Socialist "emulation", Stakhanovism

[ñángara]

Is this "socialist competition" among producers a real Marxist means to improve non exploitative productivity in a socialist economic regime?

[Tim Cornelis]

Marxism is a method of social science, so no. But is it a communist means to encourage wage-labourers and enterprise managers to produce more value and commodities? No.

[Destroyer of Illusions]

Marxism is a method of social science, so yes. But is it a communist means to encourage wage-labourers and enterprise managers to produce more value and commodities? Yes.

[Creative Destruction]

Marxism is a method of social science, so yes. But is it a communist means to encourage wage-labourers and enterprise managers to produce more value and commodities? Yes.

Is this an April Fool's thing you're doing?

[Destroyer of Illusions]

Here is a lot of fools,indeed,those men who declare everything that has to do with the Soviet block is inconsistent with Marxism.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's pretty evident that according to Marxism communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, so if you want to claim that wage-labour, value, and commodity production are consistent with a Marxist perspective on communism, it's equally evident who the fool is.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

[ñángara]

Here is a lot of fools,indeed,those men who declare everything that has to do with the Soviet block is inconsistent with Marxism.
I'm referring to "productivity" and "competition" in the USSR, aka Stakhanovich's Taylorism and socialist "emulation". I just wanted to know if those terms got to do too with the capitalistic exploitation and market, respectively. :confused:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

SSSR didn't have a market? Why was there still currency & wages then? What did the enterprises and ministries invest if not capital accumulated from exploitation? You have to pay the imports somehow with hard currency earned through exporting products and materials.

If you "emulate" a market, there's a pretty good chance you have a market.

Down with competition! Death to the Stakhanovites!

[Destroyer of Illusions]

SSSR didn't have a market? Why was there still currency & wages then? What did the enterprises and ministries invest if not capital accumulated from exploitation? You have to pay the imports somehow with hard currency earned through exporting products and materials.

If you "emulate" a market, there's a pretty good chance you have a market.

Down with competition! Death to the Stakhanovites!

The idiopcy is getting stronger.Happy Fool's Day, gemtlemen!


It's pretty evident that according to Marxism communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, so if you want to claim that wage-labour, value, and commodity production are consistent with a Marxist perspective on communism, it's equally evident who the fool is.



It's pretty evident that according to Marxism the lower stage of communism knowm as socialism is not a stateless, classless, moneyless society,so check your facts,kid.


I'm referring to "productivity" and "competition" in the USSR, aka Stakhanovich's Taylorism and socialist "emulation". I just wanted to know if those terms got to do too with the capitalistic exploitation and market, respectively.

I don't understand the question.What stimulation of productivity have to do with market and exploatation?

[Destroyer of Illusions]

SSSR didn't have a market? Why was there still currency & wages then? What did the enterprises and ministries invest if not capital accumulated from exploitation? You have to pay the imports somehow with hard currency earned through exporting products and materials.

If you "emulate" a market, there's a pretty good chance you have a market.

Down with competition! Death to the Stakhanovites!

The idiopcy is getting stronger.Happy Fool's Day, gemtlemen!


It's pretty evident that according to Marxism communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, so if you want to claim that wage-labour, value, and commodity production are consistent with a Marxist perspective on communism, it's equally evident who the fool is.



It's pretty evident that according to Marxism the lower stage of communism knowm as socialism is not a stateless, classless, moneyless society,so check your facts,kid.


I'm referring to "productivity" and "competition" in the USSR, aka Stakhanovich's Taylorism and socialist "emulation". I just wanted to know if those terms got to do too with the capitalistic exploitation and market, respectively.

I don't understand the question.What stimulation of productivity have to do with market and exploatation? And do you see the difference between emulation and competition?

[Creative Destruction]

It's pretty evident that according to Marxism the lower stage of communism knowm as socialism is not a stateless, classless, moneyless society,so check your facts,kid.

Uh, communism can only be stateless, classless and moneyless, by Marx's definition. He never said that class, money or the state would exist in the lower phase of communism. In fact, he said the exact opposite. Check your facts, kid. Read Marx instead of Stalin.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's pretty evident that according to Marxism the lower stage of communism knowm as socialism is not a stateless, classless, moneyless society,so check your facts,kid.

