Does capitalism need a market?

[Questionable]

I've been trying to work on my understanding of Marxian economics lately. I came across an article by a Marxist who said that state-capitalist economies (by which I'm presuming he meant the USSR) proved that capitalism doesn't need markets, that generalized wage-labor can still exist without it.

Now, disregarding our views on the USSR for a moment, I'm not sure how this makes sense based on what I know. If capitalism has no market, then what is the mode of distribution? How and where are commodities exchanged? Where do anonymous buyers exchange their currency for use-values produced by anonymous producers whose concrete labor is thus abstracted?

I just don't understand how capitalism is supposed to function without a market. The author suggested that it wasn't essential, but it seems pretty essential to the system based on what I know. Otherwise, how else are commodities being distributed?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalism needs profit. It needs a working class to exploit (or, specifically, the ruling class under capitalism need a working class to exploit; it would be more correct to say capitalism needs both a ruling class to act as exploiters in chief, and a working class to be exploited).

It does not necessarily need a market, and the idea of a free market is almost certainly utopian and unachievable. A market may or may not be the best way of delivering profit, sometimes it is helpful to capitalists, as markets with some competitiveness can drive a certain level of technological innovation, and of course price competition can lead to higher profits too by forcing companies to lower costs in response to price promotions. But it may also be the case that price competition actually lowers the rate of profit in a given industry, for example in such markets that are price competitive (i.e. they have to attempt to charge lower prices than other firms in order to attract demand from consumers). Therefore we see a trend, from the 20th century and into the 21st, of what has historically been termed the 'centralisation of capital', or 'crystalisation of capital' by the likes of Sweezy, Baran, Hilferdung and indeed Lenin. They wrote quite good stuff on move from competitive, market-based capitalism with lots of small firms competing on price etc., to a world economy that is dominated by a few huge corporations who, without the competitiveness of markets, can essentially charge as high a price as they feel they can, socially speaking, get away with.

The best examples of such oligarchies can be found in industries that are what we would call 'price inelastic', which means that demand for the product doesn't change that much if the price changes. These tend to be industries of necessary goods - utilities are a good example.

My own thought is that the concentration of capital in the hands of a few corporations has been the probably natural and predictable result of higher standards of living in western countries - many industries are now demand inelastic, because our higher standard of living leads us to view many products that were once luxuries (and more price elastic) as necessary; through higher standard of living and bombardment by advertising propaganda, the consumer economy we have today is highly price inelastic in most industries, including those that are non-essential to life (think iPhones in China, for example), leading to the current situation where price competition is generally the exception rather than the rule.

[reb]

I'll get back to this at one point if no one gives you a decent answer but maybe you should stop reading that trash that Bill Bland puts out if you want to know anything about maxism.

And, lol at this


If capitalism has no market, then what is the mode of distribution? How and where are commodities exchanged? Where do anonymous buyers exchange their currency for use-values produced by anonymous producers whose concrete labor is thus abstracted?

I have no idea why you have to change the focus from the production process and how people relate to the means of production to distribution which is entirely secondary. One, you admit that there's commodity production in the USSR. How can this be? What makes commodity production possible? My God, could it be that products that were created were created by independent producers? How else could you get a commodity? A thing made up of both a use-value and an exchange-value? In short the law of value must be operating. And I have to laugh at you trying to obfuscate the matter by writing in "anonymous" as if it mattered.

Let us take a look at some guy you probably never heard of, his name was Karl Marx by the way:

"The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers — a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity — which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis — the same from the standpoint of its main conditions — due to innumerable different empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial relations, external historical influences, etc. from showing infinite variations and gradations in appearance, which can be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances."

From here I you can turn yourself the right way up.

[tuwix]

I've been trying to work on my understanding of Marxian economics lately. I came across an article by a Marxist who said that state-capitalist economies (by which I'm presuming he meant the USSR) proved that capitalism doesn't need markets, that generalized wage-labor can still exist without it.

:D

Don't care about this opinion. It's just idiocy.

As a former citizen of a state-capitalist country, I can assure you that those state capitalist countries have their own markets. Besides the most obvious black market, there was even a some form of competition between state owned companies. For example, a company who was offering goods for dollars and other western currencies (PEWEX in Poland) always have those goods in better quality than other shops with local currency.

[Questionable]

Oh my, I didn't mean to start an argument in this sub-forum, but it seems my fans reb and Remus can't get enough of me.


I'll get back to this at one point if no one gives you a decent answer but maybe you should stop reading that trash that Bill Bland puts out if you want to know anything about maxism.

I guess you're way ahead of me on this since multiple times have you and other LeftComs asked a question about the USSR, and when I answer with Bill Bland, you say something about how it's "Stalinist bullshit" and not worth your time, which is of course intellectually lazy and doing yourself a disservice.


I have no idea why you have to change the focus from the production process and how people relate to the means of production to distribution which is entirely secondary.

Change the focus? I'm asking a question about the mode of distribution under capitalism because I'm curious as to how it functions. I am not, as you imply, stating its primacy over production. That is a nonsense viewpoint that you are attaching to me.


My God, could it be that products that were created were created by independent producers? How else could you get a commodity?

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a dig at me or the USSR. No one has ever denied that independent producers or commodities existed during its time. The argument was that these relationships were non-exploitative, among several other facts.


In short the law of value must be operating.

Which, again, has never been denied by me nor the Soviets, least of all Stalin who wrote an entire book on the subject. You're saying this is if you're handing me some great revelation.


And I have to laugh at you trying to obfuscate the matter by writing in "anonymous" as if it mattered.

Firstly, what reason would I even have to obfuscate the matter? This wasn't some political message I was trying to send, it was a genuine question. You're talking out of your ass here.

Secondly, I thought the anonymity of the matter was a rather important characteristic to consider, because it is connected to the indirect nature of production under capitalism. Producers make products for buyers they don't know, who may not even be there by the time the production is finished. The buyers then purchase them from the producers whom they likewise don't know, because capitalist markets function in this indirect manner.



Let us take a look at some guy you probably never heard of, his name was Karl Marx by the way

This quote again assumes that I was saying the relations of production weren't the determining factor of each economic mode, which I never said, never believed, and is simply reb trying to start a fight where there is none.

[reb]

Oh my, I didn't mean to start an argument in this sub-forum, but it seems my fans reb and Remus can't get enough of me.

I'm sorry, I just like to be helpful in any way that I can!




I guess you're way ahead of me on this since multiple times have you and other LeftComs asked a question about the USSR, and when I answer with Bill Bland, you say something about how it's "Stalinist bullshit" and not worth your time, which is of course intellectually lazy and doing yourself a disservice.

