Saying the law of value existed in the USSR but didn't actively govern production is like saying co-ops are socialist...

this is one reason why this board is shit. Anyone who doesn't suck on demsuccs/bookchin and who don't follow marx like he is the word of god are all called tankies. Plus threads like these are weekly on this board added with you added nothing new/ valuable to the discussion. It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about but that's not new here.

No
Labour Vouchers are not money

...

Does anyone have the quotes from Marc advocating for the Labour Voucher system? Do they even exist??

*Marx

Huh. I need to do more reading but thanks for an interesting response.

You're missing the point.

Production resulted in profits, just under the USSR these profits were put towards things like healthcare and transport or whatever, rather than pocketed by owners of MoP. (this is ofc assuming you're giving ML's their argument that the state officials didn't have a fair amount more money than the average worker).

The argument is that as profits were generated at all, regardless of if they were generated in the most ruthless way like they would be by private producers, or if these profits went to social programs.

No, explaining why can get a little complicated in Marxist terms but I'll do my best.

Basically human labour power itself does not create value, but it is the substance of value. This substance gets crystallized as value when goods are exchanged. This is when private labour becomes social labour, when goods are exchanged, and it's that transition that gives goods value so they can relate to the rest of society. Without value, private producers cannot interact with society.

However, under Socialism as the means of production are commonly owned, there is no distinction between private and social labour, as all labour using commonly owned means of production is done for the benefit of the common owners, ie society. As goods never make that transition in exchange, they never acquire value. Even though labour vouchers exist and are based on labour time, that does not mean value exists, as the goods that are being received have not been privately produced nor have they been exchanged on a market.

This explains the whole thing in more detail: marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

Well, there's part 1 of critique of the gotha program where he lays out the concept of labour vouchers, and he also briefly mentions them in Capital volume 2.

"The producers may, for it all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supp;lies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate."

You took this off of Xexizy's twitter didn't you

I think it's mainly this quote from Critique of the Gotha Programme
>For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Marxism, on Holla Forums, is about having as identical views to Marx as possible, and treating his writings like religious texts. So if you wanna be cool around here you obviously need to advocate for labour vouchers.

hi muke

Just a reminder, when a tankie starts going on about people treating Marxism as a religion, that's when they've realized their ideology does in fact deviate from Marxism and they're desperately looking for an excuse to keep calling themselves Marxists, for whatever reason.

Just admit you don't agree with Marx guys, we can have more productive discussions then on who's right - Marx, or you.

nothin personell

Value is ascertained by means of rational reasoning the worth of some object, concept, occurrence, action, relation, concrete or thing in regards to maintaining and advancing the well being of one's own life. This is so because morality is a set of ideas used to facilitate one's survival and flourishing as a rational being. To grasp moral ideas is to access worth and hence to cognate value. One cannot survive without such ideas, and life is not worth living if one is prohibited from cognitively grasping and then acting upon moral ideas. Consequently the prescriptive assertion that // Socialism should abolish the Law of Value. // is a prescription for self-destruction.

These facts prompts me to question the sanity and intelligence of advocates of socialist collectivism. Why would the user think he'd be better off as a slave to the State by serving the whims of whatever brutish commissar could seize the reigns of power?

Collectivists often claim Rand was over rated, but I disagree. When she was right; she was right.

Marx himself often changed his mind on things, and if I recall correctly, he originally didn't like the idea of labour vouchers. We've had 130 years of development of global capitalism, imperialism, fascist states, social democracies and communist revolutions since Marx' death. If he was alive today he would be disgusted by all the people treating him like some sort of prophet (as he was during his lifetime). You're a dogmatic retard if you think having a different opinion on labour vouchers disqualifies you from being a Marxist, and you are treating Marxism like a religion in that case.

"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form. "

Labour vouchers specifically may not be what Socialism ends up using - society might for it's context find a gift economy or some hybrid to work better, and this is perfectly within the realm of what Marx called Socialism.

What is not, however, is what tankies imply on when they say labour vouchers wouldn't be needed, and that's money like the USSR had. This is because money itself is only a special kind of commodity, so if there is money, there is commodity production and the law of value, and therefore not Socialism.

money is no longer a commoity in the modern era tho.

Money expresses the exchange ratio of one commodity to another. It still does that today.

