Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

My problem with Communism

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 Jun 2013, 01:07
Quote:
Then what do they spend their wages on? In the previous thread where this whole debate originated from you said the state simply gives them their means of consumption (using a tomato analogy). What use would they have for wages if their goods came free from the state?

I think you don't read what I write. I just said that it's not free.

Quote:
So you took the trouble to point out that you've read Lire le Capital but couldn't be bothered to say you've read Vol II, III and IV It's very clear what you meant (and what you haven't read).

I don't understand the logic, if there is one. I spoke about Lire le Capital because in this book, Louis Althusser explains why there is a difference between reading The Capital and understanding The Capital, and, as a consequence, you could have read the whole MEGA, it wouldn't make you a better marxist. Therefore your ridiculous game "I have read Das Kapital volumes I, II, III and IV (actually the fourth volume isn't a true volume)" and you didn't is stupid, especially since I have already proven that you didn't understood the very simple difference between C-M-C and M-C-M.

Quote:
Plus in the other thead you admit that M-C-M does exist under capitalism but only in its simple form.

Did I? The form corresponding to capitalism is C-M-C, that's quite clear.

Quote:
Sounds rather similar to what I was saying.

What a shame, I already quoted that 3 or 4 times in the other discussion, but since you don't read, it's just like you copy/paste what I already said, the only difference is that you don't understand what Marx writes. For example you don't understand the difference between surplus value and surplus product.

Quote:
Before you type, let me remind you that you have already admitted that C-M-C and M-C-M exist under socialism so I expect you to work within these circulation schemas.

This is starting to be boring. If you don't bother reading what I write, I don't care, but at least don't try to speak in my stead, for I never said something like that.

On the first page of the discussion I said:

Since we are speaking not about capitalism but about socialism, it's clear that we are speaking about CMC, a system in which money isn't a commodity but money itself or, as Marx said, "money that is money only", i.e. a circulating medium between A and B.

And you infiltrated this discussion a few posts later, and said I never quoted Marx once on this forum which made me laugh. And now you say that I "dmitted that C-M-C and M-C-M exist under socialism... How can we take you seriously?


@ Mabool

Quote:
Why are we having this discussion again?

Because Gred hasn't been vainquished on the other discussion, so this discussion will continue until he yields.

Quote:
lol tell me who trades with whom under socialism then, and for what reason.

You work, obtain money (wage) and buy consumption goods, that's exchange. A socialist cooperative will also have to trade. A social state will trade with other socialist states. Only in complete communism the need for economic exchanges will disappear.

Quote:
Yes, but the point of producing commodities is to exchange them in order to realize profit.

You can produce a commodity without making profits. If you exchange, let's say, 1 potato against 1 tomato, you're already exchanging a commodity.

Quote:
The point of producing things under socialism is to give them to people so they can consume them.

Yes but it's not the producer that consume them. The worker that produces potatoes doesn't consume all the potatoes, a part of the potatoes, if not all, will become commodities, and it will be traded against other commodities.

Quote:
Give an example for an instance of C-M-C that could occur under socialism.

Your worker produces a potatoe, he sells the potatoe to the state (and receives his wage), and with this wage, he buys a tomatoe. That's C-M-C. If someone doesn't work, he doesn't receive anything, so he dies. That's the socialist principle: to each according to his work, while the communist principle is: to each according to his needs.
Last edited by OP-Bagration on 20 Jun 2013, 14:11, edited 1 time in total.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Sep 2011, 11:23
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 20 Jun 2013, 11:05
I don;t wanna interfere in your debate. Just to put some sources.

There can be commerce production under socialism, but cannot be commerce production under communism, or mature socialism.

