POLITICAL ECONOMY A Textbook issued by the Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences USSR

Really makes you think huh




Tankies will defend this

Lenin literally used 'socialism' as a vague buzzword to describe whatever policy he judged to be prudent at any given point.

What does this even mean?

They are exchanged as commoditys yet express themselves in money form and essentially are commoditys.

So the USSR couldn't survive a single year without Stalin?

Dialectics in motion, comrade!

There were different parts of the economy that were organized in different ways, some parts more like you would expect under capitalism, some parts less so. The text first emphasizes the less-so parts ("look at all this stuff, so d-don't call me state capitalist ;_;"), and then says, welllll, ahem, these parts have to interface with the more-like parts in some way, so in a way you need to reckon about the less-so parts like about the more-like parts.



So basically exchange value. Also wouldn't labor vouchers be a better form of accounting than money in a socialist economy?

It was so foolish of me to think that you are a good namefag.

Where does the text contradict Stalin?

Fight me

Yeah you are fucking retarded.

Something like "the means of production manufactured by State enterprises and distributed within the State sector are essentially not commodities. Since, however, consumer goods, agricultural raw materials and part of the means of production are commodities, while socialist economy represents a single whole in which all parts are interconnected, the means of production, which circulate inside the State sector, also retain the commodity form."




aha ok yes sure

So what?
I will let other people ITT answer you question:

really makes u think



Did anybody in this thread actually tried to read and understand where they are coming from? Are they aware of the underlying laws of capitalism Marx described, what causes them, and how they interact?

finally someone ITT is sane

Nice strawman bro

sasuga, crypto-ancap

A roundabout way of saying that treating distributed MoP in a manner similar to commodities (for accounting purposes) does not actually commodify them. Consequently, no private property, no competition, nor accumulation of Capital takes place.

Makes more sense in context.

Making generalizations because of the flag ehhh? Rude tbh
I was merely trying to clarify the statement, any actual critique of my post or phrasing would be more useful than

That's not commodity production, that's workers getting reward for work.