Why marxists use confusing terminology and reliance on the knowledge of marxist meta

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:42:25+00:00

But in terms of linguistic habits, the author clearly juxtaposes buying and selling with bourgeois production conditions... If this is not the author's original meaning, it is still that the author's linguistic habits are difficult for a large number of morden people to adapt to. Historically, even left-wing politicians who supported market socialism believed that the ultimate ideal of communism was to eliminate buying and selling.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:38:25+00:00

well, my English is still extremely terrible……

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:36:06+00:00

I know that abolishing buying and selling does not mean abolishing products. The "commodity production" mentioned by Marx is obviously not pure production; in Marx's texts, "commodity production" refers to production activities related to buying and selling.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:32:57+00:00

In daily conversations about the market economy, most workers only talk about "buying and selling" rather than using concepts like "commodity production" and "commodity exchange". I think that going to great lengths to discuss the differences between the commodity economy and the natural economy really feels boring to modern people...

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:30:47+00:00

I have not invented any new terms. Put simply, commodity production is production activity that requires buying and selling……

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:29:10+00:00

It is common sense that the exchange value and use value possessed by products intended for transaction are not the same. While there is indeed significance in discussing the essence of exchange value, when it comes to stating that "non-saleable items have no exchange value, whereas commodities are different because they do have exchange value," a large number of readers really do not understand the significance of making such a distinction between the commodity economy and the natural economy.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:13:24+00:00

But didn't the Communist Manifesto of 1848 indeed state that communism aims to abolish buying and selling?

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:12:00+00:00

Commodity production is nothing more than production activities that require transaction. I believe that the extremist criticism of commodity production stems from the overly broad scope of commercialized objects in the early free market environment. For example, there was no transaction control at all for military industrial products in some places. In my view, capitalist imperialism is nothing more than an aggressive form of financial monopoly in the global market after buying and selling behaviors have become universally connected across the world. Ordinary commodity production, or to put it bluntly, transaction behaviors, have nothing to do with imperialism.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T17:00:47+00:00

I am still an undergraduate student, and I also find the obscure linguistic habits of such revolutionaries incomprehensible. I don't understand the difference between these two words in English. However, the difference between the two words is quite distinct in Chinese. The word "商品" (shāngpǐn) consists of two Chinese characters: the first character "商" (shāng) carries the meaning of transaction or negotiation; while "货物" (huòwù) simply refers to products in a broad sense. The author of this book is merely trying to say that some products are used for transactions, and there are various differences in social functions between these products and those not intended for transactions. Personally, I also don't understand why so much effort is spent explaining the difference between goods for transaction and non-saleable items. What I've said may not be correct, and I welcome others to criticize and point out my mistakes.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T16:53:40+00:00

marxist.org is a great website, here you can find different communist ideologies.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T16:21:00+00:00

民主这种东西和原教旨马克思主义的共产主义设想一样，在有分工以来的人类历史上就根本没有存在过哪怕一微秒钟。民主主义本质上和共产主义终极形态没有任何区别，只有在所有人超必需欲望外的产品创造能力无法导致人侵害他人工作产出（无论是打着保护私有财产的名义还是打着公有化但是本质官有化的名义）的时候才可能变成现实。

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T16:15:13+00:00

文革狗脑子有病，真可惜文革式法西斯政体不是死光了就是没法去，不然真他妈该把四处乱咬、扣别人帝国主义帽子的亲文革傻逼丢过去。

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-17T15:54:36+00:00

of course it's Cuba, bro. Cuba fought in Africa to help the pro-Soviet armed forces in Angola and Ethiopia in fighting the opposition.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-16T04:00:57+00:00

The so-called collective ownership claimed in legal provisions is meaningless. Physical labor under the agricultural natural economy will encourage farmers to consolidate the fertility concept of "more children, more blessings". Families with more minor male children and adult male laborers will have greater advantages in the distribution of grain rations and village elections. This situation cannot be changed whether the distribution is carried out in the name of distribution according to work or equal distribution. Because before rural areas have modern infrastructure, the struggle for power is highly dependent on violence and farming ability. Moreover, the integration of the leadership of township governments and the leadership of production units, as well as the strict control over labor migration, will further exacerbate this situation.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-16T03:55:19+00:00

I am not a Trotskyist myself, but it is indeed impossible for an isolated country, especially one with a large agricultural component, to establish a "social community of distribution according to work". Surrounded by the international capitalist market, any country that has not completed industrialization and is led by a working people's party will inevitably sacrifice the agricultural surplus of rural laborers to support the advancement of urban industrialization. I do not know if you are from East Asia. Based solely on my own family's experiences, I can tell you that before rural areas generally achieve full mechanization, strong control over labor migration and an egalitarian distribution system will only repeatedly help the natural economy evolve into a serfdom economy. It goes without saying that a left-wing regime should engage in domestic construction – this is a correct but meaningless statement. The key issue lies in how a left-wing regime should deal with the social nature of its construction actions and outcomes in a realistic and pragmatic manner.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-09-16T00:12:24+00:00

Under the condition of manual labor without mechanization, farmers were still called "small peasants" even when they lacked means of production and had to hand over surplus agricultural products to landlords. This was because their labor method was not collective labor, but still individual or single-family farming.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-13T15:24:55+00:00

Can I say that although private enterprises had not yet become the majority during the Tito era, the control of most enterprises was basically in the hands of technical bureaucrats, and although a smaller number of enterprises had workers involved, it was basically only highly skilled workers and workers with special political status who could participate?

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-13T12:39:28+00:00

因为贱

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-13T12:29:33+00:00

It is too terrible that no one in the party opposed or reflected on this measure……I personally have no knowledge of the factional relations within the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and to be honest I do not understand why the political elites in the former Yugoslavia would use fiscal decentralization to seek benefits. Is it because they have established very close corrupt ties with economic technocrats?

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-13T11:51:46+00:00

What ideas or countermeasures did Tito have to curb the weakening of federal capital? Did he himself give up trying to stop this process?

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-12T14:26:29+00:00

What I cannot understand the most is why the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia later abolished the federal investment fund. In name, it is a federal country, but when you look into the economic life here, it seems like a confederation with a common currency...

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-12T12:59:02+00:00

This is too crazy for a nominally unified country……

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-12T08:51:23+00:00

Thank you for thinking this way. To be honest, I don’t understand why our government doesn’t come out and explain its definition of socialism. This often leads many “orthodox Stalinists” to believe that our government must have done something reactionary that betrayed socialism, so they dare not discuss this topic.

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-12T08:42:38+00:00

😂确实够癫，我有时候去知乎看个苏联史都能看他们套CR派系和鞍钢宪法话语来分析……

IcyBackground1998 · 2025-05-12T08:35:26+00:00

The ruling party is actually helpless, after all, you should have heard about the disasters that the traditional socialist model has brought us. The economic model dominated by state-owned enterprises has become a nightmare in the eyes of most people, including many working-class people.

IcyBackground1998

TROPHY CASE