialist.

His voice is waayy too soft, my first guess was that he was an anarchist of some type, the "woke" kind that reads both Marx and Kropotkin, it's possible that he's a leftcom or a trot though.

Holy fuck leftypol is garbage, you kids worry more about your amazing interpretation of marxisim than what's going on in the real world, fuck

He actually is a Marxist-leninst. He says so at the beginning of the debate.In one of his other debates he mentions imperialism and a vanguard party also.

Holla Forums is for letting off steam and having fun. This is not a place for serious organizing. Stop taking imageboards so seriously. Just because people chill here doesn't mean they are doing real work with their comrades irl.

I'm glad he finally learned to read and it looks like he watched the kapitalism 101 law of value video series too. But wewlad he still doesn't get it.

...

hey why don't you fuck off you piece of shit

You don't get "paid" labor vouchers though. They're effectively just a coupon that exists between performance of so much work and their redemption in that amount of work in some other form.

It's a place for leftist discussion. Of course we are going to argue and make fun of each other. Just because the theory is serious doesn't mean we have to behave seriously on this board.

Nah, fuck you newfag.

You're a garbage person.

yep. one book muke.

ROO SAID HE'LL MAKE A RESPONSE.

ROO SAID HE'LL MAKE A RESPONSE.

ROO SAID HE'LL MAKE A RESPONSE.

THIS IS NOT A DRILL.

SOURCE?
O
U
R
C
E
?

muke BTFO

...

Let's guess what Roo is going to respond with:

You really can't have it both ways. If we are going to have discussions and argue you have to sometimes be able to live with people being serious. Linking to theory as if to try to have a discussion and then memeing endlessly at anyone trying to engage with the material is disingenuous at best.

...

You disappoint everyone around you.

Muke just isn't very intelligent tbh. You have to have to be born with a high enough I.Q. to understand these kind of topics.

Muke isn't dumb by any means, he's just very young and naive. It's very obvious he's only been a Marxist for a year or two. Once he starts actually reading Capital and other stuff like Lukacs, Gramsci, Althusser, Poulantzas, Bettelheim, etc. he'll be much, much better.

he is certainly much smarter than he was when he fist started though. From workers owning the MOP = socialism to something something commodity production.

So much for left unity

ayy lmao

better be true.

I guess you answered your own answer, huh?

how has it killed tankies? im ML and i don't disagree with much of what he said other than:

also this really boils down to a semantic debate about 'muh troo socialism'

what did he mean by this?

That Schnitz is a theoryless retard ponyfucker.

He should debate FinBol.
And by debate I mean get destroyed by

Roo will destroy Muke.

Roo will destroy a fucking twinkie or 12 and then record himself speaking gibberish and nobody will be able to tell if his mouth is still full or not

Roo "wins" debates by applying his overly-masculine presence to give himself some image of authority. If you listen to his actual debates, he does quite poorly articulating his points, in that he rarely goes into detail and lays out a thorough explanation, forcing his opponents and listeners to come to a conclusion solely through conjecture.

Let me explain what I mean:

Take Roo's mantra about socialist revolution being impossible in the 1st World. All he does to "prove" this point is blurt out, "BECAUSE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN A FULLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION". He never explains the relationship between socialist revolution and industrial development aside from pointing to a few selective samples (specifically China), nor does he go into other factors which may have equal importance (such as the political climate prior to revolution, hegemony, culture, etc.). It's also telling as to how he essentially follows the Brezhnev (read: tankie) mentality of "anything with a red flag is socialist", so immediately he baptizes turd positionist leaders/groups like Gaddafi, Mugabe, Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah as "socialists" simply on the basis that they're fighting the US and/or Israel. FFS I remember when he used to call Venezuela socialist and now he no longer does. The point is though, he conveniently points to any of these examples in order to "prove" 3rd Worldism correct, despite none of these being a true example of socialism. On the same token, he claims the uprising of May 68, the Black Panthers, the Portuguese Revolution, the anti-globalization movement, the anti-austerity uprisings in Greece, the Indignados, Occupy, BLM, the recent May Day riots in Paris and anti-G20 riots in Hamburg, or the recent Antifa direct actions in Charlottesville, Quebec City, and Berkeley "don't count" as evidence that there are socialist sparks in the West, because "none of these lead to socialism". Of course, but the Russian Revolution took years to carry out. Same thing with the Chinese Revolution. Why does he just assume that revolution is built in a day?