I can go through any of his stuff if you want and point out why it's stalinist claptrap and why anyone who's serious about marxism shouldn't waste their time with it.




Change the focus? I'm asking a question about the mode of distribution under capitalism because I'm curious as to how it functions. I am not, as you imply, stating its primacy over production. That is a nonsense viewpoint that you are attaching to me.

The problem is, you're not looking at the mode of production. You're not even accepting the idea that the USSR could have been capitalist so instead you're trying to shift focus away from essential class relations, to how value operated in the economy and determined that economy to just asking if there was a market without even the casual understanding of what a market is.




And here we go, again, you deny the quite obvious capitalist nature of the USSR in favor of more idealistic nonsense such as "non-exploitative" relations, and even the obvious fact, that you acknowledge, that there was markets. This doesn't even begin to address the question, but a great many people were exploited as in, surplus-value was extracted from them by the direct producers and in this case, it was under the wage-form. You can do it, grab my hand and we can walk through this.


[quote]Which, again, has never been denied by me nor the Soviets, least of all Stalin who wrote an entire book on the subject. You're saying this is if you're handing me some great revelation.

And yes, Stalin the oh so great one, did write a book on the subject. Stalin wrote many things calling many things names that they shouldn't have been called. You do understand why people call Stalinism a bourgeois ideology, don't you? I'm trying to point out to you that maybe Stalin doesn't always say things that a marxist might say.




Firstly, what reason would I even have to obfuscate the matter? This wasn't some political message I was trying to send, it was a genuine question. You're talking out of your ass here.

Secondly, I thought the anonymity of the matter was a rather important characteristic to consider, because it is connected to the indirect nature of production under capitalism. Producers make products for buyers they don't know, who may not even be there by the time the production is finished. The buyers then purchase them from the producers whom they likewise don't know, because capitalist markets function in this indirect manner.

Obfuscate to yourself, because I know it must be hard to tear yourself away from something that you've become to think is true. The problem is, it doesn't matter about who knows who. That is entirely besides the point. You don't think there's capitalists out there who all know each other? That there's no such thing as a cabal? That the proletariat must in essence not know who their boss is? Come on. The point is, and this is what you are trying to obfuscate, that rather than being anonymous, the producers are independent from each other.




This quote again assumes that I was saying the relations of production weren't the determining factor of each economic mode, which I never said, never believed, and is simply reb trying to start a fight where there is none.

Yes you did, you say that the relations were "non-exploitative". To be fair, you might not have said in in your original post, but with you being a Stalinist I can pretty much predict much of this conversation. So if relations of production were the determining factor, that surplus-value was being pumped out of the direct producers, that this took the form of wage-labor and commodity production, that there were independent producers of commodities, that there was money and prices, then.. oh shit, I guess it must be socialism! I mean, capitalism!

[Thirsty Crow]

I've been trying to work on my understanding of Marxian economics lately. I came across an article by a Marxist who said that state-capitalist economies (by which I'm presuming he meant the USSR) proved that capitalism doesn't need markets, that generalized wage-labor can still exist without it.

This is a false representation of the common argument of state capitalist theories. Anyway, it's false, may be that it is not a representation.

The point is to understand that the regular competitive capitalist market is not the only possible market form there is - as with the monopsonic market in the USSR (most importantly, the monopsony in the buying of labor power).

This question also has little to do with the "mode of distribution" since we're not talking about the distribution of the total social product, but of the structure of production - the specific social relations of production, from which other aspects of total social reproduction cannot be divorced. This is the only sensible approach if we're not talking about the specifics of market competition but of the underlying, fundamental aspects of social development.

So, to conclude, no capitalism doesn't need competitive markets with enterprises individually owned.

And just as a side note, in opposition to currents that have interpreted this kind of analysis politically as a sign of the decadence of capital, I think it goes on to show the frankly scary resilience of capital.

[Questionable]

I'm sorry, I just like to be helpful in any way that I can!

The funny thing is that you've consistently shown that you've barely studied the basics of Marxism-Leninism or the history of the USSR. There are some Anti-Stalinists here that at least know what they're talking about, but you're a dead end for anyone interested in criticizing the Soviet Union.


The problem is, you're not looking at the mode of production. You're not even accepting the idea that the USSR could have been capitalist so instead you're trying to shift focus away from essential class relations, to how value operated in the economy and determined that economy to just asking if there was a market without even the casual understanding of what a market is.

Ironically, it is the Marxist-Leninists who focus on the class nature of these productive relationships in the Soviet societies to prove that they were indeed construction socialism. So to imply that I, as a Marxist-Leninist, am not looking at the mode of production, is laughable. Even the Soviets themselves stressed the primacy of prodution over that of consumer goods.


And here we go, again, you deny the quite obvious capitalist nature of the USSR in favor of more idealistic nonsense such as "non-exploitative" relations, and even the obvious fact, that you acknowledge, that there was markets.

Elaborate on what is idealistic about non-exploitative relationships.

Markets and commodity production was limited in nature, with certain products even being stripped of their nature as commodities and "communized," such as bread, when there arose a super-abundance of it.


And yes, Stalin the oh so great one, did write a book on the subject. Stalin wrote many things calling many things names that they shouldn't have been called. You do understand why people call Stalinism a bourgeois ideology, don't you? I'm trying to point out to you that maybe Stalin doesn't always say things that a marxist might say.

Except I wasn't appealing to Stalin for validity. You started hollering about the law of value, like you were teaching me something new, when in reality there was zero denial from anyone in the Soviet Union that the law of value continued to operate. you're preaching to the choir.

How can someone with as much hatred for Stalin and the USSR knew almost literally nothing about them? I could make a list of all the instances where something you said about the USSR was factually wrong, thus displaying your ignorance, yet somehow you march on, convinced of your own righteousness.


Obfuscate to yourself, because I know it must be hard to tear yourself away from something that you've become to think is true.

This is just total gibberish. What am I tearing myself away from here? My question was how commodity production could operate without a market to distribute them. In what sense does this disprove Marxism-Leninism?

It is amusing that you insist I'm trying to give some kind of credit to the USSR by "obfuscating" things with the use of "anonymous," yet I don't even know what you're talking about by accusing me of this! It's some ridiculous accusation that you've cooked up because you want to browbeat me.


The problem is, it doesn't matter about who knows who. That is entirely besides the point. You don't think there's capitalists out there who all know each other? That there's no such thing as a cabal? That the proletariat must in essence not know who their boss is? Come on. The point is, and this is what you are trying to obfuscate, that rather than being anonymous, the producers are independent from each other.