Everything I said is factual. According to Marxism, commodity production exists because the social character of labour is established indirectly only when the commodity of one private producer confronts the commodities of other private producers. So where commodity production exists, private production must exist. So if you maintain that commodity production exists in communism, you are saying private production must exist, but of course private production or private labour is completely antithetical to communism. Rather, in communism (both the first and a higher phase), the social character of labour is directly social, in the words of Marx:

"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production [i.e. communism], 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."

Individual labour is immediately social under direct association, and social production under direct association is "entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities", as Marx noted in Capital.

Before you say that Marx is talking about a higher phase of communism, this is factually wrong, as he continues "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". Those paragraphs, including the cited one above, are about the first phase of communism. A higher phase of communism is only introduced paragraphs later ("In a higher phase of communist society [...] only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!").

In other words, in communism, there is no value and no commodity production. And of course Marx did not distinguish between socialism and communism, this became a widely accepted distinction only after his death. Labour, in the first phase of communism, "individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor", in other words, individual labour does not become private labour, and therefore the commodity-form does not and cannot arise.

Far more importantly is not that Marx said it, but why. We don't need Marx's words, we just need his method and apply it logically. In the revolutionary dictatorship, which is the political transition period and not a transitional society, the means of production are socialised and the social character of labour is harmonised with the method of appropriation. Once this is completed, the social labour and its products are socially appropriated, and the first phase of communism has been inaugurated, based on common ownership and social, cooperative labour in direct association.

In the words of Engels, "From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour." Therefore, "The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”.

The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities. The fact that value is the expression of the social labour contained in the privately produced products itself creates the possibility of a difference arising between this social labour and the private labour contained in these same products".

So again, a very basic application of the Marxist method shows that commodity production cannot exist in communism, first phase or a later, higher phase. This is a fact, and is basically not up for discussion. It's spelled out very clearly throughout the works of Marx and Engels, so I can only assume you have not read them.

Tsushima summarises Marx and Engels very well in the link I linked to above, for if you can't be bothered.

""One must distinguish between the letter and the essence"! Is that so? What would Marx have to say about this variety of "Marxist"? No doubt he would say: "I am no Marxist"! Marx laughed caustically at the followers of Proudhon who sought to shake free of the hell of money on the basis of commodity production. And yet here, conversely, "socialist commerce and socialist money" are being dragged into socialism, which is a society of communal labor. In either case we are dealing with terrible idiots. The difference is that in the case of the former, money is unable to be pushed into hell or knocked off, while in the case of the latter, socialism is truly pushed into hell! But since such socialism is not feasible, it must be said that both share the common trait of calling for the impossible. Under socialism, the category of commodity value, and therefore all commerce and all money, wither away. This is the necessary corollary of Marx's theory of value, and this is also what Marx and Engels themselves spoke of. They clearly stated that labor certificates do not become money. It is ridiculous to say that Marx never said anything about this. Hiradate is not thinking straight. I would like to ask him whether "money" and "commerce" are possible without the law of value. Or we could ask him whether it is possible for the law of value to arise when labor has become directly social labor? If it is said that it could arise, this is the view of commodity production as something supra-historical, which would mean that Marx's labor theory of value in Capital is mistaken!"

Either Marx's theory is wrong, or you are advocating capitalism. Either way, you're not a Marxist, nor a communist. This is Marxism 101.

[Destroyer of Illusions]

Everything I said is factual. According to Marxism, commodity production exists because the social character of labour is established indirectly only when the commodity of one private producer confronts the commodities of other private producers. So where commodity production exists, private production must exist. So if you maintain that commodity production exists in communism, you are saying private production must exist, but of course private production or private labour is completely antithetical to communism. Rather, in communism (both the first and a higher phase), the social character of labour is directly social, in the words of Marx:

"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production [i.e. communism], 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."

Individual labour is immediately social under direct association, and social production under direct association is "entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities", as Marx noted in Capital.

Before you say that Marx is talking about a higher phase of communism, this is factually wrong, as he continues "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". Those paragraphs, including the cited one above, are about the first phase of communism. A higher phase of communism is only introduced paragraphs later ("In a higher phase of communist society [...] only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!").

