genericnick posted:

Yeah, that's kind of cool, but I think the logical step from comparing the value of a carrot and a phone would be to go to the basic premise in Marx. There is no value in nature, it's only meaningful in the context of human civilization. So, yeah, a carrot can be much more complex than a phone, but the human labor invested in a carrot is much less and you're not entering an exchange relation with the carrot field.

“Karl” posted:

“The Gotha Programme” posted:

Labor is the source of wealth and all culture, and since useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society.

First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all
culture."

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.

“Karl” posted:

Second part of the paragraph: "Useful labor is possible only in
society and through society."

According to the first proposition, labor was the source of all wealth and all culture; therefore no society is possible without labor. Now we learn, conversely, that no "useful" labor is possible without society.

One could just as well have said that only in society can useless and even socially harmful labor become a branch of gainful occupation, that only in society can one live by being idle, etc., etc. — in short, once could just as well have copied the whole of Rousseau.

And what is "useful" labor? Surely only labor which produces the intended useful result. A savage — and man was a savage after he had ceased to be an ape — who kills an animal with a stone, who collects fruit, etc., performs "useful" labor.

Bardamnu posted:

quote:

There is no value in nature

Bardamnu posted:

Nature is just as much the source of use values as labor - Marx

Zodium posted:

i gotta learn mandarin.

Bardamnu posted:

Karl in literally chapter 1 posted:

Die zwei Faktoren der Ware: Gebrauchswert und Wert (Wertsubstanz, Wertgröße)

dead gay comedy forums posted:

I never read the full thing but if there's one man who knew how to analyze the former COMINTERN was the great commander:

genericnick posted:

Yeah, not the same thing.

Use value and value

marx.org posted:

“Value” is often used as a synonym for exchange-value, though strictly speaking, “value” indicates the concept which incorporates both quantity and quality.

dead gay comedy forums posted:

I never read the full thing but if there's one man who knew how to analyze the former COMINTERN was the great commander:

quote:

A number of political slogans began to be aired in favor of the creation of opposition parties, in favor of ideas which were frankly anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist, such as the idea that the party should cease to exercise the function which a party should exercise within a socialist society and that it should play the role of guide, reviewer, and the like – above all, a sort of spiritual director. In short, that power should cease to be a function of the Communist Party.

Ferrinus posted:

i'm reading "Collapse" right now and this is basically a spot-on description of what gorbachev did on purpose for no clear reason

Raskolnikov38 posted:

he was a big ol' dummy that fingerpainted with his forehead

The Alchemist posted:

I was told to come here to talk about cool Chinese trains. Do you guys have a favorite?

Gerold posted:

Hello my friend,

How do you define socialism, how do you think China could build it, and why isn't China socialist? Bonus: do you think they're on a path to socialism?

Love,
Gerold

Gerold posted:

Hello my friend,

How do you define socialism, how do you think China could build it, and why isn't China socialist? Bonus: do you think they're on a path to socialism?

Love,
Gerold

dead gay comedy forums posted:

*squinting eyes and clasping hands in contemplation as I study this rereg* hmmmmm

The Alchemist posted:

To put it very simply, socialism is"To each according to his contribution." Things like stock holders and landlords are at direct odds with this. At this point China is social democracy at best, and whether or not their intention is to become socialist in the future doesnt change the fact that they are not practically socialist state as of now.

The Alchemist posted:

To put it very simply, socialism is"To each according to his contribution."

StashAugustine posted:

Huh wonder why China and Russia were able to reduce extreme poverty to 0 despite being basically unindustrialized a century ago

The Alchemist posted:

They used to be socialist, OP.

The Alchemist posted:

In case you were wondering where all the extreme poverty went when it was "eradicated"

The Alchemist posted:

The Alchemist posted:

To put it very simply, socialism is"To each according to his contribution." Things like stock holders and landlords are at direct odds with this. At this point China is social democracy at best, and whether or not their intention is to become socialist in the future doesnt change the fact that they are not practically socialist state as of now.