The market is "anonymous" in the sense that is is an indirect form of exchange, yes. That is the general rule under which it operates. I figured it was elementary Marxism that consumers don't generally know the producers, because social production is not direct under capitalism, and is organized through an indirect market system. Marxism is not concerned with the personal relationships that individual capitalist may have with each other, or workers with their bosses, but how these people function as economic actors. You bringing up capitalists knowing each other as a way to refute this point makes no more sense than me arguing that since my father works as a technician at Geek Squad, that I'm not actually engaging in an indirect economic relationship with Best Buy whenever I purchase from them because I know that my father potentially built these parts. It is a subjective interpretation of an objective phenomenon.

I still don't understand how "anonymous" is meant to obfuscate anything, or how I'm trying to protect Marxism-Leninism from...something. That's all a bunch of bull.


Yes you did

No I didn't. It was said nowhere. I asked a question about the mode of distribution under capitalism. Since I've humiliated you multiple times on your ignorance of history, I guess you saw this is as your opportunity to reassert yourself over me and make up a bunch of garbage about how I'm supposedly saying the mode of distribution is primary, which I'm not.


that surplus-value was being pumped out of the direct producers

Surplus-value which was socially owned rather than collected by individual capitalists for accumulation.


that this took the form of wage-labor and commodity production

Severely limited commodity production, as has been noted.


oh shit, I guess it must be socialism! I mean, capitalism!

Funnily enough, you earlier criticized me for looking at distribution instead of class relations of production, yet in this flimsy attempt to prove the USSR was capitalist, you completely ignore the class configuration of the society. There's no mention of an absence of the bourgeoise, the collective ownership of the means of production, the new relationships between the proletariat and the peasantry, or anything.

[Thirsty Crow]

Severely limited commodity production, as has been noted.

How was it limited?

This is the question right here. And whether this way of limiting it actually corresponded historically to the drive to proletarian self-emancipation (for instance, the welfare state can be said to constitute a similar limitation; but what about the second question?)

And to offer my 2 cents, I don't think commodity production was limited, but what was really limited is individual ownership and intra-national competition between capitals based on it. In other words, the market mechanism was that which was reshaped and differently operated.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There are some good articles by heterodox economists on what should constitute a market. From such literature we can use our own Marxian interpretation to judge capitalism's current and evolving form against the utopian idea of what a market should be.

One of my old lecturers, William Jackson, wrote a decent article on this actually:

‘On the social structure of markets’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2007, 31(2), 235-253.

If you have access to the CJE then I suggest taking a read, it's quite accessibly written and short.

[reb]

The funny thing is that you've consistently shown that you've barely studied the basics of Marxism-Leninism or the history of the USSR. There are some Anti-Stalinists here that at least know what they're talking about, but you're a dead end for anyone interested in criticizing the Soviet Union.

Aww, now you're just throwing baseless insults around. Come on, buddy. Cheer up! Perhaps if you took your nose out of Bill Bland and other such stalinist nonsense you might learn a thing or two.


Ironically, it is the Marxist-Leninists who focus on the class nature of these productive relationships in the Soviet societies to prove that they were indeed construction socialism. So to imply that I, as a Marxist-Leninist, am not looking at the mode of production, is laughable. Even the Soviets themselves stressed the primacy of prodution over that of consumer goods.

Why is this ironic? Stalinists claim to be marxists so they must at some point claim to be the masters in class analysis. The problem with you, and them, is that you're automatically accepting this definition of "socialism" because.......

And you are not looking at the mode of production, you just said in the title, that you are looking at the mode of distribution, totally ignoring and trying to hide the mode of production.




Elaborate on what is idealistic about non-exploitative relationships.

The idealistic part is that you have a proletariat and wage-labor, with the law of value in operation, and you think that proletariat is not exploited? Regardless of it's relations with the peasantry, but I think you need to look at what actually constitutes the proletarian class. Unless you think that labor discipline is something that people just do to themselves when they don't want to.


Markets and commodity production was limited in nature, with certain products even being stripped of their nature as commodities and "communized," such as bread, when there arose a super-abundance of it.

This is such a narrow view that it's hard to believe. Just because you can subsidize one part of industry, which even if it was communized according to you, would still have to be supported by the other non-communized part by the proletariat, it doesn't do away with the commodity form. And your reasoning for it being stripped of this form is that it is now in "super-abundance" and not because it has been stripped of alienated labor or because the product is now a social product. How backward ass can you get?




Except I wasn't appealing to Stalin for validity. You started hollering about the law of value, like you were teaching me something new, when in reality there was zero denial from anyone in the Soviet Union that the law of value continued to operate. you're preaching to the choir.

Then why are you denying that it was capitalism?


How can someone with as much hatred for Stalin and the USSR knew almost literally nothing about them? I could make a list of all the instances where something you said about the USSR was factually wrong, thus displaying your ignorance, yet somehow you march on, convinced of your own righteousness.

I don't hate Stalin or the USSR, these were objective things that happened. Go ahead if you want to make this list, I'll welcome sources by Bill Bland even.


This is just total gibberish. What am I tearing myself away from here? My question was how commodity production could operate without a market to distribute them. In what sense does this disprove Marxism-Leninism?

The question you have to ask yourself, is how can commodity production function in the first place. I know that it's hard to bring down your walls of perception in regards to the soviet union being socialist. I know it's all you bourgeois apologists say, but step outside of bourgeois economics for a moment and try to think like a marxist.


It is amusing that you insist I'm trying to give some kind of credit to the USSR by "obfuscating" things with the use of "anonymous," yet I don't even know what you're talking about by accusing me of this! It's some ridiculous accusation that you've cooked up because you want to browbeat me.

Well, you do think that it was socialist and not capitalist. And I'm not surprised that you don't know what I'm talking about, I said as much in the last post.


The market is "anonymous" in the sense that is is an indirect form of exchange, yes. That is the general rule under which it operates.

No, it isn't. It doesn't have to be an indirect form of exchange. Unless you think Mr Ford buying steel from Mr Carnegie without the two ever knowing each other.


I figured it was elementary Marxism that consumers don't generally know the producers, because social production is not direct under capitalism, and is organized through an indirect market system.

No, again, maybe you should read some stuff from actual marxists. Generally they don't know the producers in this day and age but that is besides the point. What consumers don't know is the amount of socially necessary labor time that is invested in the product, how much value was squeezed from the producer. I mean, jesus, read Capital or something.