Muke, you deviate from Marx if you treat Marx like the bible. Marxism is a method of critique and analysis, uncovering how economic laws work and how we may establish a society lacking the contradictions of capitalism. I know you are young and all that, but a mere appeal to authority ("Marx said labor vouchers, so if you point out a problem with them you aren't Marxist") is not an argument. Let's take the Communist Manifesto for example: Do you think overtaking all its program points is appropriate for contemporary times? Marx said himself that he despised the clairvoyants who painted detailed pictures of the future.

By the way, that Japanese article has been called out here before in the thread about the CotGP. It's inconsistent.

Profits weren't generated. How can I put profits to good use when there weren't any? I don't know what's so fucking hard to understand about it. Enterprises produced for use except the Kolkhoz. For it to be a profit, there would need to be a market allocation, as in: State firms would have to produce to exchange with the consumer collectives. This never happened even under revisionism. Even under fucking Brezhnev the profits only appeared as an underlying measurement which was talked about being closed doors, under Stalin profits didn't exist.

The only time something like profits were generated was the stuff that was exported, which never surpassed 4% of the economy even in revisionist times.

The ruble in the USSR didn't circulate like it money under capitalism. When you have completely planned economy, with no private property and production for use, money is no different from labor vouchers except its transferability and lack of an expiration date.

I've explained why labor vouchers would be insufficient in the Soviet situation in another thread:
That doesn't mean Marx is wrong, or that labor vouchers are not generally a good idea in a different situation. Marxist-Leninists still want to abolish money! But we don't see the point of it doing it immediately when confronted with intense scarcity. Didn't work out well in Cambodia and in China, now did it?

I'm not trying to use it as an argument, I'm trying to point out how if you deviate from Marx on the core points of what makes Marxism (labour vouchers aren ot one of them, the abolition of money is though) then you are not a Marxist, and that when we have first established that, THEN we can move onto arguments on which idea is better. Before that happens, we're both making claims to the same concepts of the justifications of our arguments, and so simply repeating these arguments at each other isn't going to do anything.

I've never said that you must agree with literally everything Marx has ever said - if I genuinely thought that like you seem to imply then I'd hate black people or something. I'm saying that, to be a Marxist, you cannot ignore the core ideas of Marxism, and in relation to what is and isn't Socialism, that would be dialectical materialism. Marx lays out the very core foundations of Socialism (no commodity production, capital, wage labour etc) because that's all Socialism can be - the abolition of the present state of things. ML's however alter this behind the mask of 'science', having no understand of what makes Marxism a science, let alone what he scientific method even is. I'm a Physics student and seeing that thrown around like a buzzword fucking hurts.

Oh, yea that guy. I started arguing with him over that and eventually he stopped replying, because he was talking complete bullshit from the start, just because I was the only one in that thread who had actually read the article I was the only one who could tell.

Ok so which is it. Was there commodity production or was there not? Or are you trying to tell me there was commodity production and exchange without any profits made? I can only conclude that you seem to consider them only profits when they belong to a private capitalist, and because the profits went into social programs they magically didn't count as profits.

Correct. But when Marx says money, he doesn't mean printed paper. He means the abolition of the money form. Even labor vouchers would be some sort of currency, common people would talk about it like that. The money-form is the highest form of commodity fetishism, because it circulates, accumulates and invests. Neither of that happened in the USSR. When you read Capital you will get a detailed explanation of this. Or you could read Poverty of Philosophy.
What do you mean this? I don't understand you here.
Being arrogant isn't helping your case here. Are you implying that all the Bolsheviks, all the economists in the ML states didn't know how to use the scientific method let alone understand Marxian economics? Economics isn't physics. Economics is a social construct.

