Sounds good but who’s going to organize all the infrastructure that makes all these jobs possible in a functioning society? The people? They’re too busy doing all the work…
Assuming this is serious: There’s a slew of jobs that aren’t part of commodity production, but still vital: organization, administration, management, transportation, distribution, maintenance, point-of-sale workers, etc. They make up a smaller proportion of workers, and are paid out of the surplus value created by the commodity producers, because they’re still 100% necessary for production.
Well put, but at that point is it even surplus value? Loosely speaking, if they perform necessary labor in the supply chain, and they’re paid a fair rate (money to live on, not get rich on), wouldn’t their wage count as part of the cost of production?
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about. We have ways of calculating the costs for machine depreciation (so we can factor maintenance into surplus value), but it can get really difficult, or is sometime impossible, to calculate things like the value that a transport worker adds.
Meanwhile for commodity / direct producers, surplus value is an easy calculation: worker value added - wage paid.
There’s also the issue that transportation and point of sale workers are in different economic sectors, in many different countries, which has implications for their place in the class struggle. John Smith’s I imperialism in the 21st century gets into some of these.
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about.
Comrade, surplus value has absolutely nothing to do with current production costs.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
According to Marx, surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker—over and above the value of their labor power—and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. It is the hidden source of all forms of unearned income: entrepreneurial profit, commercial markup, bank interest, and ground rent.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
Consequently, goods in the USSR cost a mere fraction of what the very same goods cost in the West.
Surplus value is the very mechanism by which capitalists grow rich—it is money out of thin air.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
Not quite. Price fluctuates around value, profit can come from discrepancies between price and value, or from the raising of socially necessary labor time due to sudden events (like a factory blowing up) and thus the price of unsold commodities rises. Marx made it clear that supply and demand do cover each other as they pull towards one another, and thus there is a “value” they gravitate towards, but that profit can be made via avenues not related to surplus value (though not as a rule, always temporary).
As for the USSR, there was appropriated surplus, it was just redirected towards development by the working classes, and in the interests of the working classes. This is very much a surplus, even if it isn’t appropriated privately. This is important, because an individual worker will not be entitled to the “full value of their labor,” it is the working classes that will be, and thus can distribute from ability to need.
I think one of the better explanations is to view production along the entire supply chain as the production of the commodity, not just in the moment of a factory. Socially necessary functions all require socially necessary labor, and this amalgum of socially necessary labor and raw materials forms the commodity. A commodity is not just a commodity in itself, it is a commodity that has been transported, advertised, and sold. It does get more complicated to calculate, but you can also break it down into its constituent elements.
Administration. There’s a huge difference between administrative labor, and entitlement to the fruits of labor via private ownership of the means of production and distribution.
Are you saying that in China, the oligarchs are socialist, while in the West, they are capitalist?
No, Comrade—I am referring to the kind of socialism you are talking about: the kind of socialism that can coexist with capital.
I already gave you my answer in the previous post—having already realized you were from China, based on the characters in your username. You should understand what I meant.
In China, there are capitalist owners, some of them immensely wealthy. However, the government is not controlled by them, but by the working class through the Communist Party.
There’s a reason why China routinely gives death sentences to corrupt politicians, why it’s the manufacturer of 95% of the world’s supply of solar panels despite the existence of oil oligarchs on Earth, why housing prices go down instead of up, and why it was interested in and capable of uplifting 800mn people from poverty into a relatively comfortable life.
Sorry, I’m getting confused here. To me—based on what I’ve read here—the concept of Western socialism looks more like reformed capitalism than socialism.
Wow, you’re a member of the CPC. I envy you, Comrade… )))
I am incredibly impressed by how much China has flourished economically over the last couple of decades.
But how has this impacted the lives of the Chinese proletariat?
It seems to me that the life of a worker in Shanghai is no different from the life of a worker in, say, Moscow. As the saying goes: spot the three differences.
Do you know what Lenin was the first to promise the workers in order to get them to join him in the uprising? Do you know what issue sparked the world’s first workers’ strike—held on May 1st—in the USA?
That’s right, Comrade: the eight-hour workday.
