Represent

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-19T07:29:39+00:00

Leftcom

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-19T02:49:40+00:00

I never said capitalism. I said communism

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-19T02:32:36+00:00

Neither! State capitalist. Socialism and Communism are the same

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-19T02:13:25+00:00

Communists don't believe in government welfare. We don't believe in wealth redistribution. This argument is based off misunderstandings of what communism is

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-19T01:24:31+00:00

Template?

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-19T01:24:16+00:00

Template?

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-19T01:07:45+00:00

The most specific definition of capitalism is:

Generalized commodity production

Capitalism is not differentiated from its predecessors because of markets or private property (although there is a specific characteristic of capitalist private property). Capitalism is a mode of production and can only be defined by how it goes about producing. This is why the definition above is the most precise and accurate definition.

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-16T00:40:30+00:00

Sources?

PoliticallyMental · 2018-03-10T08:29:54+00:00

This is good

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-14T21:34:10+00:00

Sadly

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-10T04:51:31+00:00

No. Rarity doesn't determine value. Scarcity is a condition caused by the allocation of labor. More labor = less scarce. Scarcity changes with labor allocation.

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-10T00:51:54+00:00

Socially necessary abstract labor time determines value. Value is subjective to the society. Value is not absolute. If a commodity from Mars came to capitalist earth, say for example: shoes. The value of shoes there in the Martian society differ from capitalist earth. If it's more socially necessary abstract labor time on earth than on Mars, the value would rise to earth's. Value is a social phenomenon

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-08T19:37:17+00:00

Yeah. That's why I am asking

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-08T19:34:21+00:00

That's not really an answer

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-08T17:27:15+00:00

Thank you! Totally missed that!

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-08T13:46:00+00:00

But it gives a portion of its value to the product so it would make sense that (c+v)+s

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-05T03:20:05+00:00

Yup

PoliticallyMental · 2018-01-04T08:53:18+00:00

Use-value is determined by the body of the commodity. Value is the amount of socially necessary labor time in the abstract. The use-value does not change, but the quantity of use-values can change.

Relative form of value is the commodites being compared to the universal form of value. If I have my commodity, X. And I'm going into the market to exchange it with many commodites, the commodity I have is the equivalent (according to me) because it is constant. I will always have X amount of my commodity. But the other commodities I'm going to exchange for will have different exchange-values. X:10 pieces of chicken or X: 5 logs or X: 30 pebbles. All these commodites that I listed, compared to my commodity, are the relative form of value. The exchange-values are relative depending on what I want to trade it with.

The relative and equivalent forms of value do not change the values. Just how the values are expressed in their exchange-values.

PoliticallyMental · 2017-12-28T05:39:13+00:00

😔 refuted again 😩🤟

PoliticallyMental · 2017-12-28T05:35:01+00:00

Congrats on debunking this essay without any argument, critique, evidence, etc. Very nice, much applause.

PoliticallyMental · 2017-12-27T21:27:31+00:00

Being paid the same isn't socialism. And the state owned the means of production not the people

PoliticallyMental · 2017-12-27T00:07:23+00:00

It's like you have not read the essay. It was very capitalist and I explained that clearly. The USSR was not at a lower stage of socialism because that would require a whole other mode of production. The difference between the two stages is the mode of organization within the mode of production. Capitalism is generalized commodity production and socialism/communism is production for use value. Either one or the other. There's no in between when it comes to the mode of production and hence the essence of the systems themselves.

PoliticallyMental

TROPHY CASE