[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Tor Only

Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

File: 1622535183649.jpg ( 281.53 KB , 1024x686 , sh.jpg )


The other day in the China thread, I read an argument about supporting China over Vietnam despite the latter's arguably more "socialist" economy. The reason for support of China over Vietnam would be the fact that the former is most poised in breaking with the established American world order, while the latter is more inclined to appease American interests due to strained relations with the PRC.

All that's well and good, but these (nonetheless relevant) geopolitical considerations made me wonder how to study historical and current AES countries' political economies, their evolution, and how they stack up to, for example, western social democracies such as the Nordic countries in their heyday. Again, usually I'd be foaming at the mouth too seeing a comparison of Scandinavia with the late USSR, but from a purely economic standpoint it'd be nice to clear up some of the confusion.

This becomes especially interesting, once again, when bringing up modern-day China. Is it socialist? Is it just social democracy at the barrel of a gun? I feel like it's difficult nowadays to get a purely economic view of that question without involving, again, the matter of nigh obligation to critically support China due to their geopolitical position. Let's change that and drop some PDFs.


>Is it socialist?
No, not anymore.


Thanks, anon. Any similar works relating to the post-Stalin USSR? Like, actual in-depth economic analysis on why the Khruschev + Gorby one-two punch meant a transition from REEL COMMUNISM to "social democracy at the barrel of a gun"?


First, state ownership of production isn’t socialism. What are the preconditions of capitalism? That’s the means of production held as capital, that is separated from labor. You can organize capital which ever way you like: in the hand stuff of private capitalists, in the hands of the state, in the hands of royalty. If you don’t understand what capital is and only take its vulgar form in the form of legal property to be capital then you only change its hands but not its nature as capital. Which is the means of production separated from labor.


Private property has always been a legal category and you better refrain from speaking like a cryptic douche and make your point clear. I guess Capital means and only means the commodity form for you. Well though luck since Feudalism was able run for a while with commodity production in place. A socialist economy can do the same for a while even if its isolated. The question is if it can sustain this without reverting back into a capitalist mode of surplus extraction


Private property is only the legal form of the reality of capital. Meaning private property is the abstract representation of capital which is the means of production separated from labor, the commodity is only the end product of capital. With capitalism commodity production is generalized and so it looks as thorough commodities and exchange are the most important thing near but it’s not, it’s only the end result of capitals process and it’s process of accumulation. Therefore whether capital exists in the hands of private capitalists or the the state or whatever, distinct from from labor itself, then capital remains separated from labor. When capital and it’s process is abolished, that is, the means of production held in common, things do persist such as exchange and commodities but not for accumulation but simple exchange. As such labor is exchanged for labor according to labor time.

This has never existed because most ownerships of capital held by the state has kept capital separated from labor and so the worker must sell his labor power to the state instead of the private capitalist. Socialism in its lower phase wouldn’t have labor power to be sold to neither a private capitalist nor the state but exchanged in common: labor time, with commodity production limited only for a measure during exchange.


If you decide you have enough of copy and pasting wertkritiker essays and stop shitting up the thread then let me know. If you have a solution to overcome the commodity form, you would tell us instead of yapping like a maniac in order to feel smart. Lower stage communism akin to Marx never happened like promised, so maybe start looking for alternatives instead of clinging to it, nerd


Also capital can exist in non-capitalist modes of production. Your prerequisite is arbitrary chosen in order to devaluate the history of the socialist movement at a certain point up until now


Except I’m simply describing capital as Marx put it, if you want to get so triggered off of shit that directly comes from Marx then that’s your business. You are the one getting upset over factual stuff which only proves your lack of knowing anything and that’s you’re just bullshitting. In fact it seems that you are definitely projecting a lot lol. Read buddy and stop being so pathetic.


Funny how you shut up once you are asked how to overcome the commodity form or how feudalism has coexisted with capital for a while. Marxism isn't dogma, but you are treating it as such certainly, by recalling "lower stage communism" when it is clear as sun and day that the self abolition of the bourgeoisie still hasn't happened. Maybe update your theory to the 21st century
>You are the one getting upset over factual stuff which only proves your lack of knowing anything
Im getting upset about you shitting up threads with the exact same essay every time. You didn't read Capital, you just memorized some passages because you're anti-soviet icons told you to. Pathetic how you always need to convince yourself of being smart or something.
> In fact it seems that you are definitely projecting a lot lol
Do you want me to tell you how I know you don't know what this word means?
>Read buddy and stop being so pathetic
That's rich from someone who never even touched Volume 2 and 3


The major economy of the feudal times was agrarian and based on land ownership that was largely fixed. Commodity economies existed in limited degrees but grew alongside capitalist development. But in large part commodity markets were secondary until the mercantilism days. Commodity production wouldn't disappear immediately. Also I don't know how commodity production would immediately be completely withered away but it certainly won't disappear when the immediate producers are in immediate control of production.

The Soviets were making it happen early on but eventually the creative powers of the Soviets themselves was suppressed. Lenin was very aware of this danger later in his life.

But hey you haven't said anything of value, just the same nonsensical bullshit which is hilarious.


Ladies, ladies, ladies, not in the edu thread. We share pdfs and epubs around these parts.

That being said, if you're gonna bitch about the commodity form – you might even be right – stop talking out of your ass like that and start making sense.


>But in large part commodity markets were secondary
But in the Soviet Uniom they weren't? Commodity markets were limited only to consumer goods, but they were still dominant in the Soviet Union? Got it
>But hey you haven't said anything of value, just the same nonsensical bullshit which is hilarious
Neither have you buddy. A mode of Production is being determined by surplus extraction as Marx recalled later during Volume 3. Being critical of past socialist experiments is easy, but actually overcoming the hurdles is a different thing


>We share pdfs and epubs around these parts
Guy is a newfag who wants to convince every board of his supposed superior intelligence




Commodity fetishism.

Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]