Regarding the commodity argument, I hate repeating myself, but if you strictly use the capitalist definition of commodity production, the USSR only had those in agriculture. The reason Soviet economists called other goods commodities as well was because they were sold to people. But they weren't produced for use, and they didn't generate a profit for the consumer collective. This now gets into semantics - Ware in German has a different connotation than commodity, and I do not know what commodity is called in Russian. Marx and Engels both agreed that commodity production transcends capitalism, and in CotGP he talks about how exchange is regulated in the lower stage of communism in a similar way exchange of commodities is regulated. This means, that the capitalist commodity form doesn't regulate production in socialism, but as long as value exists, we can not discard of the term commodity, as it still possess an inherent exchange value. But contrary to capitalism, it is not just the exchange value. Im Capital Vol. 1 Chapter 1 Marx sketches out the development of commodities into the capitalist commodity form, which now is existentialized exclusively through exchange value. In the USSR, exchange value wasn't the dominating aspect of commodities, so if you take your orthodox definition of commodity at face value, the USSR actually didn't have commodities outside their agricultural sector.
Commodity production doesn't presuppose profits. But anyway, I've already answered this.
You are getting closer to the truth. Explain this to me: Why did the industrialization favored heavy industry instead of light industry, which was more profitable?
I already explained to you that this is not at all what I think because profits didn't exist under Stalin. An outside bourgeois economist would try to identify them, he would talk of negative profits an sich, but that's not an argument. You've read Capitalist Realism, right? Remember the part where he shits on Stalin for building a dam despite it being absolutely unprofitable? Ultraleftist can't have their cake and eat it. You either say that the USSR operated according to profits, or you say it's actually bad that they didn't, but you can't have it both ways.

Please stop lying.

...

M - C - M' circuit did not work in USSR. No labour markets until 60s. No capital goods markets. All 'wages' and 'prices' are set by the government. This does not sound like capitalism, (when there is no capital), more like asiatic mode of production.

Central planners invest money into a certain sector of production and hire workers with it. They make products which the central planners sell to the workers on the notamarket. They now have more money then they started out with and can reinvest the new money into other aspects of production.

Just because we have a minimum wage doesn't mean workers aren't paid the value of their labor power.

This statement doesn't make sense, they set production quotas.
This statement doesn't make sense either, they don't 'own' anything, goods produced according to the plan are distributed to the department stores.

How come the first five-year "plan" was completed in… four years?

So the workers don't own the money they're buying products with?

What a dishonest and manipulative sentence. The "socialist" part is attempted to be sneaked in so obviously it hurts the reader's eye. This is an excellent example of how leftcoms prefer to speak in absolutes at the cost of any constructive debate (in any other way they won't have it, since they don't have anything substantial to show).

So let's see how OP could be a better OP:
This is the sentence that actually defeats OP's own argument, not just because it's not about abstract shit anymore (let's debate about what socialism is for the nth time), but because it does in fact show a logical scale: co-ops sometimes make decisions that go against the law of value, a centrally planned country-wide economy makes decisions that go against the law of value even more often. Now the question would be about degrees.

But no, can't have that! We must debate with cunts who have no actual stakes. Ancoms have kekalonia, lelninist have the USSR, leftcoms have their >muh perfect rebolution fandasy :DDD.

A well is a hole in the ground you get water from, so your argument is irrational. People can never become wells, so your utopian system of "capitalism" can never exist. QED.

That's how you argue.

The famous one-book-muke trying to interpret philosophical statements is quite funny.

Meaning, dear muke, that they don't engage in private exchange. They most certainly exchange their labor with the community store where they (((exchange))) their labor vouchers for goods. Labor-vouchers are a medium of direct exchange with society, that's just common sense. Whoever said that one should read a book forgot that there are people that can read but not comprehend, sadly.

What are you smoking, Muke? You didn't have the last word in that thread.
The article was quoted in detail, and compared with CotGP and a section from Capital Volume 1 (a book that you still haven't read).

tankies are always angry

wdhmbt

Stop saying "abolish the law of value", it doesn't make any sense. Say in stead that you want to make it so that the law of value does not dictate social relations and our relations to the forces of production. The law of value will always be there, even if we don't dance to its tunes.

The 'law of value' should be stated as what it actually means: the law of capital. Value is not a law, it is simply a relation that exists in any exchange between commodity owners. Exchange your toothpick for a napkin? Value exists there. Nothing spooky or evil about it. Capital is how value expands itself, however, and this is done through surplus extraction in the form of profits which are accumulated by a capitalist and reinvested to create more profit by expanding production and surplus extraction.

Value has existed since humans came up with the idea that things were 'theirs' because of a spook called property. Since in communism there will be property, exchange and value will exist to the extent that this property forces people to exchange labor vouchers with the community or with each other with small items or services.

There will still be surplus extraction under communism though. See below.

I don't understand how people can read CotGP and still bitch and whine about the law of value. Not to mention, re the unspeakable notion of a surplus value being extracted from the labourers of the Soviet Union, this:
Well look at that. Looks like Marx himself posited that even after the funds taken for the reproduction of the productive forces and the labourer by way of communized goods and services and his personal pay in labour vouchers, there is still left a third part, you might say a surplus part to these previous ones, to be reinvested in expanding the forces of production.