And you, as a true Chinese communist, must surely know that every single Western socialist regards China as the gold standard of socialism—the belief that China took the correct path, having learned from the mistakes of the USSR, whose system proved unviable… indeed, fundamentally flawed from the very start.
Let me guess: you think so, too.
In your view, how does a Chinese socialist differ from a Western socialist? I’m not talking about pseudo-socialists here; I’m talking about true socialists—those who actually read Marx. What was your reason for drawing such a sharp dividing line in your post?
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.
A socialist business isn’t controlled by a private owner (or major shareholders), it’s controlled by its workers or by the government (or a mix of both). No one sits at the top and gets to award themself a massive chunk of the revenue just because their name is on the deed, so to speak. That’s the difference.
You cannot simply slice up elements of an economy and designate them to be capitalist or socialist in a vacuum, what matters is the nature of the society itself, the class character of the state and the principal form of ownership. That’s why nationalizing industry in capitalism is not necessarily an advancement towards socialism, and privatization in socialism is not necessarily an advancement towards capitalism.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.
There is another name for this: private ownership of the means of production.
The means of production constitute the aggregate of all material resources used to create goods and services. They comprise two main components: the instruments of labor (the tools and machinery used to work) and the subjects of labor (the raw materials and inputs worked upon).
This concept also encompasses wage labor. Under socialism, a private individual is not permitted to hire another person for employment.
However, during the Stalin era, private enterprise did, in fact, exist. These took the form of artels—small workshops, typically employing up to ten people, that manufactured light industrial goods. There were tens of thousands of such artels across the USSR. Yet, within these artels, both the workers and the managers participated on equal terms; specifically, the director of the artel was re-elected annually by the collective membership. Artels in the USSR produced items such as radio receivers, televisions, children’s toys, and similar goods.
Hey, are you a Russian communist? I happened to see your “)))” and a few references to Stalin and Moscow, as well as some good knowledge about stuff like the artels (which I hadn’t heard about until now). If so, I’d be very interested in asking you some questions if you don’t mind :)
No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components.
Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.
Is the state: The organised arm of class rule. This exists so long as class antagonisms exist.
“The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes. The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains. Once there is only one class, the proletariat, and all the means of production are publicly owned the state withers away (ceases to exist) as there are no longer any class antagonisms, however the government as an organ of administration and organisation remains as it is necessary to oversee and organise all of the publicly owned goods and services.
No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components.
Thank you for enlightening me, Comrade…
Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.
Yes, that is exactly what I said: for a government to function effectively in the sphere of social development, the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely essential!
The right to vote on state decisions belongs to representatives drawn from the people—those elected at the local level. The right to a real vote. That is how it worked in the USSR during the 1930s.
The only catch—as you well know—is that in the 1980s, the clause regarding the “dictatorship of the proletariat” vanished from the CPC Charter…
“The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes.
And in socialist countries?.. )))
The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains
It was an agonizing process; to achieve this, the USSR had to pass through “War Communism.”
Socialism has worked in every country it has been established in. They have all had their own problems, but these generally pale in comparison to the fundamental structural contradictions in capitalism, and have been some of the fastest developing countries in history.
China, Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba are all in the process and have benefited massively from the workers having seized the state. The USSR also benefited massively before it’s illegal dissolution and the people suffered greatly when they lost control of the state. It’s only fantasy if you’re a massively ignorant pillock.
Desperately trying to justify your refusal to contribute to anything with boring fatalism. By that logic, we’re all gonna die so why bother commenting?
Are you kidding me? Look around you. How much evil do you need to see? As long as people like this exist nothing good can coexist with them. This is all dreamworld bullshit
Sounds good but who’s going to organize all the infrastructure that makes all these jobs possible in a functioning society? The people? They’re too busy doing all the work…
Assuming this is serious: There’s a slew of jobs that aren’t part of commodity production, but still vital: organization, administration, management, transportation, distribution, maintenance, point-of-sale workers, etc. They make up a smaller proportion of workers, and are paid out of the surplus value created by the commodity producers, because they’re still 100% necessary for production.
Well put, but at that point is it even surplus value? Loosely speaking, if they perform necessary labor in the supply chain, and they’re paid a fair rate (money to live on, not get rich on), wouldn’t their wage count as part of the cost of production?