In other words, in communism, there is no value and no commodity production. And of course Marx did not distinguish between socialism and communism, this became a widely accepted distinction only after his death. Labour, in the first phase of communism, "individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor", in other words, individual labour does not become private labour, and therefore the commodity-form does not and cannot arise.

Far more importantly is not that Marx said it, but why. We don't need Marx's words, we just need his method and apply it logically. In the revolutionary dictatorship, which is the political transition period and not a transitional society, the means of production are socialised and the social character of labour is harmonised with the method of appropriation. Once this is completed, the social labour and its products are socially appropriated, and the first phase of communism has been inaugurated, based on common ownership and social, cooperative labour in direct association.

In the words of Engels, "From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour." Therefore, "The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”.

The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities. The fact that value is the expression of the social labour contained in the privately produced products itself creates the possibility of a difference arising between this social labour and the private labour contained in these same products".

So again, a very basic application of the Marxist method shows that commodity production cannot exist in communism, first phase or a later, higher phase. This is a fact, and is basically not up for discussion. It's spelled out very clearly throughout the works of Marx and Engels, so I can only assume you have not read them.

Tsushima summarises Marx and Engels very well in the link I linked to above, for if you can't be bothered.

""One must distinguish between the letter and the essence"! Is that so? What would Marx have to say about this variety of "Marxist"? No doubt he would say: "I am no Marxist"! Marx laughed caustically at the followers of Proudhon who sought to shake free of the hell of money on the basis of commodity production. And yet here, conversely, "socialist commerce and socialist money" are being dragged into socialism, which is a society of communal labor. In either case we are dealing with terrible idiots. The difference is that in the case of the former, money is unable to be pushed into hell or knocked off, while in the case of the latter, socialism is truly pushed into hell! But since such socialism is not feasible, it must be said that both share the common trait of calling for the impossible. Under socialism, the category of commodity value, and therefore all commerce and all money, wither away. This is the necessary corollary of Marx's theory of value, and this is also what Marx and Engels themselves spoke of. They clearly stated that labor certificates do not become money. It is ridiculous to say that Marx never said anything about this. Hiradate is not thinking straight. I would like to ask him whether "money" and "commerce" are possible without the law of value. Or we could ask him whether it is possible for the law of value to arise when labor has become directly social labor? If it is said that it could arise, this is the view of commodity production as something supra-historical, which would mean that Marx's labor theory of value in Capital is mistaken!"

Either Marx's theory is wrong, or you are advocating capitalism. Either way, you're not a Marxist, nor a communist. This is Marxism 101.

Do you realy realize what the talk is about? What has all that to do with the emulation?

Besides that you do not understand what we are talking about you have said nonsense twice:

1. the first stage of communism is stateless, classless, moneyless :confused:

2.the stimulation of productivity is incompatible with Marxism :ohmy:

[Creative Destruction]

Tim just, painstakingly -- and far more than you deserve, pointed out to you what communism means to Marxism, using Marx's methodology. The first stage of communism is stateless, classless and moneyless, by necessity.

Perhaps you should quote for us, in Marx, where he said otherwise, or try to use his methodology in arguing that the first phase of communism isn't stateless, classless or moneyless. It should be great fun to see, at least.

[Cliff Paul]

This is just an argument over semantics. Destroyer of Illusions is calling socialism the first stage of communism, where as Tim is arguing that they are separate stages. Which one is right is simply a matter of how you define stage in this instance.

[Tim Cornelis]

Do you realy realize what the talk is about? What has all that to do with the emulation?

Besides that you do not understand what we are talking about you have said nonsense twice:

1. the first stage of communism is stateless, classless, moneyless :confused:

I know you're confused, that's why I advised you to read Tsushima, if not Marx or Engels.

The first phase of communism is classless because it follows the revolutionary dictatorship's political transition in which the bourgeoisie is overthrown. It is stateless because the state is an instrument of class rule. It is moneyless because individual labour becomes directly part as component of the total labour, i.e. labour is directly social.