>They most certainly exchange their labor with the community store where they (((exchange))) their labor vouchers for goods.
Certainly not. What they will do is produce their labour voucher and get the goods they're entitled to.

No there won't. You missed the entire point of literally everything Marx ever wrote.

I agree with you.

Wow, how many dimensions did you jump through to come up with such a nonsensical sentence? Workers 'produce' labor vouchers like they produce money: they don't. They produce products of consumption, which are exchanged to them as labor vouchers which they then exchange again at the community store. This is not even a semantic debate, you really are going way out of your way to just not admit the obvious.

Muke, you haven't read anything of importance which Marx ever wrote. CoTP, the Manifesto, and whatever left communist commentaries your groupies feed you aren't representative of Marx's thought. As shows, you don't even read what you claim.

"Produce" like in "produce your papers", dumbass.

But your nonsense is, right? Who isn't admitting the obvious again?

just read Capital already for god's sake

I did. Did you?

Only Vol. I :(

Who the fuck are these pretentious namefags and why are they always the ones who understand shit the least

Seriously is no one gonna call them out on their faggotry?

...

I've no idea why I'm doing this because I have much better things to do but I can't help myself so here we go.

There was commodity exchange so…yes it did.
So minimum wage = socialism? That's just another form of price fixing. The point is is that there's still the equilibrium value - the subsistence for the worker - hence making labour power a commodity, wage labour.

s o w h a t

Start arguing any time now.
The idea that it's not capitalism if there are no /individual/ private owners or exchange is a misconception on Lenin's part. I'd link the article explaining it, comparing him directly to Marx, but you'd just say it's hosted on libcom (when it's actually just a condensed version of an actual book) and 'win' the argument.
>they most certainly exchange their labor with the community store where they (((exchange))) their labor vouchers for goods. Labor-vouchers are a medium of direct exchange with society, that's just common sense.
Jesus you're just copy pasting arguments right out of finbol's response video. If you genuinely think the 'exchange' of labour vouchers is the same as commodity exchange you're a fucking idiot and I really shouldn't have to explain why that's not the same.
But here we are anyway. Human labour power itself is not what creates value - it creates the substance of value. This substance is then crystallized into value upon transitioning from the realm of private to social labour via market exchange. Under Communism, no such transition takes place. The goods received with labour vouchers were produced socially from the beginning and have no need to take on the form of value to relate to society. This is why the law of value doesn't exist, why there is no commodity production and why labour vouchers are not commodity exchange.
Also for the love of god please stop namefagging no one even knows who you are.

Fairly sure I did but if you wanna find the archive and prove me wrong be my guest.

You're a fucking idiot. How can value exist without exchange? How is it that value didn't exist before class society, if it's 'always there'? Read some Marx for fucks sake.

How do you function with suck basic misunderstands of Marx? Yes, in a sense that is 'value', but it is completely detached from what Marx means when he uses value. We are obviously talking in Marxist terms, so why are you muddying things with throwing in other definitions?

You're claiming anyone who disagrees with you is me when I'm fairly sure I was asleep when the post you replied to was made but whatever, you just keep being paranoid. I love that your argument literally boils down to 'well Marx didn't really mean any of this'.

coops are super gay

that's what makes them great comrade

The way you phrase it makes it sound as if it comes into existence at the point of selling. A better way would be to say that the SNLT exists before, and the trial and error of fiddling with prices and trying to sell stuff is what is checking it.

… It was a fundamental systematic thing they did, not a small subsidy here and there. They couldn't have industrialized that fast otherwise and would have lost to the Nazis.
You don't even seem to remember anything that was said to you in that thread, but feel free to prove me wrong: Why was Tsushima accused of a non sequitur? What was that?

Well, it's the way that Marx phrased it:

"Human labor-power in motion, or human labor, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object."

That's irrelevant though. If we had a full coop society, would that be Socialism? No, even if they systematically didn't go with the most profitable option. The fact is, again, that surplus labour and hence surplus value exists at all.

I'm not saying they should had done anything different, the USSR did the best it could, it just wasn't Socialism.