The Alchemist posted:

To put it very simply, socialism is"To each according to his contribution." Things like stock holders and landlords are at direct odds with this. At this point China is social democracy at best, and whether or not their intention is to become socialist in the future doesnt change the fact that they are not practically socialist state as of now.

There Is No Fundamental Contradiction Between Socialism and a Market Economy, Deng Xiaoping, 1985 posted:

Grunwald: Are these phenomena indicative of a latent contradiction that is hard to resolve — a contradiction between a market economy and the socialist system?

Deng: There is no fundamental contradiction between socialism and a market economy. The problem is how to develop the productive forces more effectively. We used to have a planned economy, but our experience over the years has proved that having a totally planned economy hampers the development of the productive forces to a certain extent. If we combine a planned economy with a market economy, we shall be in a better position to liberate the productive forces and speed up economic growth.

Since the Third Plenary Session of our Party’s Eleventh Central Committee, we have consistently stressed the importance of upholding the Four Cardinal Principles, especially the principle of keeping to the socialist system. If we are to keep to the socialist system, it is essential for us to develop the productive forces. For a long time we failed to handle this question satisfactorily. In the final analysis, the superiority of socialism should be demonstrated in a greater development of the productive forces. The experience we have gained over the years shows that with the former economic structure we cannot develop the productive forces. That is why we have been drawing on some useful capitalist methods. It is clear now that the right approach is to open to the outside world, combine a planned economy with a market economy and introduce structural reforms. Does this run counter to the principles of socialism? No, because in the course of reform we shall make sure of two things: one is that the public sector of the economy is always predominant; the other is that in developing the economy we seek common prosperity, always trying to avoid polarization. The policies of using foreign funds and allowing the private sector to expand will not weaken the predominant position of the public sector, which is a basic feature of the economy as a whole. On the contrary, those policies are intended, in the last analysis, to develop the productive forces more vigorously and to strengthen the public sector. So long as the public sector plays a predominant role in China’s economy, polarization can be avoided. Of course, some regions and some people may prosper before others do, and then they can help other regions and people to gradually do the same. I am convinced that the negative phenomena that can now be found in society will gradually decrease and eventually disappear as the economy grows, as our scientific, cultural and educational levels rise and as democracy and the legal system are strengthened.

"We Can Develop A Market Economy Under Socialism", Deng Xiaoping, 1979 posted:

Gibney: Over a fairly long period of time China has remained closed off from the United States. For such a country as China, it is really a big challenge to achieve rapid modernization. It seems that China has to carry out a new revolution.

Deng Xiaoping: Modernization does represent a great new revolution. The aim of our revolution is to liberate and expand the productive forces. Without expanding the productive forces, making our country prosperous and powerful, and improving the living standards of the people, our revolution is just empty talk. We oppose the old society and the old system because they oppressed the people and fettered the productive forces. We are clear about this problem now. The Gang of Four said it was better to be poor under socialism than to be rich under capitalism. This is absurd.

Of course, we do not want capitalism, but neither do we want to be poor under socialism. What we want is socialism in which the productive forces are developed and the country is prosperous and powerful. We believe that socialism is superior to capitalism. This superiority should be demonstrated in that socialism provides more favourable conditions for expanding the productive forces than capitalism does. This superiority should have become evident, but owing to our differing understanding of it, the development of the productive forces has been delayed, especially during the past ten-year period up to 1976. In the early 1960s, China was behind the developed countries, but the gap was not as wide as it is now. Over the past 11 or 12 years, from the end of the 1960s through the 1970s, the gap has widened because other countries have been vigorously developing their economies, science and technology, with the rate of development no longer being calculated in terms of years, not even in terms of months, but in terms of days. For a fairly long period of time since the founding of the People’s Republic, we have been isolated from the rest of the world. For many years this isolation was not attributable to us; on the contrary, the international anti-Chinese and anti-socialist forces confined us to a state of isolation. However, in the 1960s when opportunities to increase contact and cooperation with other countries presented themselves to us, we isolated ourselves. At last, we have learned to make use of favourable international conditions.