So yeah, if Muke does debate Roo I really hope Muke is aware of Roo's deceitful tactics.

That's a really verbose way of saying that his opponents are fucking betas. I don't even like the guy but as they say, all is fair in love and war. And if his opponents were really the big brained wojacks they portray themselves as they should have no trouble dealing with a high-school drop out who probably has made as many gaffes as W. Bush.

That too. He has the upper hand in most debates because his opponents are usually even more ignorant than he is.

Roo is a very aggressive guy and I get the impression he's very vengeful. Look at his recent rant video where out of nowhere he flies into a tangent about the "New York Maoists" disagreeing with him on Syria. You can see the rage in his eyes. What grudge does he have against these people?

After the whole Tim Sakada thing I just wrote Roo off as a psychopath. The fact that he would accuse a fellow comrade of being a child rapist as revenge for making fun of him, and then deny all responsibility, just goes to show his inability to deal with actual human relationships.

I also wanted to add:

Another example of Roo's shitty debate tactic is when he says something like: "Maoism is correct because Mao won." Again, this is begging the question. We know that Mao won, in that he came into power, but what about the *outcome*? China today is nowhere close to socialism despite claiming to hold some kind of nostalgic alliance to MZT. Mao's later years were plagued with revisionism, i.e. restoring relations with the US in fears that the USSR was going to attack.

It's funny, because genuine hardcore Maoists will admit that the Gang of Four was better than Mao, and that while Mao's theory was good his actual carrying out of his theories was terrible (i.e. New Democracy setting the seeds for later revisionism).

I'm honestly just waiting for him to shoot up some poor 'First-Worldists' somewhere outside Toronto.

I wouldn't put it past him to do something like that. He obviously has little self-control.

I remember some of them from my leftbook days, they were pretty fuckin' cancerous and I mean unusually even by normiebook communist standards. They imploded because of idpol, and even the Austin Red Guards (who was alleged to be a fraternal group of theirs) criticized them but I can't remember the grounds probably for liquidationism.

Its probably dumb to keep bringing it up now that their gone but ya know people like to waive the finger and say I was right and you were wrong. I don't think Roo will ever stop trying to remind the reddit and fedbook left that he was right about idpol largely for the wrong reasons and really that's only going to inflame their hatred towards him. On the whole, their criticisms of him are really bad.

Ya some Maoists will actually caution against reading Mao and really only uphold sixties Mao as correct. Reading some of the Gang of Four authors and some of the better Cultural Revolution writers made me question Maoism as it seemed to me that some of them had a better grip on the subject than Mao himself.

Now, the new Maoist line is that the tail-end of the Maoist years were revisionist, and Jason actually adheres to that but he's a vicious anti-Hoxhaist. To me, Hoxha makes a lot more sense than Mao does and when I read Hoxha's work its very similar to Lenin and Stalin's work whereas Mao's work is very different from theirs, which I suspect is why the Maoists always go on to say he was the most advanced communist leader in the 20th century.

I mean the writings of Mr.Hank-Hill-Who-Kills-Children is probably more lit then Mao.

*reading early Mao

Roo's criticisms of idpol are nothing new or groundbreaking. Right now, you're starting to see a massive backlash against idpol grow, not just in response to muh Bernie being attacked on not being "intersectional" enough during his campaign, but because everyone is starting to see how this kind of moralism and obsession with avoiding evil is costing the left in terms of what they could be achieving right now. Listening to Roo spew out: "idpol is LIBERALISM" without addressing something as simple as base/superstructure doesn't contribute anything.