Someone said that Tsushima said abstract human labour power was of no importance, and therefore the whole essay was meaningless, but what was missed that he then right after that said "However, within the distribution relations at the lower stage (socialism) it cannot avoid playing a certain "indispensable role." This is a fact."

That's different from saying it becomes that at the point of selling, which is exactly what was pointed out to you in the post you reply to.
You need to produce more than what at the moment covers survival, in order to be able to expand production or even just to have some buffer in case of bad weather or any screwup. Having such a buffer does not constitute capitalism.
No. Do you not know what a non sequitur is?

Seems like you won't be content until all kolhozes are stocked with spherical cows in a vacuum.

Can someone explain me why ?

Well fair enough, that's not what I was trying to imply either.

Surplus labour is doing more labour than is actually required of you - today this happens systematically by doing the labour for the employer's own subsistence. Surplus labour is not just anything above the bare minimum for survival, it is anything more than what society needs. Under Communism, with production for need, there is no surplus labour, at least not intentionally.

That was the main argument the guy in that thread posed - if I'm missing something then fill me in.

Planned economies do not necessarily mean Socialism, they can be implemented in Capitalism too - South Korea is an example, in it's early stages. The USSR in particular had a planned economy that while Capitalist did not ruthlessly pursuit profit like a regular Capitalist would, leading to more or less radical social democracy. If the USSR wanted to be the most profitable they would had done things very different, but the point is that the idea of profit was on the table at all. Under Socialism, exchange the value form are completely abolished, this was not the case in the USSR.

Sorry for my autism but does it goes against the law of value ? Even if it's less profitable it's still the law of value no matter what. Does that means workers didn't get paid based on SNLT ?

Well yea you're kind of right. When tankies say 'the law of value wasn't dominant' what they're saying is the most profitable option wasn't always chosen, but yea you're completely right that this doesn't mean the law of value didn't still operate and with it come all of it's contradictions.

Workers wages were apparently fixed to a higher rate but of course this fix is only relative to the value required for their subsistence, so it's a bit like a minimum wage.

bump

Surplus means above self-sustaining level, so if production is to grow, that means surplus production. Surplus production is not incompatible with communism.
Tsushima was quoted:
And that was called out as a non sequitur: It does not follow from a change in the distribution mechanisms that people will stop planning with a labor-time measure. You had no actual argument against that. Or do you actually believe the following is tight logic:

That's a big load of horseshit though and makes communism pretty undesirable - with that argument I could as well just become an unironic Pol Pot supporter.

Sorry muke. Re read CotGP.

Indeed. Value is.

Here's a quote from Marx:

"Whenever a part of society possess the monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production"

Therefore it follows that when the means of production are held in common, surplus labour as a concept ceases to exist. The worker will still work for reserves and expansion of course, as Marx points out in Critique of the Gotha Program, but they will not work for the subsistence of any form of employer, that is surplus labour.

I'm kind of confused what you're trying to say here. The planning with labour-time, labour vouchers, is the distribution in lower-phase communist society. Tsushima is literally just saying in higher-phase communist society, labour vouchers based on contributed labour time won't exist anymore. That itself is the change in distribution mechanisms, and these arise out of the increased productive forces and people becoming accustomed to new material conditions. This is the same as what Marx says, what's the issue you're taking here?

Back to infantile semantics I see. Surplus value is emphatically not whatever is needed "for the subsistence of the employer". If that were the case, we would have no capitalism. The perverse beauty of capitalism is in fact that so much of the surplus goes not to any kind of subsistence, but to the reproduction and expansion of disembodied capital.
Let go of your wannabe Marxian exegesis and admit that value in labour time terms will always be around as a unit of measure, and that there will always be a surplus production over communal consumption for the purpose of expanding the MOP.
Also make up your mind, either the law of value operates under communism or it doesn't. You've explicitly stated the SU was not socialist because of this, yet now you retreat into the motte of "lower phase communism"? Just fucking stop, Christ alive.

...