[...]

Paul T. K. Lin: China made a mistake when it placed restrictions on its socialist market economy too early and too rapidly. Because of this, do you think China needs to make its socialist market economy play a bigger role under the guidance of a planned socialist economy.

Deng: It is wrong to maintain that a market economy exists only in capitalist society and that there is only “capitalist” market economy. Why can’t we develop a market economy under socialism? Developing a market economy does not mean practising capitalism. While maintaining a planned economy as the mainstay of our economic system, we are also introducing a market economy. But it is a socialist market economy. Although a socialist market economy is similar to a capitalist one in method, there are also differences between them. The socialist market economy mainly regulates interrelations between state-owned enterprises, between collectively owned enterprises and even between foreign capitalist enterprises. But in the final analysis, this is all done under socialism in a socialist society. We cannot say that market economy exists only under capitalism. Market economy was in its embryonic stages as early as feudalist society. We can surely develop it under socialism. Similarly, taking advantage of the useful aspects of capitalist countries, including their methods of operation and management, does not mean that we will adopt capitalism. Instead, we use those methods in order to develop the productive forces under socialism. As long as learning from capitalism is regarded as no more than a means to an end, it will not change the structure of socialism or bring China back to capitalism.

Gerold posted:

Hey alchemist did you know there's a metal band with your name too?

Thanks for sharing your serious opinion. Do you think dictatorship of the proletariat vs the capitalist dotb changes things? Do you think base and superstructure should only be considered separately or does China's dialectical position change things meaningfuly?
Makes sense to me

The Alchemist posted:

When it comes to China still being a dictatorship of the proletariat and their intentions and goals sincerely communist, I've got not much else to go with than your and the CCP leadership's word on it; maybe you can point out some practical evidence of this in their legal-political system? Are the workers in control or are they not? Lets remind ourselves that even Gorbatchev spouted communist rhetoric - even praising Stalin - while simultaneously practically striking the death blows to Soviet Union. I would hate to see that happen to China in my life time, and thats why I think its important to hold China's political reforms under such scrutiny.

Son of Sorrow posted:

lenin rising from his grave to a chorus of angels blowing trumpets and notifying humanity that the correct ideology was juche

Ferrinus posted:

let's refer to one of [url=https://redsails.org/trotsky-on-state-capitalism/]the most famous old bolsheviks

The Alchemist posted:

You accidentally linked to trotsky, or is this meant to be a joke?

The Alchemist posted:

Im not gonna be mad if you prove theres no exploitation of workers in China, sometimes its great to be wrong

The Alchemist posted:

I was told to come here to talk about cool Chinese trains. Do you guys have a favorite?

The Alchemist posted:

Im not gonna be mad if you prove theres no exploitation of workers in China, sometimes its great to be wrong

quote:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only 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!

Mandoric posted:

If there were no exploitation of the workers, communism would already exist and there would be no use for a Communist party. As the big guy himself stakes out in his Critique of the Gotha Program,

Detailed further in the Leninist viewpoint that's the only one that's reliably held water, socialism is the phase in which the primary exploiter of the worker is other or especially future workers; communism is the phase in which productive forces, and human culture, have developed to the extent that only hobbies are necessary.

From these perspectives, you have to demonstrate a much more specific increase in the long-term rate in which worker exploitation is redirected to private fortunes rather than enhancing future output from socially-directed labor to reject an experiment out of hand, and, well, there's the rub of it--you need long-term, years to decades, data that said experiment has done less for labor than it has for capital. Something which is easy to come by in the west, but much harder to come by even when comparing the China of 2024 to the China of 1989.