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about. We have ways of calculating the costs for machine depreciation (so we can factor maintenance into surplus value), but it can get really difficult, or is sometime impossible, to calculate things like the value that a transport worker adds.
Meanwhile for commodity / direct producers, surplus value is an easy calculation: worker value added - wage paid.
There’s also the issue that transportation and point of sale workers are in different economic sectors, in many different countries, which has implications for their place in the class struggle. John Smith’s I imperialism in the 21st century gets into some of these.
Comrade, surplus value has absolutely nothing to do with current production costs.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
According to Marx, surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker—over and above the value of their labor power—and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. It is the hidden source of all forms of unearned income: entrepreneurial profit, commercial markup, bank interest, and ground rent.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
Consequently, goods in the USSR cost a mere fraction of what the very same goods cost in the West.
Surplus value is the very mechanism by which capitalists grow rich—it is money out of thin air.
Not quite. Price fluctuates around value, profit can come from discrepancies between price and value, or from the raising of socially necessary labor time due to sudden events (like a factory blowing up) and thus the price of unsold commodities rises. Marx made it clear that supply and demand do cover each other as they pull towards one another, and thus there is a “value” they gravitate towards, but that profit can be made via avenues not related to surplus value (though not as a rule, always temporary).
As for the USSR, there was appropriated surplus, it was just redirected towards development by the working classes, and in the interests of the working classes. This is very much a surplus, even if it isn’t appropriated privately. This is important, because an individual worker will not be entitled to the “full value of their labor,” it is the working classes that will be, and thus can distribute from ability to need.
I think one of the better explanations is to view production along the entire supply chain as the production of the commodity, not just in the moment of a factory. Socially necessary functions all require socially necessary labor, and this amalgum of socially necessary labor and raw materials forms the commodity. A commodity is not just a commodity in itself, it is a commodity that has been transported, advertised, and sold. It does get more complicated to calculate, but you can also break it down into its constituent elements.
No, lemmy told me those are all bourgeoisie and go under the guillotine.
Who did?
There’s like 5 examples in the comments of this post…
Administration. There’s a huge difference between administrative labor, and entitlement to the fruits of labor via private ownership of the means of production and distribution.
On the off chance this is serious.
The government.
In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement. The government is lobbied by capitalists whose goal is their own profit.
The government is those very oligarchs.
Obviously but I wasn’t talking about capitalist society.
Are you saying that in China, the oligarchs are socialist, while in the West, they are capitalist?
No, Comrade—I am referring to the kind of socialism you are talking about: the kind of socialism that can coexist with capital.
I already gave you my answer in the previous post—having already realized you were from China, based on the characters in your username. You should understand what I meant.
I’m not @QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml but I’ll try to reply anyway.
In China, there are capitalist owners, some of them immensely wealthy. However, the government is not controlled by them, but by the working class through the Communist Party.
There’s a reason why China routinely gives death sentences to corrupt politicians, why it’s the manufacturer of 95% of the world’s supply of solar panels despite the existence of oil oligarchs on Earth, why housing prices go down instead of up, and why it was interested in and capable of uplifting 800mn people from poverty into a relatively comfortable life.
looks at the comunity name Mmh socialism…
Sorry, I’m getting confused here. To me—based on what I’ve read here—the concept of Western socialism looks more like reformed capitalism than socialism.
Good thing I’m a Chinese communist and not a western socialist.
Wow, you’re a member of the CPC. I envy you, Comrade… )))
I am incredibly impressed by how much China has flourished economically over the last couple of decades.
But how has this impacted the lives of the Chinese proletariat?
It seems to me that the life of a worker in Shanghai is no different from the life of a worker in, say, Moscow. As the saying goes: spot the three differences.
Do you know what Lenin was the first to promise the workers in order to get them to join him in the uprising? Do you know what issue sparked the world’s first workers’ strike—held on May 1st—in the USA?
That’s right, Comrade: the eight-hour workday.
And you, as a true Chinese communist, must surely know that every single Western socialist regards China as the gold standard of socialism—the belief that China took the correct path, having learned from the mistakes of the USSR, whose system proved unviable… indeed, fundamentally flawed from the very start.
Let me guess: you think so, too.