2.the stimulation of productivity is incompatible with Marxism :ohmy:

That's not what I said. To quote you: "Do you realy realize what the talk is about? What has all that to do with the emulation?". This thread is about "socialist emulation", a specific set of policies used in the Soviet Union using moral incentives to encourage wage-labourers to produce more value that could then be extracted to serve purposes of capital accumulation. So I answered the question by pointing out that "socialist emulation" and 'Stakhanovite-ism' therefore not having been communist since in communism there's no wage-labourers, no producing of commodities or value.

Stimulation of productivity in the first phase will be done using labour certificates, but this is obviously not synonymous with "socialist emulation" or "Stakhanovitism".


This is just an argument over semantics. Destroyer of Illusions is calling socialism the first stage of communism, where as Tim is arguing that they are separate stages. Which one is right is simply a matter of how you define stage in this instance.

Then you misread the argument. Destroyer of Illusions is arguing that the first phase of communism/socialism has commodity production and wage-labour and value; I am arguing that socialism/the first phase of communism is stateless, classless, and moneyless, and that this follows from a simple application of Marxism.

[Cliff Paul]

Then you misread the argument. Destroyer of Illusions is arguing that the first phase of communism/socialism has commodity production and wage-labour and value; I am arguing that socialism/the first phase of communism is stateless, classless, and moneyless, and that this follows from a simple application of Marxism.

Do you consider labour vouchers money?

[Creative Destruction]

This is just an argument over semantics. Destroyer of Illusions is calling socialism the first stage of communism, where as Tim is arguing that they are separate stages. Which one is right is simply a matter of how you define stage in this instance.

It's not semantics. There's a real theoretical problem with claiming that any phase of communism has a state, money and class. He's not merely claiming that the lower phase of communism is "socialism." He's actively saying that capitalism, or some other system that isn't communism, remains as a force in the lower phase of communism.

[Creative Destruction]

Do you consider labour vouchers money?

No. They're explicitly not "money." It's a completely different form. Money is a mediator between commodities. Labor vouchers are basically an accounting of labor done and what you can draw from the social product.

[DOOM]

Do you consider labour vouchers money?

Money can also act as a commodity, whereas labour vouchers couldn't.

[Cliff Paul]

Well my point is that in popular discourse labour vouchers can be referred to as 'money'. (And I think in practice labour vouchers probably would act similar to money but that's a different issue)

Anyways, my point is that I don't think destroyer of illusions is using the terms 'value', 'commodity production', etc. in strictly Marxist terms. On a different note, I diasgree with the notion that classes and a state are things that wouldn't exist during socialism - at least according to Marxist thought.

[Creative Destruction]

Well my point is that in popular discourse labour vouchers can be referred to as 'money'. (And I think in practice labour vouchers probably would act similar to money but that's a different issue)

A voucher is a mere representation of an agreement. Coupons, for example, are not money. They are an agreement between the person and the company that if the consumer purchases a certain thing from them, then the company will give a discount. If you give someone a voucher for a school or a vacation, it is an agreement that the money will be provided from the source who issued the voucher. Itself doesn't have economic value (in any economic sense, Marxist or not.)

Labor vouchers are the same. They're an agreement by society that shows a person can draw from the store of goods, the same amount of labor they put in. There is no money being exchanged (primarily because money does not exist.) There isn't really any exchange going on, to be precise, even when drawing from the store of goods. The value of consumables aren't mediated by by labor vouchers.


Anyways, my point is that I don't think destroyer of illusions is using the terms 'value', 'commodity production', etc. in strictly Marxist terms. On a different note, I diasgree with the notion that classes and a state are things that wouldn't exist during socialism - at least according to Marxist thought.

You can disagree all you want, I suppose, but that wouldn't make you any less wrong. Destroyer of Illusions is specifically invoking Marx to make his claims, so there is no other context in which he is using "value" and "commodity production." He just doesn't understand what these things mean in Marxism.

As for your last point, go back to Tim's post. He reproduces, accurately, Marx's methodology to show that classes and state and money are impossibilities under socialism. What rebuttal do you have to that? In what way is a state or class possible in communism, to you?

[Destroyer of Illusions]

I know you're confused, that's why I advised you to read Tsushima, if not Marx or Engels.