I think Hoxha was definitely correct in most of his criticisms of Mao. Roo's anti-Hoxha vid was better but it still didn't display anything other than what you'd see on a leftypol discussion of the subject.

R E A L W O R L D

Granted, if Roo saw this thread he'd write everything we're saying off as a "personal attack." Just goes to show how incredibly thin his ego is.

They aren't groundbreaking but I at least give him credit for being willing to take the heat for it. Those who were against idpol were pretty much silenced in the 80s and 90s with the declining popularity of the Marxist Left in the developed world, for a while that wasn't a major problem but with OWS I'd say that idpol began really careening and spiraling out of control.

JMP is pretty asshurt because he claimed to be the foremost communist on the internet taking a position against idpol while Unruhe stole his spotlight when it came to that position. His position against idpol was pretty incoherent anyway it was basically "I basically agree with everything SJWs and idpolers say but I disagree with giving up Leninism and class politics" truly ground-breaking shit.

Everyone on Holla Forums go read your typical counterpunch article, go to the normie internet left, or to a protest and you might see its still quite entrenched, maybe even more so since Trump. It's sad in the sense that the nuanced understanding of politics evolving on the Left is being jettisoned in favor of shouting at the orange gorilla.

We're slowly getting somewhere but it doesn't help that a lot of people wont embrace anti-identitarianism because of fear of being called racist. Yes, even I'm sick of edge lords too but we don't get anywhere by tiptoeing around these things, you just can't carry a "Black Lives Matter" sign while ignoring the fact that its funded by the Ford Foundation, as it seems many people do.

Agreed, people perpetuate these ideologies but some of these ideas come from peoples experiences with capitalist society as it exists and its cultural peculiarities. Racism is a tool to divide the workers and to justify imperialism but I don't think it can not exist under capitalism, it will always be too tempting to use it to smooth over contradictions even if capitalism is """"anti-racist""" in the sense that it doesn't give a shit about human beings at all and will gladly fuck over everyone equally.

Neither believing that you can end racism by smashing statues and policing peoples words and thoughts, nor believing that staying silent or ignoring the matter can be a satisfactory answer. Even attempting to "reverse" oppression that non-whites face by trying to implement programs or cultures of positive discrimination against whites can only fail while feeding into the right-wing narrative about the Left and about communism.

As cheap as it may sound to say, only Marxist materialism can lead us away from this mess but we shouldn't be under any illusions that we will be "purified" of this "sin" while capitalism still exists merely by changing our philosophical outlook. We're all still people of our time even if we're looking forward.

With something like fascism its important for people to understand that its a tool of the plutocracy and not necessarily a program of racial hatred though this is often used. The oligarchies of Nazi Germany, Imperial-fascist Japan, and Italy were more rapacious then Britain and America in spite of their smaller economies and per capita GDP.

JMP seems like such a smug id-poler type, especially the rhetoric that he's been throwing around for years in defense of Settlers all while flaunting his credentials as a professor. Is he worth reading for an ML perspective?

Could someone ask him about the possibility of debating Muke on twitter then? I don't have an account.

source?

No, aside from the fact I only consider Maoists nominally ML, you've pretty much basically hit the nail on the head. He does okay reviews but I don't find many of the original pieces he's written to be stimulating for a long-time.

The man is a former anarchist, who turned into Trotskyist, who finally transformed into a Maoist. Literally the worst kind of ML you could ask for, he's an anti-Stalinist, he defends the Maoists who strike Stalin from their banner because he "made mistakes".

I try not to bring personality into these discussions but when I was a baby Marxist I left a few respectful and curious comments on his blog and he was a total asshole. He just had that whole reddit-SJW demeanor where if you didn't know everything already ready you were basically just a KKK member. By contrast, I sent Roo a couple youtube PMs asking questions about communism and myths about communism (this was before I was even a Marxist) and he was kind enough to answer them in a rather detailed way. I don't think that makes Roo some kind of model citizen or net-asset to the Left but I guess I bring it up cause the smug vibe you get from JMP isn't just a bad writing style.