Producing a surplus is not defined in such a fashion that it means that the surplus goes to another group of people who can afford to be idle because they control the extraction process (and it certainly isn't limited to just subsistence of that group). Society producing a surplus means just that they produce above what's necessary to survive. (It is true that if everybody is working and that nature and state of technology don't allow for more than the production of what's needed just for survival, it's impossible to have a class rule over another, but that's hopefully not the only way of getting communism.) It is clear that when others talk about producing a surplus, they mean that in the sense of having a safety buffer and potentially expanding production, they do not mean that in the sense of it going to fatcat bureaucrats.
That's exactly what everybody except you means by surplus existing under socialism. You misread others and once you have misread them, you continue as much as you can to interpret everything in the old wrong way. When they make absolutely clear to you what they mean, you just take your old understanding of them + the "new" definition, see that the two aren't compatible, and, rather than revising your understanding, you deduce that is proof of them contradicting themselves.
Do you know not know what a non sequitur is? Wikipedia: "a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise and therefore the conclusion is arbitrary". Tsushima, same shit quoted for the third time: "labor-time to measure distribution, and therefore abstract human labor as well, disappear." That was called out as a non sequitur. I do some things as charity, for free, but I still consider the time it takes me to do such an act in this or that way. Giving according to need doesn't imply people will randomly take what they individually spontaneously feel like while others randomly produce what they individually spontaneously feel like producing. Take the production of wheelchairs. Giving to need means people who can't walk or have trouble walking get them, and they don't need to pay. Still, for all the work steps that go into producing such a thing we have to consider time, and with different designs of similar quality and very different construction in terms of time we will take the one that takes less time. The day only has 24 hours and that will remain true, even under advanced communism.

...

How about no?

>>2206779
Can you provide a quote where Marx says that surplus is when the ruling class consumes stuff, the more surplus the rulinger it is?

But didn't you already admit to that in the last thread?

Wow I dislike muke ten times as much after reading this thread.

Nice distancing yourself from yourself, muke.

Nice meta-irony, muke

Listen, muke, I'm not muke, but your deflection must mean ==YOU== are muke. Checkmate.

someone make a version of that we're-all-afroplasm meme but with muke's face

Get fucked, muke

Shut up, muke

Mukefro-palsm

I miss that flag

...

oh shit, my shitposting name

t. Muke

Hello. North Korea is Socialism. If you disagree with me you must be muke

What last thread?

Marx:
Retard:

Marx:
Retard:

Really makes you think…

Y'all tankies need to read endnotes. The issue with currency is form value takes in any economic configuration. The State's ideological orientation and intentions are irrelevant. endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory

Quoting from the old thread of which Muke only remembers that he owned everybody (harrdeharr), but not the actual content:
>(marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm)

Who are you talking to? What point are you trying to make? Whose is the second quote?

How autistic are you?

>endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory
This adds absolutely nothing new to the debate. The only remarkable thing about it is how long-winded it is. Maybe read the thread before posting?
Dear "to-smard-to-be-leninisds": If you want to minimise work time, you actually need to measure it. So muh spontaneous communisation totally misses point. (And remember that nationalism is bad, so it's gotta be spontaneous and decentralised, while also happening worldwide simultaneously. What a crock of shit.)
They are so baffled by this "profound" thing that it doesn't occur to them that there's another possible reason others don't waffle endlessly about abstract labour: that it is well-known in the circles where the evil Stalinists etc. talk with each other, so they don't need to mention it all the time, like you don't tell everybody all the time about the shape of the earth. There is also a basic logical mistake here: It is true that the practical truth of abstract labour came with mass-scale production and regular exchange, that is with capitalism. It doesn't follow from this that you can only have such a principle work through capitalism. Just because the endnotes folks acquired the ability to jerk off and jizz with puberty, it doesn't follow that they all must be in puberty right now, even though jerking off is all they ever do.
He did not subscribe to your fruity "theory".

Too much, apparently. Now who are you talking to? What point are you trying to make? Whose is the second quote? Thank you.

That doesn't matter, what matters is the content. The content can be figured out by reading. It refers to the Marx quote from Capital above it, describing a post-capitalist society where people allocate consumption shares to individuals according to the labour time they provided. Meaning Marx assumed as a possible society post capitalism a scenario where there still exists this one-dimensional measure. So contrary to an impression you might get by reading the Endnote twats, CotGP is not the only place where Marx talked about consumption allocated according to provided labour time. It's right there in Capital. Moreover, in that quote Marx talks about planning in terms of labour time.

So that's the guy you were talking to. Ok, have a nice time. Me, I'm just gonna leave this here:

Marx:
Retard:

Just so we're clear, by law of value you mean the LTV, right?