Marxism is not concerned with the personal relationships that individual capitalist may have with each other, or workers with their bosses, but how these people function as economic actors. You bringing up capitalists knowing each other as a way to refute this point makes no more sense than me arguing that since my father works as a technician at Geek Squad, that I'm not actually engaging in an indirect economic relationship with Best Buy whenever I purchase from them because I know that my father potentially built these parts. It is a subjective interpretation of an objective phenomenon.

lol oh shut up, you're the one that brought up the anonymity part.



I still don't understand how "anonymous" is meant to obfuscate anything, or how I'm trying to protect Marxism-Leninism from...something. That's all a bunch of bull.

Hey, you brought it up and then tried to elaborate on it. You're the one working on the basis that the USSR was socialist. And you're trying to combat claims that there was some sort of market there or that markets ruled things even though, as I pointed out, that the capitalist mode of production begins with surplus-value being pumped out of the direct producers in the form of wage-labor and this value going to become more value.




No I didn't. It was said nowhere. I asked a question about the mode of distribution under capitalism. Since I've humiliated you multiple times on your ignorance of history, I guess you saw this is as your opportunity to reassert yourself over me and make up a bunch of garbage about how I'm supposedly saying the mode of distribution is primary, which I'm not.

You're really asking if the USSR was capitalist, we all know this. We're all telling you that the mode of distribution doesn't matter but it's the way things are produced that matters. Markets don't create or dictate capitalism or the law of value, it is rather the other way around.



Surplus-value which was socially owned rather than collected by individual capitalists for accumulation.

And now we get into the legalistic jargon that Stalinists and Trots love. There's a great deal that could be said about how that surplus-value was not socially owned and why such a concept is stupid to begin with and why this is even possible under socialism, a non-capitalist mode of production. But let me ask you this, do you think that co-ops are socialist for this reason? If you say "yes" then I'm going to be disappointed :( Also, if you mention "democratic-consultation" then I'm going to blow milk out of my nose.



Severely limited commodity production, as has been noted.

Oh boo, and before you were saying that commodity production ends with we get "super-abundance". I'm not too sure you actually know what commodity production means here or how it ends. You do realize that everything could be bought with money in the SU, right?


Funnily enough, you earlier criticized me for looking at distribution instead of class relations of production, yet in this flimsy attempt to prove the USSR was capitalist, you completely ignore the class configuration of the society. There's no mention of an absence of the bourgeoise, the collective ownership of the means of production, the new relationships between the proletariat and the peasantry, or anything.

More Trot logic :( Do I have to post that quote again my Mr Marx about how the way that surplus-value is pumped out of the direct producers determines the mode of production in society? If you can't even accept that fact of Mr Marx in his rather nice book, Capital, which I recommend you read some day, then I have no idea where to begin. Gosh darn, we have all of these things that describe capitalism but... where's the capitalists?! Who is paying these wages to workers? Hmm, I wonder...

[Questionable]

And you are not looking at the mode of production, you just said in the title, that you are looking at the mode of distribution, totally ignoring and trying to hide the mode of production.I have done no such thing. Please highlight the parts of my posts where I have ignored production and tried to justify socialism based on distribution.

My view was that markets are a natural outgrowth of capitalism, because they are the arena in which commodities are pitted against each other and exchanged at certain values. Therefore, if a market did not exist, as this version of the state-capitalist theory claimed, it seems as though capitalist commodity production would be impossible, because how else would products be measured against one another and traded?

That is why all this stuff about me saying markets are the primary feature of capitalism is nonsense. The markets are obviously a feature of a mode of production that is defined by wage-labor. That is why this talk of me being like "CAPITALISM IS MARKETS GUIZ!!!11!" is absurd. Either your reading comprehension is more terrible than I thought, or you've finally resorted to making blatant lies about my views. Either way, unless you can directly quote where I said that the mode of distribution was primary over production, I will begin ignoring these points. They're garbage.


The question you have to ask yourself, is how can commodity production function in the first place. I know that it's hard to bring down your walls of perception in regards to the soviet union being socialist. I know it's all you bourgeois apologists say, but step outside of bourgeois economics for a moment and try to think like a marxist.As explained by Stalin in Economic Problems of the USSR:


Lenin's answer may be briefly summed up as follows:
a) Favourable conditions for the assumption of power should not be missed - the proletariat should assume power without waiting until capitalism has succeeded in ruining the millions of small and medium individual producers;
b) The means of production in industry should be expropriated and converted into public property;
c) As to the small and medium individual producers, they should be gradually united in producers' cooperatives, i.e., in large agricultural enterprises, collective farms;
d) Industry should be developed to the utmost and the collective farms should be placed on the modern technical basis of large-scale production, not expropriating them, but on the contrary generously supplying them with first-class tractors and other machines;
e) In order to ensure an economic bond between town and country, between industry and agriculture, commodity production (exchange through purchase and sale) should be preserved for a certain period, it being the form of economic tie with the town which is alone acceptable to the peasants, and Soviet trade - state, cooperative, and collective-farm - should be developed to the full and the capitalists of all types and descriptions ousted from trading activity.

[...]

It is said that commodity production must lead, is bound to lead, to capitalism all the same, under all conditions. That is not true. Not always and not under all conditions! Commodity production must not be identified with capitalist production. They are two different things. Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production. Commodity production leads to capitalism only if there is private owner-ship of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists exists in the country. Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and when the workers are bereft of means of production and are compelled to sell their labour power as a commodity. Without this there is no such thing as capitalist production.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm



I don't hate Stalin or the USSR, these were objective things that happened. Go ahead if you want to make this list, I'll welcome sources by Bill Bland even.There was that time you spoke of how Soviet theorists claimed profit was "suppressed" in the USSR, which was untrue. There are the claims you make against both Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists that we believe in parliamentary means to secure socialism. There's other examples, such as your blatant ignorance of Marxist-Leninist economic theory.



No, it isn't. It doesn't have to be an indirect form of exchange. Unless you think Mr Ford buying steel from Mr Carnegie without the two ever knowing each other.I'm honestly surprised that someone who has come into this thread with no other interest than showing how much of a better Marxist he is than me, is unable to understand the indirect form that exchange takes place in capitalism.


It does not matter of Person A personally knows Person B. That is subjective. What matters is how they interact on the market indirectly, with currency as a medium of exchange.

For all your talk of me trying to obfuscate things, it is you who is doing so. Whether Person A had lunch with Person B prior to the act of exchange, is a total irrelevancy. As far as their social relationship within capitalism is concerned, they are both function as indirect, economic actors. When Person B hands Person A 50$ for his commodity, he could just as easily be Person C, or Person D.