He hates on the Academic Left while being its quintessential product. He defends his place in Academia as if anyone gives a shit on the grounds that its better then living at home and being subsidized by your parents to write or some shit. I think that's a false-dichotomy–some of us do blue-collar work for a living. What bothers me is not that he's an academic but how much respect he has for all these bourgeois post-colonial and feminists theorists while shitting on real purer types of Marxism.

After reading him, I can't say I can have much respect for the PCR-RCP since they took him on as a member. What does that say about your organization?

Sometimes he goes on about the billions killed by colonialism but tbh if I wanted to read about the gorillions killed by Western colonialism, I'd read Vltchek whose a much better writer.

To be honest, that's why Hoxhaism isn't really a thing, it's just orthodox Marxism-Leninism, whereas Maoism is on one hand continuity of Marxism-Leninism but also the rupture from it. If Maoism was simply an application of Lenin and Stalin, it wouldn't make sense to add another M to ML, would it? There is also a difference between Mao-Zedong-Thought which is the practical contributions of Mao to Marxism-Leninism, such as the guerilla tactics or the anti-revisionism. Then there is actual Maoism as continuity and rupture from Marxism-Leninism in consciousness and philosophy, which didn't came up as a consistent ideology before the Cultural Revolution. Maoism isn't so much about PPW, New Democracy, etc. (this is mostly just Mao-Zedong-Thought as a contribution to ML theory) but:

1.) Ambiguity towards dialectical materialism as the ultimate end in itself
2.) Recognizing the Cultural Revolution as the most advanced communist consciousness
3.) Philosophical and practical outlook towards the revolution after the revolution

Most Maoists like Stalin, admitting that he made few mistakes isn't the same as denouncing him with Leftcom talking points.

I agree but I also like tk point out that Roo isn't some brocialist, he made long videos before defending feminism and anti-racism. He even defends Anita Sarkeesian, saying she actually made valid points. He's just having quarrel with the tumblrina-types.

Marx doesnt say so, marx says in critique of the gotha programme that socialism (low stage communism) has NO WAGE LABOUR, but production for the collective society with labour vouchers, which is not wage labour and is not exchange.

Marx > Wikipedia

you say it like as if it is a bad thing

ya it's essentially cancer lol

still butthurt that your male coworker got that raise instead of you sweetie?

lel ;)

Anfem posters 99% of the time shitposting. Don't reply to them

Sounds like most of Muke's fanbase.

Now you're just funny. xD My family were kolkhoz workers, I know exactly how it worked. xD It was collective only on paper, de facto it was state-owned enterprise and work was even more alienated and more of wage-slavery type than in traditional farm.

I has everything. I read Marx, Capital, and other works. You're using just twisted interpretation of Marx made by ruling party bureaucracy to pretend that Soyuz is not capitalist.

in what way
they were given land for free, and after MTS were disbanded they even owned their own agricultural MOP

they had their own separate bookkeeping and they were allowed to sell their surplus for profit
individuals were even allowed to trade surplus produced on their personal plots on a market

Has your family read Grover Furr's book "Commodity Production? Yes but No: the Evidence that the Appearance of the Law of Value Within the Soviet Union is Provably a Psychically Constructed Mirage that was Projected Onto the World's Collective Consciousness by a Cabal of Khrushchevite Neuromancers Whose Mental Construct was Amplified Around the Globe by Western Media Mindflayers in Order to Besmirch the Good Name of the Man Who Did Nothing, Joseph Stalin"?

Roo isn't even a Marxist. He seems to think class conflict has been solved in the first world meaning its not irreconcilable.

Dictionary>Marx

Look up the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive.

Brocialism is an empty buzzword which absolute faggots (impotently) use to try to silence people they disagree with. It wouldn't mean jack shit even if Roo had a million people screaming at him.