And even under immature socialism commodity production is not the same as in capitalism (after all commodity production leads to capitalism, but existed long before it

Quote:
Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which, together with its “money economy,” is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production.
J. V. STALIN ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE U. S. S. R. , COMMODITY PRODUCTION UNDER SOCIALISM , p.15


Commoditys must gradualy vanish as socialism mature.
Ofcourse the revisionists of Kruschyov (trapeznikov etc) argued that profit would linger on even in communism. Too bad they weren't communists themselves, so we could examine their thesis



Quote:
In order to pave the way for a real, and not declaratory transition to communism, at least three main preliminary conditions have to be satisfied.
[..]
2. It is necessary, in the second place, by means of gradual transitions carried out to the advantage of the collective farms, and, hence, of all society, to raise collective-farm property to the level of public property, and, also by means of gradual transitions, to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the central government, or some other social-economic centre, might control the whole product of social production in the interests of society.

J. V. STALIN ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE U. S. S. R. , COMRADE YAROSHENKO’S CHIEF ERROR , p.69


So product exchange is not the same as commodity exchange.
And even commodity exchange is not the same in socialism as in capitalism, because socialism uses the marxian defintion of value to assing prices and this happens centrically taking into account the needs of society and the total outcome of production. (something that doesn't happen in China for instance
)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 20 Jun 2013, 18:56
Quote:
I don't understand the logic, if there is one. I spoke about Lire le Capital because in this book, Louis Althusser explains why there is a difference between reading The Capital and understanding The Capital, and, as a consequence, you could have read the whole MEGA, it wouldn't make you a better marxist.


I'm pretty sure reading Marx helps makes you a better Marxist. I'm not claiming to be an expert but it's insulting when you imply I have no understanding of it when I clearly do.

Quote:
Therefore your ridiculous game "I have read Das Kapital volumes I, II, III and IV (actually the fourth volume isn't a true volume)" and you didn't is stupid, especially since I have already proven that you didn't understood the very simple difference between C-M-C and M-C-M.


Where is this proof? I gave a comprehensive summary of the expansion of the schemas for M-C-M, C-M-C and P...C-M-C...P, and you didn't make any attempt to rebutt it on theoretical grounds.

Quote:
Did I? The form corresponding to capitalism is C-M-C, that's quite clear.


In the previous thread you said "The money that is given as payment for human work is created by the state directly according to the plan. The money received by the state can be destroyed then."

If the state is giving money to people it must be for a commodity of some sort. Otherwise the state would just be giving people money for no reason. Therefore it has to be M-C-M.

Quote:
Did I? The form corresponding to capitalism is C-M-C, that's quite clear.


Really? On the first page of this discussion you said: Since we are speaking not about capitalism but about socialism, it's clear that we are speaking about CMC, a system in which money isn't a commodity but money itself or, as Marx said, "money that is money only", i.e. a circulating medium between A and B.

Now who's confused about C-M-C/M-C-M?

Quote:
For example you don't understand the difference between surplus value and surplus product.


Evidence?

Quote:
This is starting to be boring. If you don't bother reading what I write, I don't care, but at least don't try to speak in my stead, for I never said something like that.

On the first page of the discussion I said:

Since we are speaking not about capitalism but about socialism, it's clear that we are speaking about CMC, a system in which money isn't a commodity but money itself or, as Marx said, "money that is money only", i.e. a circulating medium between A and B.

And you infiltrated this discussion a few posts later, and said I never quoted Marx once on this forum which made me laugh. And now you say that I "dmitted that C-M-C and M-C-M exist under socialism... How can we take you seriously?


As I mentioned earlier, you said (and I paraphrase) that the state prints money, gives it to workers in exchange for a commodity, and the workers then spend this money by buying commodities from the state. How is this not M-C-M?


But ok, for a minute let's say that you think M-C-M doesn't exist under socialism. How therefore does the state produce the value to expand the means of production under socialism? How does expanded reproduction occur under socialism as Marx says it has to?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 21 Jun 2013, 01:40
Quote:
I'm pretty sure reading Marx helps makes you a better Marxist. I'm not claiming to be an expert but it's insulting when you imply I have no understanding of it when I clearly do.

I think you are too confident in yourself.

Quote:
Where is this proof? I gave a comprehensive summary of the expansion of the schemas for M-C-M, C-M-C and P...C-M-C...P, and you didn't make any attempt to rebutt it on theoretical grounds.