Hey, you brought it up and then tried to elaborate on it. You're the one working on the basis that the USSR was socialist. And you're trying to combat claims that there was some sort of market there or that markets ruled things even though, as I pointed out, that the capitalist mode of production begins with surplus-value being pumped out of the direct producers in the form of wage-labor and this value going to become more value.Stalin himself admitted that markets existed in the USSR where commodities between the town and country were exchanged to strengthen ties between them.



The fact that you think I'm trying to disprove the existence of markets in the SU really goes to show how pitiful your reading comprehension is. My initial question was really of interest to me because if state-capitalist actually thought that capitalist commodity production was functioning without a market to exchange goods, then it made no sense to me how a self-described Marxist could adhere to that theory. But as linksradikal explained, it appears to be a poor caricature of the theory.


Of course, the market did not rule things, to that I would indeed argue against. Central planning conducted by the state was the dominant force.



You're really asking if the USSR was capitalist, we all know this. We're all telling you that the mode of distribution doesn't matter but it's the way things are produced that matters. Markets don't create or dictate capitalism or the law of value, it is rather the other way around.I don't know why you think I would come to Revleft and ask people like yourself whether the USSR was capitalist. I'm fully aware of what most people here think of the USSR, and it doesn't matter much to me. As I said, my interest was in the theory of state-capitalism.


That said, I have never said nor believed that the mode of distribution has primacy of the mode of production. Again, unless you can highlight from my posts where I suggested such a thing, I will begin ignoring it. It's just slander against me.



But let me ask you this, do you think that co-ops are socialist for this reason? Your old buddy Bill Bland explains them as, "a step on the way to the socialisation of the enterprises of the peasants and artists, which transforms rural and urban petty bourgeoisie into rural and urban members of the working class." This process is, of course, part of the construction of socialism.


For the record, the reason I poke fun at your hatred of Bill Bland all the time is because he's really no different than any other Marxist-Leninist. You seem to have some weird personal grudge against him, when he's really not that special aside from the fact that he wrote several articles about Marxist-Leninist subjects. It's like if I picked an author from Libcom and repeatedly said things like "Even Libcom guy isn't this stupid!" when I was criticizing Left Communism. What's the point of it?

For that matter, have you actually read any of Bland's works, aside from the excerpts which I sometimes post on Revleft?




Oh boo, and before you were saying that commodity production ends with we get "super-abundance".Highlight where I said such a thing. This is nothing more than a strawman. I mentioned how certain products were offered freely with no price when enough of it was available, such as bread. These were viewed as experiments in communism according to the Soviets. My point was to show how commodities and the law of value existed, but did not dominate.




Do I have to post that quote again my Mr Marx about how the way that surplus-value is pumped out of the direct producers determines the mode of production in society?This is a vulgar interpretation of Marx that, again, ignores the class configuration of Soviet society, which you dismissed as "Trot logic." The fact that the means of production were at that time collectively owned by the working-class means nothing to you. You're taking the narrow-minded view that the extraction of surplus-value was all that matters in the USSR, completely throwing out a class analysis of what that surplus-value meant socially and to whom it went.

[Brotto Rühle]

Questionable... I have to ask... Why do you keep whining about reb not understanding "Marxist-Leninist" economic theory? I mean, not all of us have the time to became well versed in the bourgeois economics of "Marxism-Leninism".

As well, you contradicted yourself. You talk about markets being a result of capitalism, but...then quote Stalin saying that Markets existed... Therefore telling us that, by default, the USSR is capitalist.

You are obviously just a mouthpiece of Stalinist rheoric. The working class was alienated from its product and means of production, were subject to wage-labour, etc. The working class had NO SAY in production, no political power. Yet you continue to spew the same false shit about socialism existing.

Did you know that managers in factories made decisions, could fire workers, were often paid over thrice the lowest paid workers. Do you know what stakhanovism is?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I thought this was an economics discussion, not tit-for-tat on Marxist-Leninist political theory?

[Questionable]

I thought this was an economics discussion, not tit-for-tat on Marxist-Leninist political theory?

I'm all for Jimmie Higgins splitting this off into a new thread somewhere. The Economics board has always been relatively insulated from sectarianism, and I think that should be preserved.


Questionable... I have to ask... Why do you keep whining about reb not understanding "Marxist-Leninist" economic theory? I mean, not all of us have the time to became well versed in the bourgeois economics of "Marxism-Leninism".

I only mentioned his lack of understanding once. That said, I don't think it's unfair for me to expect that you all ought to understand what you're criticizing before you speak on it. The fact that your lot continues to ignore basic Marxist-Leninist works on the grounds that it's "propaganda" or "stalinist garbage" or whatever, and continually show a lack of knowledge about what actually went on in the USSR, is unsettling to me, and makes me think your fierce opposition to it is coming from an emotional place, rather than one of reason.


As well, you contradicted yourself. You talk about markets being a result of capitalism, but...then quote Stalin saying that Markets existed... Therefore telling us that, by default, the USSR is capitalist.

Markets and commodities were never thought of as anything more than remnants of capitalism, the Soviets taking their cue from Karl Marx:

"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."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm


The working class had NO SAY in production, no political power. Yet you continue to spew the same false shit about socialism existing.

This is just not true. How do you think the election process functioned in the Soviet Union?


Did you know that managers in factories made decisions, could fire workers, were often paid over thrice the lowest paid workers.

I don't have access to the source right now but I recall reading that trade unions could gather to veto any decision made by the management, including firing workers.

As for wage inequality, Stalin had this to say:


I have just spoken about the organised recruiting of workers for our factories. But recruiting workers is not all that has to be done. In order to ensure manpower for our enterprises we must see to it that the workers are stably connected with their factories and make the composition of the labour force in the factories more or less constant. It scarcely needs proof that without a constant labour force who have more or less mastered the technique of production and have become accustomed to the new machinery it will be impossible to make any headway, impossible to fulfil the production plans. Unless this is achieved, we shall have to keep on training new workers and to spend half the time on training them instead of making use of this time for production. But what is actually happening now? Can it be said that the composition of the labour force at our factories is more or less constant? Unfortunately, this cannot be said. On the contrary, we still have a so-called fluidity of manpower at our factories. More than that, in a number of factories the fluidity of manpower, far from disappearing, is increasing and becoming more marked. At any rate, you will find few factories where the personnel does not change at least to the extent of 30 to 40 per cent of the total in the course of half a year, or even in one quarter.

[...]