I doubt this is the case. JMP is an accomplished theorist whereas Roo possesses as much theoretical knowledge as any talking head on mainstream news. Not to mention, as bad as idpol has become, in the beginning there were legitimate reasons for it. Western leftists, at the end of the day, are merely dealing with their own set of material conditions; it's not like idpol only exists because "liberals are dumb". I wouldn't write the entire thing off.

Trust me, Roo seems like he does this only to avoid being labeled brocialist. He has a sizeable TERF fanbase, and he was going to make a video on the "trans issue" from a TERF perspective until people started giving him shit about it.

Exactly. 3rd Worldism isn't even Marxist but postcolonial theory.

Roo's fanbase are to a large extent right-wingers, open racists and conspiracy nuts who just happen to be brown instead of white, but I don't think Roo particulary cares. Fanbase doesn't always speak for the content creator. RT for example often promotes left-wing views but has a comment section full of alt-rightists. If Roo would really pander to a fanbase, he would make way more entertaining/relevant stuff - like mailbags, meme videos or even theory videos. I think at this point he alienated too many communists and just does his own thing now and doesn't give a fuck. At least that is my impression of Jason since one year or so. And he seems to be somewhat successful with this line, getting on PressTV and shit.

Him being on PressTV only discredits him even further. Iran has never been a socialist country and the Khomeinist regime has murdered and imprisoned actual communists. I'm not talking about the ones who appeal to the US and Israel, but ALL communists. When Roo gets featured, he doesn't talk about Marxism or 3rd Worldism but general anti-imperialism/anti-Americanism/anti-westernism.

For the record, I'm speaking as someone who dated the daughter of an Iranian communist who fled Iran to Canada shortly after 1979 out of fear for his life.

I'm not a MTW but this is only partly true. It mostly relies on Marxist economics in its analysis of depletion of Third World proletarians as a implied result of the labor theory of value.

In practice though, 3rdWism will be entirely anti-Marxist since its entire program is prioritizing nation before class.

It's really no different than AnPrimms who want to destroy cities and return to an "indigenous way of life."

He's gonna defend that with muh primary contradiction. On the other hand, I don't know: Richard Wolff showed up on Fox News. I think if you get the chance to get the message out there, it shouldn't matter whether or not the medium is associated with something anti-communist. You are right that he doesn't speak about communism/MTW on it. He does call out imperialism and neoliberalism at least. But I wouldn't blame him. If I got a YouTube channel which has become a meme amongst the radical left, I'd probably be signing the hell up with PressTV too if I got the chance.

Borders are the catalyst of imperialist exploitation/net extraction. It doesn't matter whether or not you like nations, as long as the imperialist powers preserve the nation state as a means to extract value from the outside, they are a fact of life.

The thing is that imperialism causes the national bourgeoisie and the socialists to have aligned interests until the imperialist shackles are thrown off. After that, the real class struggle begins. It's based on Mao's experience in fighting off Japanese imperialism with the Koumintang. I'm not dogmatic about this, but it does make a lot of sense for communist organizations in the Third World to work with bourgeois national liberation organization until imperialism is defeated. They just have to be careful not to get purged in the process.

It seems dangerous and inaccurate to keep promoting this line without question in the 21st century, when conditions have definitely changed from 20th century colonialism.

Economically, not really that much. The reason the national bourgeoisie has an interest in national liberation is because extraction of surplus out of the country is an obstacle for the accumulation-reinvestment-cycle. Therefore these countries never develop. This is actually basic marxist economics. The exploitation just became more complex, with more entanglement of more interests, which is a challenge to analyze but it doesn't really disprove the theory.

In before Finish Bolshevik reks this kid!

honestly this is really the only tenable position to hold, unless you're like a CPC shill

I do not thinki Finbol will make a response, as most of the arguments exposed by that guy are adressed here by him:
youtube.com/watch?v=gS692MzFA7k&t=190s

Does anyone know what the cartoon animations he uses are from?

youtube.com/user/brendanmcooney

uses them too but whats the original source?