The first phase of communism is classless because it follows the revolutionary dictatorship's political transition in which the bourgeoisie is overthrown. It is stateless because the state is an instrument of class rule. I

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a prerequisite of the first stage of comminism ,so the stage is not classles and stateless.


It is moneyless because individual labour becomes directly part as component of the total labour, i.e. labour is directly social.

It semms you make the same misstake that During did,you do not understand that at first stage " the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate...In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully....Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin..."

You haven't understood this three things and all your false conclusions follow from this.

[Creative Destruction]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a prerequisite of the first stage of comminism ,so the stage is not classles and stateless.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the process of transforming capitalism into communism. Once it ends, there is no capitalism, and nothing, in form, that defines capitalism exists; including the state, class and money. The state ends when the proletarian dictatorship ends because class ends, because the means of production has been socialized (the private ownership of the means of production being the basis for class.) When class ends, there can be no state, since the state is an instrument of class oppression. Money is no longer something that exists because it relies on commodity production, being a mediator of commodities, which is a characteristic of the private ownership of the means of production.

The first stage of communism is communism. Stateless, classless, moneyless.


It semms you make the same misstake that During did,you do not understand that at first stage "the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate...In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully....Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin..."

You haven't understood this three things and all your false conclusions follow from this.

It doesn't sound like you understand what Engels wrote there. It vindicates Tim. Not you. Specifically the bolded part.

[Tim Cornelis]

Do you consider labour vouchers money?




The dictatorship of the proletariat is a prerequisite of the first stage of comminism ,so the stage is not classles and stateless.

The DOTP is a "prerequisite" of the first stage? I don't know what that means. It's certainly a perquisite for the first phase of communism. But it withers away. Or was the Paris Commune communist?

But you're evading most of what I wrote like the plague.

Can you answer this: can commodity production exist in a society based on directly social labour?


It semms you make the same misstake that During did,you do not understand that at first stage " the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate...In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully....Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin..."

You haven't understood this three things and all your false conclusions follow from this.

As Creative Destruction said, that quote supports my case. Please address what I wrote. If you did not understand it, read it again. But it seems more like you're playing dumb due to cognitive dissonance as it is factual and easily verifiable per a basic application of Marxism that communism is based on:

1) Social (industrial) labour under direct, free association;
2) Therefore social ownership, therefore no social classes, therefore not having a state;
3) Therefore social appropriation of the total product;
4) Therefore the absence of commodity production/exchange;
5) Therefore the absence a universal equivalent, i.e. money;
6) Therefore communism being moneyless, stateless, classless.

There's no universal equivalent (money) in communism because there is no commodity exchangebecause labour is directly social. The "money" is not "money" at all because labour certificates function as measure of labour time, not value. This is qualitatively different from the Soviet Union, which was based on wage-labour, commodity exchange, etc. As someone pointed out in another thread, there's quite a lot of parallels between Dühringism and Stalinism (Stalinism: Dühring reincarnated).

Can you answer this: can commodity exchange exist in a society based on directly social labour?

[Cliff Paul]

As for your last point, go back to Tim's post. He reproduces, accurately, Marx's methodology to show that classes and state and money are impossibilities under socialism. What rebuttal do you have to that? In what way is a state or class possible in communism, to you?

Here's Engels on why Socialism is stateless:


The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

Here's Marx on why Socialism must have a state:


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

The argument about the existence of a state during the transitory phase of socialism (or even whether or not socialism can be distinctly seperated from communism) is tiresome since Marx and Engels were both pretty vague and often made contradictory statements on the subject.

The idea of there still being classes under "the dictatorship of the proletariat" seems kind of axiomatic to me though. The name itself implies that classes still exist.

The argument about money is a different story. Marx is clear that money (in the marxist sense of the term) would cease to be a thing. In practice however, I think that the introduction of labor vouchers would probably lead to their circulation and the creation of a black market - not to mention the problems that might occur if people started hoarding labor vouchers.


You can disagree all you want, I suppose, but that wouldn't make you any less wrong. Destroyer of Illusions is specifically invoking Marx to make his claims, so there is no other context in which he is using "value" and "commodity production." He just doesn't understand what these things mean in Marxism.