In order to put an end to this evil we must abolish wage equalisation and discard the old wage scales. In order to put an end to this evil we must draw up wage scales that will take into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, between heavy and light work. We cannot tolerate a situation where a rolling-mill worker in the iron and steel industry earns no more than a sweeper. We cannot tolerate a situation where a locomotive driver earns only as much as a copying clerk. Marx and Lenin said that the difference between skilled and unskilled labour would exist even under socialism, even after classes had been abolished; that only under communism would this difference disappear and that, consequently, even under socialism "wages" must be paid according to work performed and not according to needs. But the equalitarians among our economic executives and trade-union officials do not agree with this and believe that under our Soviet system this difference has already disappeared. Who is right, Marx and Lenin or the equalitarians? It must be assumed that it is Marx and Lenin who are right. But it follows from this that whoever draws up wage scales on the "principle" of wage equalisation, without taking into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, breaks with Marxism, breaks with Leninism.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/06/23.htm

This is connected to the concept of "bourgeois right" which Marx spoke of in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is just not true. How do you think the election process functioned in the Soviet Union?

Nominally.


I don't have access to the source right now but I recall reading that trade unions could gather to veto any decision made by the management, including firing workers.

Trade unions in the USSR operated in service of the management and were extensions of the state's interests.



Markets and commodities were never thought of as anything more than remnants of capitalism, the Soviets taking their cue from Karl Marx:

"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."


This is connected to the concept of "bourgeois right" which Marx spoke of in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Such abuse of Marx' writings -- Marxism-Leninism is a caricature of Marxism. By this logic we might as well claim that Sweden is socialist, but private property, wage-labour, income inequality, and so forth are just "remnants of bourgeois society". Where do you draw the line?

[RedMaterialist]

I just don't understand how capitalism is supposed to function without a market. The author suggested that it wasn't essential, but it seems pretty essential to the system based on what I know. Otherwise, how else are commodities being distributed?

Capitalism today is monopoly capitalism (see sweezy and baran.) Capitalism controls its own market, controls its own supply costs and demand prices. Walmart, for example, determines what it charges its suppliers and what its prices are.

Mass advertising is used to create and control demand.

The modern corporation does not allow itself to be subjected to the uncertainties of the free market. Only the small businesses and the labor markets are forced to compete in the free market of Adam Smith. Of course, a lot of money is spent to convince people that Exxon, Microsoft, etc. are just like the mom and pop store competing for your business.

[Questionable]

Such abuse of Marx' writings -- Marxism-Leninism is a caricature of Marxism. By this logic we might as well claim that Sweden is socialist, but private property, wage-labour, income inequality, and so forth are just "remnants of bourgeois society". Where do you draw the line?

We would draw the line between a society like Russia that underwent an actual proletariat revolution that smashed the bourgeois state, where the means of ownership was collectively owned by the working-class, who also owned the social product. In Sweden where these measures are reforms implemented by the bourgeois state which don't change the fundamental character of capitalism. Capitalist relations remain mostly untouched in Sweden, exploitation still occurs, and commodity production operates in all spheres rather than the limited scope it had in the USSR.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm all for Jimmie Higgins splitting this off into a new thread somewhere. The Economics board has always been relatively insulated from sectarianism, and I think that should be preserved.


I think that would be a good idea.

[Tim Cornelis]

We would draw the line between a society like Russia that underwent an actual proletariat revolution

In what way was it proletarian in nature when all organs of workers' power were dismantled, such as factory committees?


that smashed the bourgeois state,

I don't agree that this happened. The USSR's state structure corresponds to the structure of Western states. Nor does the smashing of a bourgeois state mean it's been transplanted by a non-bourgeois state.


where the means of ownership was collectively owned by the working-class,

Only in the illusory world of Stalinist propaganda was this the case. First of all, if the "working class" owned the means of production collectively there can't be a working class as they are the dispossessed class.

Secondly, the party-state owned and controlled the means of production. The workers were employed by the state. The state's decision-making bodies were not subject to external control. Decision-making power within the scope of enterprises was concentrated in the hands of the state's managers, not the workers. Decision-making power in political and economic affairs was concentrated in the hands of the party elite.


who also owned the social product.

The state owned it and not the workers.


In Sweden where these measures are reforms implemented by the bourgeois state which don't change the fundamental character of capitalism. Capitalist relations remain mostly untouched in Sweden, exploitation still occurs, and commodity production operates in all spheres rather than the limited scope it had in the USSR.

The workers employed by the state were extorted of surplus value, i.e. the existence of exploitation. I don't see how commodity production was limited, nor why this one aspect would change the mode of production's title.

[Questionable]

First of all, if the "working class" owned the means of production collectively there can't be a working class as they are the dispossessed class.Semantics. I think you know what I meant when I said that.


Secondly, the party-state owned and controlled the means of production. The workers were employed by the state. The state's decision-making bodies were not subject to external control. Decision-making power within the scope of enterprises was concentrated in the hands of the state's managers, not the workers. Decision-making power in political and economic affairs was concentrated in the hands of the party elite.There are documented cases, such as in The Webbs' Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?, of workers overturning decisions made by the managers.

Even into the 60s and 70s, trade unions still held significant power. Szymanski also gave examples of unions vetoing decisions by the management to fire certain workers for being unprofitable.

The trade unions also held a large role in Soviet democracy:


In December of 1936 the Russian Communist Party was to hold its annual election of officers. Until then nominations and elections to Communist Party posts had always been openly made. By this practice such members as might dislike some powerful office-holder often felt limited in expressing their opposition for fear of reprisal. The Central Committee decided to put its entire leadership to the test as to whether they were really acceptable to the membership. Those who were performing a useful public service would likely be re-elected and those who were simply holding on to a sinecure and a place of power would be hard put to hold on to their posts. For this they introduced the secret ballot. The results were surprising. In some districts of the Party the whole leadership were swept out of office. In others there was severe criticism leveled against the leadership by a good-sized opposition vote although on the whole, the national leadership of the Party received a resounding endorsement. The party felt greatly refreshed by the new people elected to office and the elimination of those who had become hardened bureaucrats and were no longer welcome to the rank and file.


[...]


To start with, in the Soviet Union politics and elections are not the special duties of a political party. If one does not understand that paramount fact everything else is likely to be unclear. Nominations to public office are not made by a political party alone. The Communist Party does indeed put forward many candidates but so do the trade unions nominate independent candidates for political office; so do the cooperatives, the cultural organisations, the scientific academies, the youth organisations, whatever special women’s organisations exist and every other organisation or institution that desires to. In short, nominations for office, which in our country stems only from political parties, in the Soviet Union stems from every possible people’s organisation.


[...]