Are you saying the workers in USSR weren't actually subjected to the relation of having their labour power valorized and then exchanged for money?

Again, this is a very broad assumption which doesn't take the evolution of capital via neoliberalism into account. There are plenty of home-grown Chinese, Indian, and Mexican millionaires who, while technically "national bourgeoisie" have no interest in placing nationalism/"sovereignty" over their profits or economic agreements with the West. It's even a mistake to claim imperialism is today solely a "western" thing; China is imperialist in Africa, India has always been soft imperialist towards its neighbors, Vietnam has always been chauvinist towards other nations in Indochina, Sunni Arabs have always been chauvinist towards religious and ethnic minorities in the Arab World (including Shias), etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=fW6lnmx0ETw

THE MAD MAN DID HE MADE A FUCKING LESS THAN 3 MINUTES VIDEO ABSOLUTELY BTFO'ing MUKE
youtube.com/watch?v=wcXZSVM6Nps&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=to5EzX_kYD-_DEa1-6

Wanna bet Roo got his ghostwriters to pen this?

So the best comeback is immediately mistaking leftcom talking points for ancom ones and then repeating points addressed in the first 3 minutes of Muke's video, fascinating.

This place is becoming more of a shithole by the day.

isn't socialist***

youtu.be/BZZURAOMeGM

Another response.

Can we please get a Leftcom in here to (try to) debunk these arguments in the videos posted?

Can we please get a Leftcom in here to (try to) debunk these arguments in the videos posted?

This response is made by a non socialist, but still is on point:
docs.google.com/document/d/14AQnzuwv3M5WWInEwCAZL6-grYvOizEc6UQdqOLiHBc/mobilebasic

...

An actual economics major tore his arguments apart

docs.google.com/document/d/14AQnzuwv3M5WWInEwCAZL6-grYvOizEc6UQdqOLiHBc/edit?usp=sharing

That man literally has mental health issues, I'm sorry. Everyone who's interacted with him on twitter knows this.

I mean just look at that fucking writing style.

He's actually just Greek and dyslexic, saying he has mental health issues doesn't invalidate his statements

No, he spams everyone repeatedly with walls of text, relentlessly.

That doesn't make less Greek or dyslexic, and saying he spams people with replies doesn't make what he's saying untrue. He's very educated. Try to refute his arguments, not just whine about how many he makes

Yes, I'm totally going to click this random Google link,

It's a google doc link, idk why it wouldnt be trusted it's literally google docs not like a shortened link

findad already said he was gonna make a response retar

google is scary

It's used to dox people by tracking which accounts view/download the files.

those wouldnt be google docs links

wow TIL google forces you to tell your full name and address and not allowed to have alternative accounts that aren't associated with your real life.

I've interacted with him a number of times, I'm actually one of the people he talked to that convinced him to read Marx. He finished read what claimed to have been about 3 months, so im naturally suspicious of his opinions. I've tried to talked to him about this subject but he doesn't listen. His claim is based on the idea that the soviet union didn't have transfer profits, there was no private property, and that wage labour didn't exist. I haven't met a tankie worth their salt that would claim there wasn't commodity production in the USSR, so when he told me that Stalin's conception of commodity production was wrong I was extra suspicious. The lack of juridical private property and transfer profits actually helped to speed the accumulation of capital. On one occasion when I spoke to him, he claimed that there was no accumulation of capital at all.

I finally stopped talking to him when he demonstrated to me that he had no idea how the Marxian law of value worked, and essentially replaced it with Ricardo's law of value. His claim was that labor hours calculate use-value, which is wrong because use-value is subjective and can't be calculated. He also claimed that exchange value and price were the same, which is also wrong since price is exchange value's function as money. These are subtleties that can be picked up within the first 4 chapters of volume 1 of Capital, which demonstrates to me that he can't have read it, since the law of value is one of the first things Marx talks about.

This guy is not an academic, he's just another econ major, you guys are too impressed with people.

If you are interested in the arguments that the USSR was/wasn't socialist by youtube proselytizers, you should read. Since this thread is already flooded with tankies ill recommend:
libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben
libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience

he's going to panic and talk about the doctor's plot and trotskyists

Repeating his claims and linking to libcom.org doesn't prove your point. The reason he accepts Ricardo's LTV is because its much more accurate than Marx's and Monetary is not a Marxist, he much more closely follows in Anwar Shaikh's tradition and his universal solution to the transformation problem.

A problem among Marxists is they confuse disagreeing with Marx with being wrong, and they never stop to consider that maybe Marx was wrong

econsynthesis.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/anwar-shaikh-capitalism_-competition-conflict-crises-oxford-university-press-2016.pdf

Your making assumptions about my position. I too disagree with Marx, but that's another issue. Ricardo's LTV had issues that Ricardo was aware of and Marx addressed so I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I'm not here to disagree with you. Anwar is a smart guy who has made clear what he is taking from where, but I have yet to see anywhere where Anwar claims that the USSR is socialist. I really don't care who he's influenced by, they all seem like smart people. Monerty himself I'm not so sure about, he once told me to watch FinnishBoshlevik videos to debunk various facts about the USSR so I'm not convinced of his academic rigor.

I never said Anwar claimed the USSR was socialist, I said Anwar's solution to the transformation problem is much closer to Ricardo's with things like the 7% rule (as well as Neo-Ricardian) than it is to Marx's and that's what Monetary abides by. You claimed he didn't understand the Marxian LTV, my point was he just doesn't agree with it.

You continue to say that Monetary's arguments are wrong and are using unprovable anecdotal examples to justify this, yet you have yet to refute a single argument he makes, very telling of your intellectual stature

**not 7% but you get what I mean

lol he claims that Ricardo's LTV is Marx's, it's not a matter of disagreeing. I'm not going to dumb my dms with him here and I've refuted claims that he made in that very document if you read it (and its totally ok if you don't, it's quite difficult to decipher). I don't have any problem with Anwar, besides that he isn't a communist, whatever still seems smart. Monerty on the other hand makes repeated errors which lead me to believe he's read far less Marx than he lets on. This is totally besides the fact that he completely lacks a philosophical background.

profit existed IN A ZERO PROFIT REQUIREMENT PLANNED ECONOMY WITH ZERO PROPERTY INCOME AND ZERO MARKET INCOME AND A FLAT GINI COEFFICIENT LOL AND YOU FUCKER you are not me dont respond for me oh my god i never said labour hours calculate use value lol i was talking to you about steve keen theory and i was saying about being steve keens theory i said ciommoditties must be sold at an exchange value ang generate normal profit or transfer profit overall in order to be commoditties if excahnge value existed why commoditties sold at their exchange value didnt generate normal profit once again gondola you prove incapable of understanding what i said LASO YOU AGREED WITH ME TAHT STALIN CONTRADICTED HIMSELF LOL DO YOU REMEMBER?HYPOCRITE im not a mraginalist i never said use value is subjective you retarded fuck lol

I've never seen Monetary claim Ricardo's LTV is Marx's and even if he had at one point all of your baseless assertions still don't address a single point he made in the document linked

oh look its the man himself

ami a marginalist yes or no? gondola

That really makes me wonder why Marx isn't a Mutualist. Care to explain to me why he isn't?

what ?
marx critiqued proudons antimony and believd that use became an abstraction of excahange i never said it was sbjective nor did marx saiy that use value aint utility

atleast not how say and marginalists mean utility

Holy shit you forget your meds or something boi?

who's this dude? where does it come from? I really liked the ending but I haven't read it all.

lol every time someone makes an angry responce and you dont adress it but instead try to attack him psychollogically pretending it snot a self defence mechanism

wait so you were actually saying that use value is subjective like utility haa lol “The utility of a thing makes it a use-value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use-value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use-value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use-values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use-values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange-value.” [Capital, Chapter 1]

who knows?