Just stop already, it's getting pathetic. You can't even tell what else to measure production and consumption with, if not labour time. How else will we calculate what work needs doing, who needs to do what and how much of it - will that all be allocated by the invisible hand of communism perhaps? You are like a bad caricature of a utopian socialist, who just proclaims ex cathedra that "the law of value will be abolished", and does not even give a hint as to how this is to come about, or how else to measure, balance or organize the productive forces of society. Utterly useless.

Re-read the Marx quote. Marx is talking about a possible society post capitalism in that section.

It very much does imply receiving equal time for giving equal time (after deductions though), if that's what you mean. The difference is the disappearance of the ruling class, not free shit lmao. "Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption." It's right there in the quote.

law of value means that the LTV governs production. eg equalisation of rate of profit by movement of capital, wages regulating rate of surplus value and being in turn determined by supply and demand and value of goods of consumption, drive to increase productivity to capture more value, falling rate of profit.

looking at these examples it is obvious the law of value did not exist in the USSR

Stop what? Pointing out in your own quotes where Marx contradicts your nonsense? How about no? You know, you are free to think Marx was "a bad caricature of an utopian socialist"; but if you keep calling yourself a Marxist after that, you're the one who's gonna be pathetic.

This is the whole point of Marx's entire works, you genius. The law of value will be abolished, and this is to come about through a dictatorship of the proletariat, that will abolish private property, socialize all of production, effectively putting an end to trade and thus the law of value.

In kind! Production for use-value, that's what communism fucking is.

You haven't asked.
Kg, T, m, km, L, items, V, A, etc.
Kg, T, m, km, L, items, V, A, etc

Of course we will use concrete labour time to allocate labour. Who said otherwise? Not me.

No. Marx is talking about a simplified version of a possible society post-capitalism.
Simplified how?
Simplified why?
And now some people here are trying to make us believe that what makes this parallel a parallel constitutes in fact a defining aspect of communism. Of course not!

The difference is the disappearance of the ruling class, not free shit lmao.
No. "Free shit lmao" is precisely what allows everyone to receive equal time for giving equal time. When every product is exchanged for another product of equivalent value, individual producers do not end up receiving equal time for giving equal time; instead, value tends to accumulate itself (capital). But when products are not exchanged but instead distributed according to a plan, then it becomes possible for each individual producer to receive equal time for giving equal time.

What is right there in the quote is the impossibility to own anything, "except individual means of consumption". You tell me communism is not "free shit lmao". Fine. Then I have to give something in exchange of each individual mean of consumption. What can I possibly give, if I own nothing else?

>>Re-read the Marx quote. Marx is talking about a possible society post capitalism in that section.
>No. Marx is talking about a simplified version of a possible society post-capitalism.
I have read that passage in English and the original German. My interpretation of the bit with "merely for the sake of a parallel" is that Marx did not mean that in the sense that the description of the picture in his mind about the future is simplified here. Marx didn't think that workable estimations of necessary labour time will always require a consumer-item rationing like the voucher system in TaNS, but that it makes planning easy and transparent. Also, he didn't think having such a system in place constitutes capitalism.
The point by some people is rather: It doesn't define capitalism, it isn't incompatible with communism. Their usage of the terms capitalism and communism is in line with Marx here. And some people have doubts about whether doing anything else will be workable, though Marx was more optimistic about that.

Marx: "But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form."

All modern leftcoms are like that. I used to think they are honestly interested in reading stuff instead of larping as revolutionaries, turns out they are larping as well: they play-act as pedantic scholars without actually doing the reading part.

Bump

Question: Suppose you are stranded on a lone island like Robinson Crusoe. For some reason, you have tons of different productive machinery and all sorts of skills, the knowledge of the trades of like a thousand different people (but not enough knowledge to reach civilization somehow… yeah, just roll with it, this story isn't worse than most stories in mainstream econ books). You also have what's necessary to record time and write stuff in spreadsheets. Since the day only has 24 hours, you plan carefully with your time. Now I ask you: When thinking how doing thing A costs you X amount of time, would your style of reckoning about that be closer to Capital volume 1 (time that goes into something as you assemble it plus time going into making its ingredients plus fraction of time going into the machinery that slowly gets used up in producing what you want) or in the style of volume 3 (with some equivalent of the profit-rate equalization mechanism thrown in)? Maybe thinking about this will also clear up thinking about how the time-accounting should work in socialism.

Bump