I had the privilege of observing the nominations and elections in the district in which I lived and worked from beginning to end. The particular election which I referred to was the All-Union elections for selecting of delegates to the All-Union Soviet Congress, that being equivalent of our choosing of members of the United States House of Representatives in Washington. Each institution in the congressional district in which I resided and worked held meetings of the people to nominate candidates. Meetings were held in factories. The Moscow university, which was in this district held a meeting. The Great Lenin Library held a meeting of its staff to put forward candidates. So did all of the cooperative stores associations that operated there. So did the trade union organisations, the Communist Party, the youth organisations, etc. etc. A great many candidates were put forward in each meeting. The procedure for each candidate was to stand up and give a brief biography of his life and reasons why he should or should not be nominated. It was considered a lack of civic responsibility for a candidate to decline out of hand. If he thought he should not be elected it was has duty to take the platform, provide a brief biography of his life, and give the reasons why he should not be accepted. Two whole weeks were set aside for this procedure. Some organisations met every night for the entire period and examined thousands of people who were put forward as candidates there. Each candidate had to submit to questions from the floor. At the end of that time one or more nominees were put in nomination for the entire district with the endorsement of the body choosing him or her.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm


The workers employed by the state were extorted of surplus value, i.e. the existence of exploitation.
This rips surplus value from its class context and causes it to lose its meaning. In the socialist societies it was not appropriated by capitalists, but put toward a social fund.

[Tim Cornelis]

Semantics. I think you know what I meant when I said that.

It's far more than semantics, its use indicates a fundamental miscomprehension of the socialist mode of production.


There are documented cases, such as in The Webbs' Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?, of workers overturning decisions made by the managers.

I've seen this claim be made by various Marxist-Leninists, usually deriving it from Joseph Ball's 'the Need for Planning', but they merely cite this book out of confirmation bias -- it fits their predetermined conclusion. Webb's book is scarcely taken seriously by historians ranging from the left to right. It's a reproduction of Stalinist propaganda. This is evidenced alone by the contradiction of the harsh working conditions the workers, which makes no sense for the workers to have imposed on themselves yet this is exactly what Marxist-Leninists would have you believe.


Even into the 60s and 70s, trade unions still held significant power. Szymanski also gave examples of unions vetoing decisions by the management to fire certain workers for being unprofitable.

The trade unions also held a large role in Soviet democracy:

I will need to evaluate this source.


This rips surplus value from its class context and causes it to lose its meaning. In the socialist societies it was not appropriated by capitalists, but put toward a social fund.

Petitio principii, you assume the initial point namely that it was not appropriated by capitalists. The surplus value was indeed appropriated by the capitalist class: the owners of the means of production employed wage-labourers, namely the party-state.

[Questionable]

It's far more than semantics, its use indicates a fundamental miscomprehension of the socialist mode of production.

Not really. We're both talking about the same thing here. The proletariat was previously the dispossessed class in capitalism that had only their labor-power to exchange, and now post-revolution they are the ruling class that owns the means of production.

I don't see how it means I don't understand socialism. Obviously I know that they don't qualitatively exist in the same sense as they did within capitalism. If I believe that exploitation and a class to conduct such exploitation didn't exist in Russia at the time, it would be illogical for me to believe otherwise.


I've seen this claim be made by various Marxist-Leninists, usually deriving it from Joseph Ball's 'the Need for Planning', but they merely cite this book out of confirmation bias -- it fits their predetermined conclusion.

Do you have any examples which contradict the power that trade-unions had? If so, I'd be willing to take a look at them.


This is evidenced alone by the contradiction of the harsh working conditions the workers, which makes no sense for the workers to have imposed on themselves yet this is exactly what Marxist-Leninists would have you believe.

I know you'll disagree right away, but I've yet to see any evidence that the workers worked as they did because of anything other than their enthusiasm and the belief that they were constructing a new society. The Stakhanovites are of course the more famous examples of this. Various observers of Soviet society noted it too, such as John Scott in his "Behind the Urals" book.

I'm sure you could argue that their enthusiasm for this new society was misplaced, but I think the evidence is pretty solid that this energy existed among the working masses.


The surplus value was indeed appropriated by the capitalist class: the owners of the means of production employed wage-labourers, namely the party-state.

This is based on the anarchist analysis of the Soviet Union that the managers and party members formed a 'new class' that subsequently exploited the workers, which I obviously don't subscribe to.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Questionable;2682876]Not really. We're both talking about the same thing here. The proletariat was previously the dispossessed class in capitalism that had only their labor-power to exchange, and now post-revolution they are the ruling class that owns the means of production.

So it's still capitalism but, under your analysis, the workers have now just become the capitalists??


I don't see how it means I don't understand socialism.

I think the above means that you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the purpose of revolution, and the nature of a post-revolutionary society.


I know you'll disagree right away, but I've yet to see any evidence that the workers worked as they did because of anything other than their enthusiasm and the belief that they were constructing a new society. The Stakhanovites are of course the more famous examples of this. Various observers of Soviet society noted it too, such as John Scott in his "Behind the Urals" book.

'Belief in constructing a new society' doesn't make that society inherently socialist. I know many workers who toil aimlessly under capitalism in the belief that they'll get rich one day, or that they are contributing to the construction of a better society.


This is based on the anarchist analysis of the Soviet Union that the managers and party members formed a 'new class' that subsequently exploited the workers, which I obviously don't subscribe to.

Saying you don't subscribe to something can't be taken as a refutation of the argument, so it's a bit lazy to just say the above if you're not prepared to defend your position, or at least attempt to explain it to us so we can better understand where you're coming from.

[Questionable]

So it's still capitalism but, under your analysis, the workers have now just become the capitalists??

I don't see anywhere that I stated that it is still capitalism.


I think the above means that you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the purpose of revolution, and the nature of a post-revolutionary society.

Elaborate. If your issue is that I used "proletariat" to describe workers in socialism, then it must follow that you're accusing me of believing that a propertyless class is exchanging their labor-power with an exploitative class under socialism, which I do not. My usage of the word was in reference to the group of people that were formerly the proletariat, now possesses social ownership of the means of production.


'Belief in constructing a new society' doesn't make that society inherently socialist. I know many workers who toil aimlessly under capitalism in the belief that they'll get rich one day, or that they are contributing to the construction of a better society.

Then it's a good thing I didn't say that their belief made the Soviet Union socialist. My point was that what Cornelis was saying about their working conditions being evidence that the managers and party members held all the power was incorrect.


Saying you don't subscribe to something can't be taken as a refutation of the argument, so it's a bit lazy to just say the above if you're not prepared to defend your position, or at least attempt to explain it to us so we can better understand where you're coming from.

I've been explaining my position and trying to explain how the Soviet economy functioned through this entire thread.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not really. We're both talking about the same thing here. The proletariat was previously the dispossessed class in capitalism that had only their labor-power to exchange, and now post-revolution they are the ruling class that owns the means of production.