The proof is what you say. First "P...C-M-C...P" is your own invention. Marx never uses "..." in The Capital, and P is used for profits. The discussion is between C-M-C or M-C-M. You wrote 5 useless paragraphs. Since you don't understand the difference between C-M-C and M-C-M, you wrote: "You forget that C-M-C goes hand in hand with M-C-M", then you try to explain that there is no differences between C-M-C and M-C-M, and here comes the conclusion: "If we look at the expanded form of C-M-C we arrive at C'-M'-C...P...C' [...] Expanding reproduction can only take place through the valorisation of money capital - i.e. M-C-M'

I wondered if you were serious when writing that, but now I have some doubts.

There is two general formulas: M-C-M and C-M-C, and you can't have both at the same time. In M-C-M, the capitalist formula, you buy a commodity and sell the commodity to obtain more money. That's what we call making profits or "buying in order to sell" (quoted on page two of the other discussion), but that doesn't exist in socialism, because you don't buy in order to sell, in order to make profits, but in order to satisfy human needs. Thus the fact that you believe that there is M-C-M under socialism proves that you didn't understood the difference between C-M-C and M-C-M. Thus this is clearly a proof that you didn't understood anything to The Capital:

"You forget that C-M-C goes hand in hand with M-C-M"



But the worst is that you wrote 5 paragraphs, 5 PARAGRAPHS, to explain "P...C-M-C...P".


Quote:
Really? On the first page of this discussion you said: Since we are speaking not about capitalism but about socialism, it's clear that we are speaking about CMC, a system in which money isn't a commodity but money itself or, as Marx said, "money that is money only", i.e. a circulating medium between A and B.

Now who's confused about C-M-C/M-C-M?

I don't confuse M-C-M or C-M-C, I just wrote C-M-C instead of M-C-M, because in French M corresponds to Merchandise. But of course in English you can't write merchandise otherwise it would be M-M-M... that's not as if I had been trying to explain in 5 paragraphs that M-C-M corresponds to socialism as you did. I wrote clearly, and you are right to quote what I said: " CMC, a system in which money isn't a commodity but money itself or, as Marx said, "money that is money only", i.e. a circulating medium between A and B."

Quote:
If the state is giving money to people it must be for a commodity of some sort. Otherwise the state would just be giving people money for no reason. Therefore it has to be M-C-M.


Quote:
As I mentioned earlier, you said (and I paraphrase) that the state prints money, gives it to workers in exchange for a commodity, and the workers then spend this money by buying commodities from the state. How is this not M-C-M?

No it's not M-C-M, it's C-M-C. Your produce a commodity (C), you sell this commodity to the state and receive money (M) and with this money you buy an equivalent of the commodity that you produced (M). You make no profits, you just exchange.

Quote:
But ok, for a minute let's say that you think M-C-M doesn't exist under socialism. How therefore does the state produce the value to expand the means of production under socialism? How does expanded reproduction occur under socialism as Marx says it has to?

That's all thanks to surplus product. A part of this product goes to the state. Actually it means that you give a part of your product to the state. The difference is that the state doesn't sell this product to make money (M-C-M), but invest it to improve the life of its citizens or, as you say, to "expand the means of production".

There your problem is, as I said, that you don't understand the difference between surplus product and surplus value. In M-C-M (Money-Commodity-Money) or to be more precise M-C-M', the surplus value is the transformation of M into M' (the transformation of money into capital) thanks to the exploitation of human work, and more precisely, overwork/surplus labour. Only in the capitalist society this surplus labour is transformed into capital through surplus value. In socialism surplus labour is used to expand the means of production or let's say, for state services, for leisure or anything else.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 21 Jun 2013, 19:37
Quote:
I think you are too confident in yourself.


I think you're about to be exposed for trying to debate something you've never read.

Quote:
The proof is what you say. First "P...C-M-C...P" is your own invention. Marx never uses "..." in The Capital, and P is used for profits.


