Post yfw le praxeology man had a better understanding of socialism than 99% of internet "socialists":

post yfw le praxeology man had a better understanding of socialism than 99% of internet "socialists":
>We might conceive of a situation, in which exchange between particular branches of business is permitted, so as to obtain the mechanism of exchange relations (prices) and thus create a basis for economic calculation even in the socialist commonwealth. Within the framework of a uniform economy knowing not private ownership of the means of production, individual labor groups are constituted independent and authoritative disposers, which have indeed to behave in accordance with the directions of the supreme economic council, but which nevertheless assign each other material goods and services only against a payment, which would have to be made in the general medium of exchange. It is roughly in this way that we conceive of the organization of the socialist running of business when we nowadays talk of complete socialization and the like. But we have still not come to the crucial point. Exchange relations between production goods can only be established on the basis of private ownership of the means of production. When the “coal syndicate” provides the “iron syndicate” with coal, no price can be formed, except when both syndicates are the owners of the means of production employed in their business. This would not be socialization but workers’ capitalism and syndicalism.

Other urls found in this thread:,

Not sure what you thought you were accomplishing with this thread, but whatever.

read Bordiga

left-wing capitalists BTFO!

This isn't actually a rare phenomenon. I remember even back in Marx's time a guy called Ludwig Kugelmann was writing polemics against him. In all his letters to Marx and papers on his work he acknowledged the LTV (although this was not that uncommon then, as Ricardo still had a big name, it was already no longer very accepted in political economic discourse), understood Marx's vision of socialism as implying the absence of value, etc., but kept his arguments against Marx in practical terms (socialism wouldn't be practical because society wouldn't be as well-organized by value as it is now, etc.). Of course Marx curbstomped him on that and brought in the materialist argument, which invokes a telos (this letter is really funny:, at some point Kugelmann got BTFO so hard he stopped replying).

What's wrong with Ricardo?

Very little.

Smith's and Ricardo's theories were abandoned because they ran into the contradictions inherent in bourgeois social relations themselves. Ricardo for example could not understand the commodification of labour power, the nature of money and the role of demand. Additionally he was unable to resolve the transformation problem of how the regulation of production by labour values could be reconciled with the general rate of profit - a problem that Marx solved. Smith's and Ricardo's theories are not identical to Marx's - they were economists, Marx was a communist.

There have been attempts to restate Ricardo's theory in modern terms, such as by the Sraffians or Neo-Ricardians, but those never became part of mainstream economics. Of course, the problems inherent in Ricardo's system are only superficially the reason as to why economics did away with them. It is rather that Ricardo's system most obviously laid open the contradictions that are inherent in bourgeois social relations, which presented itself as errors to the vulgar economists, that therefore entirely broke with it.

Marx already explained that the development of theory follows the development of society, so when the bourgeois ceased to be a revolutionary class, their theory accordingly degenerated. This is why Marx views Ricardo and Hegel as the highest expression of bourgeois society, because after them, all that could ensue is apology and not science. However, Hegel himself remarked that his philosophy is akin to religion: He aims to get the reader to make peace with bourgeois society. Political economy, or "economics", shares the same viewpoint, see for example: (start from "Marx saw the work of the great classical political economists" until "So the critique of their work could take us night inside the process whereby the insanity came to seem ‘natural’." for the relevant parts).

So yes, Ricardo's and Smith's theories are a lot more useful than those of basically practically every other economist since, always myopic and vulgar. Marx's theory could never bear any fruit in economics, because it is a critique of economics. To drag Marx into the realm of political economy is to deny his central insight about communism. It would be like dragging Marx into religion or philosophy; every time you try to apply him to a separate subject its necessary total critique falls apart.

Your link doesn't work btw.


Make that 99% of all socialists in general TBH.

Read Cockshott.

So what's the solution? Instant full communism? Because the lower phase of communism envisioned by Marx is supposed to have some form of price system. If that automatically makes it "worker's capitalism" I don't see the way out.

He's not here to offer a solution, just to shitpost and act smug.

No it doesn't. The so-called lower phase still has an (as limited as possible) mechanism of labour time-based notes that are exchangeable for products at communal warehouses. As Marx says himself:
>Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.
They're supposed to be used almost exclusively for when the regular communist social relation of free access to production isn't suited, and as communist society ripens they would become obsolete, as more and more gradually "higher" communism is achieved.

What may be called workers' capitalism in Marx's sceheme is the dictatorship of the proletariat, explicitly and logically capitalist still in Marx because the proletariat has yet to abolish property relations, and of course there still exists a working class.

So a price system. The fact that labour vouchers don't circulate is irrelevant.

My fucking god, I was reading that Kugelmann polemic in high school as a proof that Marxism doesn't work

Yeah, except for the part where he thought a labor/consumer goods market was possible under socialism so long as there was "common ownership" under the MoP.

Don't hype these bourgeois twats up to be genuinely worth adversaries, they aren't. Mises was as ignorant as the common population that he despised.

Price, at least in economic terms and in Marx, is the exchange value of commodity expressed in money-capital, meant to circulate. You can call deprecating your labour voucher for communally stored "paying the price" as in the good's equal hours in labour time for it if you like, but that has nothing to do with price as it's otherwise been used in economic terms for roughly 5,000 years (when it actually was used, that is).

So he's basically using his own definition of capitalism to claim that some socialists are actually capitalists? If so he's even less deserving of attention than he aready was.

almost the same def of socialism as in marx lol.

Neat, but syndicalists and others like them certainly don't think that's the ends step so this thread is pretty retarded anyway

At that higher level of socialism, price (ie - exchange value) will be meaningless since goods and services will be distributed without exchange, either based on a different metric (eg- labor time) or on need.

That's what happens when the brainlets win