This makes absolutely no sense and it reinforces the notion of a miscomprehension of the socialist mode of production. So now there is a proletariat (dispossessed class) post-revolution (after the defeat of the counter-revolutionaries) being the ruling class. It's a triple contradiction. They would cease to be a proletariat post-revolution and they can't be a ruling class because it's the post-revolution.


I don't see how it means I don't understand socialism. Obviously I know that they don't qualitatively exist in the same sense as they did within capitalism. If I believe that exploitation and a class to conduct such exploitation didn't exist in Russia at the time, it would be illogical for me to believe otherwise.

It's not proof, it's an indication.


Do you have any examples which contradict the power that trade-unions had? If so, I'd be willing to take a look at them.

I don't have on specific book available, but whenver trade unions are mentioned in books, texts, etc., they were described as extensions of the managers and owners of the objective conditions of labour, e.g. by motivating workers to work harder. The fact that when independent trade unions managed to form, like Solidarity in Poland, they attacked the "socialist" regime is also indicative of this.

This also deals a great deal with dismantling the Stalinist illusions, this chapter in regard to trade unions and workers' rights:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch01-s1.htm#s2


I know you'll disagree right away, but I've yet to see any evidence that the workers worked as they did because of anything other than their enthusiasm and the belief that they were constructing a new society. The Stakhanovites are of course the more famous examples of this. Various observers of Soviet society noted it too, such as John Scott in his "Behind the Urals" book.

I'm sure you could argue that their enthusiasm for this new society was misplaced, but I think the evidence is pretty solid that this energy existed among the working masses.

In my view, the entire Marxist-Leninist movement consisted of wishful thinking and self-delusion. It's the same with you, willing to believe in Stalinist propaganda. That workers were "enthusiastic" and this explains the horrid conditions of their labour activities is, to me, beyond naive. Ultimately, it reminds me of debating Creationists. I cannot personally verify whether astrophysicists are correct, yet I rely on them. Similarly, I rely on the academic activities of historians and therefrom deduce what I believe the closest approximation of the truth. However, the disregard of such academics as "bourgeois" and embracing Stalinist propaganda instead is a matter of belief. One that I cannot bring you off of.

To me, all this is self-delusion and wishful thinking.


This is based on the anarchist analysis of the Soviet Union that the managers and party members formed a 'new class' that subsequently exploited the workers, which I obviously don't subscribe to.

It's basic Marxist analysis. On the one hand you have the owners and controllers of means of production wielding decision-making power, employing wage-labourers to produce commodities and subtract surplus value from them (the party-state, ruling class, and capitalist class all the same), on the other hand you have the working class dispossessed and confronting the objective conditions of their labour as alien property tied to the owning class and having surplus value extorted from them (the Soviet proletariat and exploited class).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm all for Jimmie Higgins splitting this off into a new thread somewhere. The Economics board has always been relatively insulated from sectarianism, and I think that should be preserved.Well economics is politicial and I think the question of the nature of the USSR was implicated in the original question/kickoff. However, I do think that a lot of the posts were needlessly hostile and a little too flame-like, so while I decide on splitting off some of these other posts, for now...

General warning against flaming.

Keep to the points, make your respective cases politically, not sect-ly and without condescension or insults.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Not really. We're both talking about the same thing here. The proletariat was previously the dispossessed class in capitalism that had only their labor-power to exchange, and now post-revolution they are the ruling class that owns the means of production.

I don't see how it means I don't understand socialism. Obviously I know that they don't qualitatively exist in the same sense as they did within capitalism. If I believe that exploitation and a class to conduct such exploitation didn't exist in Russia at the time, it would be illogical for me to believe otherwise.



Do you have any examples which contradict the power that trade-unions had? If so, I'd be willing to take a look at them.



I know you'll disagree right away, but I've yet to see any evidence that the workers worked as they did because of anything other than their enthusiasm and the belief that they were constructing a new society. The Stakhanovites are of course the more famous examples of this. Various observers of Soviet society noted it too, such as John Scott in his "Behind the Urals" book.

I'm sure you could argue that their enthusiasm for this new society was misplaced, but I think the evidence is pretty solid that this energy existed among the working masses.



This is based on the anarchist analysis of the Soviet Union that the managers and party members formed a 'new class' that subsequently exploited the workers, which I obviously don't subscribe to.

The Stakhanovite movement was essentially a marketing campaign for the state. It is well documented that, while some worked hard, many of the "feats" were wildly exaggerated or completely made up, and that these people were promoted by the Soviet state in the media as "national heroes". To refer to the Stakhanovite movement as some sort of genuine movement of workers to "further the socialist cause" is just silly.

[Paul Cockshott]

My God, could it be that products that were created were created by independent producers? How else could you get a commodity? .

Well it could be, but a closer inspection would reveal that the units of production in the USSR were far from independent. You then have to actually answer your second question rather than just beg it.

[Paul Cockshott]

it reminds me of debating Creationists. I cannot personally verify whether astrophysicists are correct, yet I rely on them. Similarly, I rely on the academic activities of historians and therefrom deduce what I believe the closest approximation of the truth.
It is reasonble to rely on astronomers as there are not great social intrests at stake (Giordano Bruno?) any longer in the discoveries of the astronomers. Thus the incursions of class interests into astronomical theory are minor. The same neutrality and disinterest is not possible in the study of society, and certainly not when the academic system from which the experts were drawn was part of a state that was engaged in a cold war against the USSR. There were other academic experts in Russian University history and social economic departments in the 60s who were saying very different things from their opposite numbers in the USA. But Russian and American astronmers on the other hand agreed with one another.
The choice to believe US rather than Soviet academic experts is inevitably influenced by your political opinions.

[RedMaterialist]

It is reasonble to rely on astronomers as there are not great social intrests at stake (Giordano Bruno?) any longer in the discoveries of the astronomers. Thus the incursions of class interests into astronomical theory are minor. The same neutrality and disinterest is not possible in the study of society, and certainly not when the academic system from which the experts were drawn was part of a state that was engaged in a cold war against the USSR. There were other academic experts in Russian University history and social economic departments in the 60s who were saying very different things from their opposite numbers in the USA. But Russian and American astronmers on the other hand agreed with one another.
The choice to believe US rather than Soviet academic experts is inevitably influenced by your political opinions.

Or, the furies of private interest. Capital, Vol. I

[cyu]

"If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines."
- Some guy on the internet ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ha-joon Chang isn't a Marxist, but he is the daddy of heterodox economics, and thus he's a good analyst. Here's his analysis on markets:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1505:there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-market