I don't dispute this. I'm just saying that when I read his posts they made sense to me if you don't look at them through a Marxist lens. That's obviously problematic if you are invoking Marx in your arguments but yeh.

[Tim Cornelis]

Here's Marx on why Socialism must have a state:



https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

The argument about the existence of a state during the transitory phase of socialism (or even whether or not socialism can be distinctly seperated from communism) is tiresome since Marx and Engels were both pretty vague and often made contradictory statements on the subject.

"Transitory phase of socialism" < this is the problem. This is a specifically Maoist position.

Marx nowhere uses socialism to refer to a transitory phase coinciding with the DOTP. He says between capitalism and communism lies a political transition period that is the revolutionary dictatorship.

Thus, capitalism > dictatorship > communism. Or capitalism > dictatorship > first phase of communism > higher phase of communism.

After Marx's death it became customary and accepted in Marxist circles to use "socialism" to refer the first phase of communism (This is the reason that Lenin used socialism to refer to the first phase of communism.) . Even taking this use of socialism, there is no dictatorship in socialism. However, under Mao, not only did the terminology shift, but also the concept it referred to. In Maoist circles socialism is used to refer to the dictatorship and first phase of communism in one, a revision of Marxism.

So if we want to use "socialism" to refer to the social revolution or revolutionary reconstruction (no idea how that's useful) then yes, there's a state in socialism. But then socialism and the first phase of communism become two different concepts, and we were talking about whether the first phase of communism has a state, money, or classes (it doesn't).





The idea of there still being classes under "the dictatorship of the proletariat" seems kind of axiomatic to me though. The name itself implies that classes still exist.

The argument about money is a different story. Marx is clear that money (in the marxist sense of the term) would cease to be a thing. In practice however, I think that the introduction of labor vouchers would probably lead to their circulation and the creation of a black market - not to mention the problems that might occur if people started hoarding labor vouchers.

Then you're either not familiar with the Marxist position or you disagree with it. Either way, by believing that there will be labour money (as opposed to labour vouchers, two distinct concepts) you have stopped being a communist and have become a Proudhonist, Owenite, or utopian socialist.

By the way, currently, we'd use labour credits and they'd simply disappear from the 'debit card' once used, so there's no way they could even circulate.

[Cliff Paul]

"Transitory phase of socialism" < this is the problem. This is a specifically Maoist position.

Ok you are right about Marx not referring to socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the point that I was making is that a state + classes exist during the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Then you're either not familiar with the Marxist position or you disagree with it. Either way, by believing that there will be labour money (as opposed to labour vouchers, two distinct concepts) you have stopped being a communist and have become a Proudhonist, Owenite, or utopian socialist.

I don't support labour money - my critique was that labour vouchers have the potential to become labour money.


By the way, currently, we'd use labour credits and they'd simply disappear from the 'debit card' once used, so there's no way they could even circulate.

hmm that makes sense

[Creative Destruction]

Ok you are right about Marx not referring to socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the point that I was making is that a state + classes exist during the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course they do and that's never been in dispute. What's in dispute is when people confuse "socialism" for the proletarian dictatorship, and this happens often, mostly by Leninists (which is strange because Lenin didn't make this error, either.)


I don't support labour money - my critique was that labour vouchers have the potential to become labour money.

But they don't. Money, as a rule, is transferable -- rather, it's exchangeable. Labor credits -- or labor "money" -- are not exchangeable. You use them and they're gone. It's a mere accounting of things; accounting of labor and the things that labor makes and what can be doled out, as it were.

The only "black market" that could exist would be one where people bartered directly. But that's redundancy. You can't profit off of barter, which is the primary reason a black market exists. Scarce items have their prices raised in order to account for procuring the item itself plus an exorbitant "crisis profit" which motivates the seller of the item to offer it in the first place.

In a society where we are producing for need, the only thing that is standing between you and the thing you want or need -- if it's scarce -- is how many labor credits you have saved up. And in a society where things would be trending toward automation, possibly even more than they are now, those things "cost" less and less labor hours to produce. Theoretically, some sort of barter market could arise from this situation, but it'd be hard to imagine -- short of complete catastrophe -- what would precipitate that.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't dispute this. I'm just saying that when I read his posts they made sense to me if you don't look at them through a Marxist lens. That's obviously problematic if you are invoking Marx in your arguments but yeh.