The circuit of productive capital has the general formula P ... C' — M' — C ... P. It signifies the periodical renewal of the functioning of productive capital, hence its reproduction, or its process of production as a process of reproduction aiming at the self-expansion of value; not only production but a periodical reproduction of surplus-value; the function of industrial capital in its productive form, and this function performed not once but periodically repeated, so that the renewal is determined by the starting-point.

Hence the formula for the circuit of money-capital is: M — C ... P ... C' — M', the dots indicating that the process of circulation is interrupted, and C' and M' designating C and M increased by surplus-value.

This is ridiculous. I'm having to teach you the very material you're trying to argue with me over, because you clearly haven't read it yourself. If you'd actually taken the trouble to read chapters 1-4 of Vol II you wouldn't have just embarrassed yourself by saying "Marx never uses ..." and "P only ever represents profit".

Quote:
There is two general formulas: M-C-M and C-M-C, and you can't have both at the same time.


And yet you shout out below that C-M-C goes hand in hand with M-C-M. Of course, in this second instance you are right because the whole process of circulation is actually C-M-C-M-C-M-C-M-C-M-C-M ad infinitum. But within these we can analyse isolated examples of both C-M-C and M-C-M.

Quote:
In M-C-M, the capitalist formula, you buy a commodity and sell the commodity to obtain more money.


No, in M-C-M you buy a commodity and sell it to obtain the same amount of money. It is M-C-M' where you buy a commodity (L+mp - labour power + means of production), exploit the labour so that you generate surplus-value, and thus can sell the commodity for a greater amount of money than you had before (M').

Quote:
but that doesn't exist in socialism, because you don't buy in order to sell, in order to make profits, but in order to satisfy human needs.


But the humans who need the products you make have to buy them from you - i.e. M-C. They have money and they buy your commodities. If this were not the case then money would be useless.

Quote:
But the worst is that you wrote 5 paragraphs, 5 PARAGRAPHS, to explain "P...C-M-C...P".


Yes, I was summarising the piece of Marxist theory that you are completely ignorant of. As I said, I'm being forced to teach you.

Quote:
No it's not M-C-M, it's C-M-C. Your produce a commodity (C), you sell this commodity to the state and receive money (M) and with this money you buy an equivalent of the commodity that you produced (M). You make no profits, you just exchange.


No, that's not what I said. I said the state starts with money (they print it afterall). They then buy commodities (means of production and labour power (wages)), and they then sell the commodities that are produced from this combination for money. M-C-M.

Quote:
That's all thanks to surplus product. A part of this product goes to the state. Actually it means that you give a part of your product to the state. The difference is that the state doesn't sell this product to make money (M-C-M), but invest it to improve the life of its citizens or, as you say, to "expand the means of production".


And where does this surplus product come from?

Suppose wages are €100 and the raw materials are €400. If, under your theory, there is no surplus-value, then the value of the final product is €500. Thus the commodity is sold C-M for €500. However, all this does is bring in enough money to replace the labour and the raw materials so as to perform the whole production again (C-M-C). The production cannot expand because every cent earned has to be spent on repeating the reproduction process. So what is the solution: reduce the wages of the workers? But if you do this then they won't be able to afford their life needs.

Quote:
There your problem is, as I said, that you don't understand the difference between surplus product and surplus value.


The surplus-product is the objectification of the surplus-value in the form of use-values.

The portion of the product that represents the surplus-value, (one tenth of the 20 lbs., or 2 lbs. of yarn, in the example given in Sec. 2) we call “surplus-produce.”

Quote:
Only in the capitalist society this surplus labour is transformed into capital through surplus value. In socialism surplus labour is used to expand the means of production or let's say, for state services, for leisure or anything else.


HAHA! You've got so screwed up you've ended up agreeing with me! Capital is the means of production! Also, you admit there is surplus-labour in socialism. Tell me how it is generated.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 221
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Feb 2013, 06:55
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Pioneer
Post 22 Jun 2013, 01:19
Thread could be closed, I only have a problem with sectarianism in Communism, not the platform of the ideology.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron