User:RD/9k/Q42,80: Difference between revisions
m formatting |
A post-structuralist labor market means capitalism |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=commodity (Bordigism)|User=RD|E=Q42,80|Contents=y}} | {{NextNineThousand|PPPA=commodity (Bordigism)|User=RD|E=Q42,80|Contents=y}} | ||
== Main entry == | == Main entry == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/ | {{li|start=y|I=S1/Zv|tradition = Bordigism|Q=42,80|Q2=4280| h4 = commodity (Bordigism) }} -> I feel like this needs its own entry because I'm not entirely sure what specific things Bordiga is taking commodity to mean. let's see here<br /> | ||
A) commodities have exchange value. this is bad for some reason. B) you have to take away the precise exchange values between commodities to have properly created Bolshevism. (that sounds... kind of correct, except - when do you think the mono-structure is actually created then? do you not think the mono-structure was created starting in 1917?) | A) commodities have exchange value. this is bad for some reason.<br/> | ||
B) you have to take away the precise exchange values between commodities to have properly created Bolshevism. (that sounds... kind of correct, except - when do you think the mono-structure is actually created then? do you not think the mono-structure was created starting in 1917?) | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== | == Purported consequences of commodities == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li | {{li|I=S2/Zv|tradition = Bordigism|Q=42,81|Q2=4281| h4 = Commodity production suggests enslavement }} / any existence of a mass of commodities suggests ... If in the past there was [[E:commodity (Bordigism)|commodity production]] ... it was not because the labour-power was sold "voluntarily" as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms (Bordiga) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm] -> the claim that because Bolshevism produces a particular quantity of commodities, it is not basically different from capitalism and it has not created a period of socialism. this is terribly un-molecularized, and just gross frankly. now I do like this form of argument {{em|better}} than what Trotsky and Zinoviev were doing in the 1930s but, oh boy.<br /> | ||
I think this falls apart immediately when you start imagining it applying to Black people. say Malcom X founds a Communist party and it somehow realizes itself into a functioning Social-Philosophical-Material System (a union republic, a free-floating molecular population with state businesses people can be part of or not, a whatever). BlackPantherism starts going through socialist transition and abolishing the gaps that characterize capitalism to create a [[Term:mono-structure|mono-structure]]. then a Bordigist shows up and says, this isn't socialism, this is just state capitalism whether I want to use that term or not. if you'd put up with this in ancient times you would have been slaves. will the Bordigist get through saying this with a straight face? I feel like the Black Panther allies have a good idea what being slaves is and whether they're being exploited right now or whether they've made a reasonable sacrifice to be free from the utter abject horrors of structural racism they'd be facing if they didn't create... the thing they just created, the countable named Marxism. it really isn't about whether you like "state capitalism" or not, it's about the survival consequences to your material population of not doing it within a world of empires and [[E:structural racism|chunk competition]]. | I think this falls apart immediately when you start imagining it applying to Black people. say Malcom X founds a Communist party and it somehow realizes itself into a functioning Social-Philosophical-Material System (a union republic, a free-floating molecular population with state businesses people can be part of or not, a whatever). BlackPantherism starts going through socialist transition and abolishing the gaps that characterize capitalism to create a [[Term:mono-structure|mono-structure]]. then a Bordigist shows up and says, this isn't socialism, this is just state capitalism whether I want to use that term or not. if you'd put up with this in ancient times you would have been slaves. will the Bordigist get through saying this with a straight face? I feel like the Black Panther allies have a good idea what being slaves is and whether they're being exploited right now or whether they've made a reasonable sacrifice to be free from the utter abject horrors of structural racism they'd be facing if they didn't create... the thing they just created, the countable named Marxism. it really isn't about whether you like "state capitalism" or not, it's about the survival consequences to your material population of not doing it within a world of empires and [[E:structural racism|chunk competition]]. | ||
{{li|I=S2/ | {{li|I=S2/Zv|tradition = Bordigism|Q=42,85|Q2=4285| h4 = Commodity production destroys socialism }} / Every system of [[E:commodity (Bordigism)|commodity production]] is a non-socialist system, as we have affirmed in various texts (Bordiga) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm] -> is it? that does not sound correct.<br /> | ||
Lenin talks about the concept of "to each according to his work", which boils down to a lesser version of markets or commodities. so like.... isn't socialism inherently the stage where you haven't gotten away from commodity production yet? at least at the start? I don't think this is correct. this seems kind of like one of those "let's attack state capitalism as not socialism" arguments. it seems a lot like what Hayashi was claiming really, I don't see much difference. | Lenin talks about the concept of "to each according to his work", which boils down to a lesser version of markets or commodities. so like.... isn't socialism inherently the stage where you haven't gotten away from commodity production yet? at least at the start? I don't think this is correct. this seems kind of like one of those "let's attack state capitalism as not socialism" arguments. it seems a lot like what Hayashi was claiming really, I don't see much difference. | ||
</li></ol> | |||
== Stalin and commodities == | |||
<ol class="hue clean"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Although commodity production is the precursor to capitalism, not all commodity production turns into capitalism (Stalin 1952) [https://github.com/Red-Spectre/Info/blob/main/Against%20Dengism.md] [http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.pdf] -> I find this much more believable than what the Bordigists and Tony Cliff say | |||
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, ML onto DX|Q=618}}A post-structuralist labor market means capitalism / If capitalists hold full power over trading workers between each other as individuals — individuals who are capable of [[E:dictatorship of the bourgeoisie|monopolizing all means of production as a group]] — rather than an overall system or mono-structure holding that power to trade people between regions, then the capitalist mode of production exists; there exists a [[E:countable area of capitalism|countable area of capitalism]] (Stalin) -> so, part of the reason Bordigists say this weird thing about commodities is the "post-structuralist labor market" definition of capitalism. they don't like the ability of commodities and businesses reconfiguring from business A to business B to create the [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketist process]]. this is... kind of a weird analysis. it feel like it's saying the bourgeoisie spontaneously fabricated capitalism instead of focusing on the post-structuralist labor market as something that separates workers being scattered and exploited from workers being united and handing that responsibility to stop "post-structuralist economics" to the proletariat. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 31: | ||
== Ideology codes == | == Ideology codes == | ||
* | * Zv / Bordigism | ||
* ML / mainstream marxism-Leninism | |||
* ML / Stalin | |||
Latest revision as of 01:04, 21 March 2026
Main entry
commodity (Bordigism)
-> I feel like this needs its own entry because I'm not entirely sure what specific things Bordiga is taking commodity to mean. let's see here
A) commodities have exchange value. this is bad for some reason.
B) you have to take away the precise exchange values between commodities to have properly created Bolshevism. (that sounds... kind of correct, except - when do you think the mono-structure is actually created then? do you not think the mono-structure was created starting in 1917?)
Purported consequences of commodities
Commodity production suggests enslavement
/ any existence of a mass of commodities suggests ... If in the past there was commodity production ... it was not because the labour-power was sold "voluntarily" as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms (Bordiga) [1] -> the claim that because Bolshevism produces a particular quantity of commodities, it is not basically different from capitalism and it has not created a period of socialism. this is terribly un-molecularized, and just gross frankly. now I do like this form of argument better than what Trotsky and Zinoviev were doing in the 1930s but, oh boy.
I think this falls apart immediately when you start imagining it applying to Black people. say Malcom X founds a Communist party and it somehow realizes itself into a functioning Social-Philosophical-Material System (a union republic, a free-floating molecular population with state businesses people can be part of or not, a whatever). BlackPantherism starts going through socialist transition and abolishing the gaps that characterize capitalism to create a mono-structure. then a Bordigist shows up and says, this isn't socialism, this is just state capitalism whether I want to use that term or not. if you'd put up with this in ancient times you would have been slaves. will the Bordigist get through saying this with a straight face? I feel like the Black Panther allies have a good idea what being slaves is and whether they're being exploited right now or whether they've made a reasonable sacrifice to be free from the utter abject horrors of structural racism they'd be facing if they didn't create... the thing they just created, the countable named Marxism. it really isn't about whether you like "state capitalism" or not, it's about the survival consequences to your material population of not doing it within a world of empires and chunk competition.
Commodity production destroys socialism
/ Every system of commodity production is a non-socialist system, as we have affirmed in various texts (Bordiga) [2] -> is it? that does not sound correct.
Lenin talks about the concept of "to each according to his work", which boils down to a lesser version of markets or commodities. so like.... isn't socialism inherently the stage where you haven't gotten away from commodity production yet? at least at the start? I don't think this is correct. this seems kind of like one of those "let's attack state capitalism as not socialism" arguments. it seems a lot like what Hayashi was claiming really, I don't see much difference.
Stalin and commodities
- Although commodity production is the precursor to capitalism, not all commodity production turns into capitalism (Stalin 1952) [3] [4] -> I find this much more believable than what the Bordigists and Tony Cliff say
- A post-structuralist labor market means capitalism / If capitalists hold full power over trading workers between each other as individuals — individuals who are capable of monopolizing all means of production as a group — rather than an overall system or mono-structure holding that power to trade people between regions, then the capitalist mode of production exists; there exists a countable area of capitalism (Stalin) -> so, part of the reason Bordigists say this weird thing about commodities is the "post-structuralist labor market" definition of capitalism. they don't like the ability of commodities and businesses reconfiguring from business A to business B to create the marketist process. this is... kind of a weird analysis. it feel like it's saying the bourgeoisie spontaneously fabricated capitalism instead of focusing on the post-structuralist labor market as something that separates workers being scattered and exploited from workers being united and handing that responsibility to stop "post-structuralist economics" to the proletariat.
Ideology codes
- Zv / Bordigism
- ML / mainstream marxism-Leninism
- ML / Stalin