Well, just as well, when you look at the Austrian theory on value without looking at it with a Marxist lens, then it could make "sense," too. It's logical. But just because something is logical doesn't mean it's correct. Marx's value theory is logical, but it's evidently correct, as well. Marxists agree with Marx's methodology because it can be directly related in experience. Its basis is in looking at things the way they are instead of constructing abstract principles based on what logically could happen.

Regardless, when you're on a forum that is mostly Marxists, in a thread talking about Marxism, there's no reason to look at the terms DoI are using in anything other than a Marxist framework. That doesn't make any sense to do.

[Destroyer of Illusions]

I wonder if this guy understand what he writes? After the absolutely correct phrase


Marx says between capitalism and communism lies a political transition period that is the revolutionary dictatorship...it became customary and accepted in Marxist circles to use "socialism" to refer the first phase of communism

he suddenly concludes


there is no dictatorship in socialism.Dude, one of two : dictatorsip presents or dictatorsip does not present.

Or let's take this statesment


Thus, capitalism > dictatorship > communism. Or capitalism > dictatorship > first phase of communism > higher phase of communism.You see,he puts in Marx's three links chain his own fourth one and says that it is the same thing!

3=4,the dictatorship presents and does not present at the same time - wonderful are your works, Lord! :confused:

OK,back to topic,I'm not going to argue about the terms if you are in a mix with them.Let's say simpler : the USSR was in the same political transition period,in the period of the revolutionary transformation of capitalism into communism when the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


Can you answer this: can commodity production exist in a society based on directly social labour?

No it cannot.


Can you answer this: can commodity exchange exist in a society based on directly social labour?

No it cannot.

Can you answer this: was it a curiosity or an inquisitiveness?




http://cat.fr.eu.criteo.com/delivery/lg.php?cppv=1&cpp=BMPBUnxxbFZSSHY3YzltSEt3TUV0aG9oYitGalIveURodj c1L3JRV2dDOStoZThvNGgrTDJ5c0U2QjBqMk1rY0s5WjNnVHk3 ekdLY21TZ1FFN0NIamc5UXl0OWh2cFU0bzZMUHUyK2Y1NHJmZ0 xnRFIwaHpFcE9OSEhYM04vdjVLSm9tcWsrelBOc1RrRVQ2OCty bHpOR0VnUWZIWjl5VENudWkvQ0drdjdJaExhcDhzNFZPMVdiYW x3WEVsSUlqMlpkUmxscXVtcXptY3JGM0lWOVNGeFBsSVpBPT18

[Creative Destruction]

I wonder if this guy understand what he writes? After the absolutely correct phrase



he suddenly concludes

Dude, one of two : dictatorsip presents or dictatorsip does not present.

Or let's take this statesment

You see,he puts in Marx's three links chain his own fourth one and says that it is the same thing!

3=4,the dictatorship presents and does not present at the same time - wonderful are your works, Lord! :confused:

No, Tim is right. The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism/the lower phase of communism. The lower phase of communism is communism, it's not a transformation. It exists after the transformation is done. You just keep digging your hole here. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.


http://cat.fr.eu.criteo.com/delivery/lg.php?cppv=1&cpp=BMPBUnxxbFZSSHY3YzltSEt3TUV0aG9oYitGalIveURodj c1L3JRV2dDOStoZThvNGgrTDJ5c0U2QjBqMk1rY0s5WjNnVHk3 ekdLY21TZ1FFN0NIamc5UXl0OWh2cFU0bzZMUHUyK2Y1NHJmZ0 xnRFIwaHpFcE9OSEhYM04vdjVLSm9tcWsrelBOc1RrRVQ2OCty bHpOR0VnUWZIWjl5VENudWkvQ0drdjdJaExhcDhzNFZPMVdiYW x3WEVsSUlqMlpkUmxscXVtcXptY3JGM0lWOVNGeFBsSVpBPT18

what the hell is this?

[mushroompizza]

Hmmmm this "socialist competition" sounds similar to corporatism does it not?