In your view, how does a Chinese socialist differ from a Western socialist? I’m not talking about pseudo-socialists here; I’m talking about true socialists—those who actually read Marx. What was your reason for drawing such a sharp dividing line in your post?
Reformed capitalism is, in fact, not socialism, you are probably thinking of social democracy
No, Comrade, I am speaking of the Western understanding of Marx.
Reformed Capitalism, Social Democracy, Western Communism, Eurocommunism… Same fucking bad shit. There are nuances, all fluff.
Either go Communism or go home. The West is a failure.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.
A socialist business isn’t controlled by a private owner (or major shareholders), it’s controlled by its workers or by the government (or a mix of both). No one sits at the top and gets to award themself a massive chunk of the revenue just because their name is on the deed, so to speak. That’s the difference.
You cannot simply slice up elements of an economy and designate them to be capitalist or socialist in a vacuum, what matters is the nature of the society itself, the class character of the state and the principal form of ownership. That’s why nationalizing industry in capitalism is not necessarily an advancement towards socialism, and privatization in socialism is not necessarily an advancement towards capitalism.
There is another name for this: private ownership of the means of production.
The means of production constitute the aggregate of all material resources used to create goods and services. They comprise two main components: the instruments of labor (the tools and machinery used to work) and the subjects of labor (the raw materials and inputs worked upon).
This concept also encompasses wage labor. Under socialism, a private individual is not permitted to hire another person for employment.
However, during the Stalin era, private enterprise did, in fact, exist. These took the form of artels—small workshops, typically employing up to ten people, that manufactured light industrial goods. There were tens of thousands of such artels across the USSR. Yet, within these artels, both the workers and the managers participated on equal terms; specifically, the director of the artel was re-elected annually by the collective membership. Artels in the USSR produced items such as radio receivers, televisions, children’s toys, and similar goods.
Hey, are you a Russian communist? I happened to see your “)))” and a few references to Stalin and Moscow, as well as some good knowledge about stuff like the artels (which I hadn’t heard about until now). If so, I’d be very interested in asking you some questions if you don’t mind :)
You mean… the oligarchs?
No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components.
Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.
Is the state: The organised arm of class rule. This exists so long as class antagonisms exist.
“The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes. The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains. Once there is only one class, the proletariat, and all the means of production are publicly owned the state withers away (ceases to exist) as there are no longer any class antagonisms, however the government as an organ of administration and organisation remains as it is necessary to oversee and organise all of the publicly owned goods and services.
Yes, that is exactly what I said: for a government to function effectively in the sphere of social development, the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely essential!
The right to vote on state decisions belongs to representatives drawn from the people—those elected at the local level. The right to a real vote. That is how it worked in the USSR during the 1930s.
The only catch—as you well know—is that in the 1980s, the clause regarding the “dictatorship of the proletariat” vanished from the CPC Charter…
And in socialist countries?.. )))
It was an agonizing process; to achieve this, the USSR had to pass through “War Communism.”
Fantasy world stuff. Sounds great in theory but when throughout human history has it ever worked?
Socialism has worked in every country it has been established in. They have all had their own problems, but these generally pale in comparison to the fundamental structural contradictions in capitalism, and have been some of the fastest developing countries in history.
China, Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba are all in the process and have benefited massively from the workers having seized the state. The USSR also benefited massively before it’s illegal dissolution and the people suffered greatly when they lost control of the state. It’s only fantasy if you’re a massively ignorant pillock.
Modern capitalist economies are already massively centralized and planned – see “The People’s Republic of Walmart.”
Socialist countries fail because they are embargoed, which stifles their economy, which then stifles their legitimacy.
Exactly my point. It doesn’t work. Humans are the problem that will not allow a society to flourish. By nature the worst will always rise to the top.
This is vibes-based nihilism, not materialist analysis.
Desperately trying to justify your refusal to contribute to anything with boring fatalism. By that logic, we’re all gonna die so why bother commenting?
By that logic, we should still live under monarchies today.
People are not inherently evil. Your pessimism was indoctrinated into you, and you can be undoctrinated from that wrong view.
Are you kidding me? Look around you. How much evil do you need to see? As long as people like this exist nothing good can coexist with them. This is all dreamworld bullshit
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/capitalism_doesnt_work.html
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Me. Elect me!