Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim Twitter: @YaBoiHakim A drier video than usual, but definitely a necessary one. A quick point by point discussion on what is commodity production, its existence under various modes of production, and its sometimes necessary (albeit unsavory) continuation into Socialism. The gist of the video? Material conditions! We're Marxists, and must analyze things based on their material conditions. Commodity production is not a button to press on or off, and certain realities of especially third-world nations make it practically impossible to immediately abolish commodity production short of stopping production entirely (real Pol Pot hours? 🤔). Cease the dogmatism, and realize that Socialism is a process, not a set of affairs to be established. Love you all.
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
@Matthew Heckman Bad Empanada does some good stuff on Latin America, including Venezuela. Not _everything_ he does is perfect, but a lot of that stuff is good and fills a gap in English-language content. If you want to add me on Discord, this is me: Master of Unlocking#9473 There you can ask me any questions you have about socialism any time you want. Reading that you're homeless, I feel that the least I can do is give you someone to talk to in case that helps at all. Best of luck.
@Matthew Heckman I've never heard of those. I think I can go with the excuse that I'm old. I don't really like the idea of downloading more stuff like that, but I'll have a look. For introductory Marxist stuff, halim alrah's channel is really really good. Very understandable for beginners.
@Matthew Heckman Sorry to hear of your miseries, your family sounds like a nightmare. You are certainly not a wack-job, comrade. Here is some media regarding Venezuela, if you are interested: Leftist Debunks John Oliver's Venezuela Episode (Mike Prysner, Empire Files): ua-cam.com/video/_fV-C1Ag5sI/v-deo.html The War on Democracy (90 minute documentary by John Pilger): vimeo.com/16724719
@Matthew Heckman Welcome aboard, Matthew Heckman. Americans have been brainwashed by the Cold War. The average person here has an infantile emotional makeup that worships power and authority. We would be lucky to live in Venezuela. Socialism meets the needs and wants of the people. Capitalism meets the needs and wants of owners. If you aren't an owner, then you are not living in a country that is able to meet your needs. YOU have to meet the needs of the owners (of the country). Everything is upside down in capitalism. Hang in there, brother. You will persevere and happier days are coming.
Morri Cope absurdo. Literalmente o único motivo para não abolir o dinheiro seria para manter o comércio com países capitalistas como USSR comprando maquinaria britânica. Mas de resto não faz a mínima ideia a não abolição das mercadorias. Vocês apenas são oportunistas que temem o comunismo.
@@sirmakhno6801 okay Makhno, beleza, volta lá pra Ucrânia fazer bandidagem feito um Lampião kkkkk. Os trabalhadores tinham poder político-econômico durante a existência da URSS? Os capitalistas fizeram tudo para abolí-la? Um país pode viver sem comércio estrangeiro algum? Até os Jucheistas lá em Pyongyang têm que fazer comércio com a China e sei lá mais quem. Pode ser que certos aspectos da URSS inevitavelmente deram luz ao seu fim, não a estudei bastante para refutar isso. Más pô, é difícil reconhecer que a vida e o poder político-econômico dos trabalhadores soviéticos foi maior entre 17 e 91? É tão difícil assim aceitar que erros foram feitos, e que esta ou aquela revolução não andou segundo a tua preferência? Eu certamente não apoio o projeto soviético sem questionar ou queixar. Considere o 'apoio crítico', Rosa Luxemburgo também o teve em relação ao projeto de 1917. Aliás, não tô afim de ter conversa séria em mídia social, então adeus companheiro :^)
@@pedrosampaio7349 Morri, achando que eu sou anarquista sem perceber a ironia. Eu não neguei o comercio exterior em nenhum momento, péssima interpretação de texto de vossa parte, eu quis dizer que o UNICO motivo a qual seria um bom argumento para a não abolição do dinheiro e do formato de mercadoria era diante ao comercio externo, mas não existe nenhum motivo para a USSR não ter abolido, não faz mínimo sentido, por favor Leia Marx e pare de ler oportunistas Russos que cristalizaram o Czarismo. Simplesmente a USSR vivia até os anos 50, um sistema capitalista de acumulação primitiva, ou seja, consumo como extração de mais valia para usar desse acumulo para investir e etc entre outras áreas, ao invés de meramente estabelecer uma boa alocação de recursos. Sem dizer que mesmo com escassez de recursos o uso de vales trabalho para racionar o consumo ou mesmo as leis econômicas sobre aumento do valor de acordo com a escassez não alteraria em uma economia sobre abolição completa da mercadorias. Hakim junto aos todos são meros propagadores do capitalismo russo. Todo plano era baseado em que o futuro bloco oriental seria mero grande bloco consumidor gerador de lucros para os Russos. Mesmo quando chamam o Comunismo de esquerda de doença infantil baseado em Lenin se esquecem que a critica de Lenin nunca foi sobre a economia comunista, mas sim as táticas desorganizadas de grupos comunistas de esquerda.
Unpaid allocation of products is precisely why socialism is more efficient and advanced than capitalism. It is why the U.S. economy has not been able to handle covid19.
So... while I agree with just about everything you say in this video, Hakim, I think... in the interests of friendly discussion among comrades... the sort of.. liberal- minded people who say things like "lolz, not real socialism" this seems to be about don't understand the scientific foundation of Marxism. That is, they don't truly look at things dialecticaly, though they sometimes mouth the words. Through Marxism, we prove that the conditions present in a society dictate our ideas, which we in turn apply to society. In Marxism, there's nothing that can't happen in socialism, so long as we've passed the revolutionary moment (or nodal point of qualitative change) and continue that progress (not a counter revolution). So, if commodity production is a particular way of building socialism, provided we've past that nodal point, the economy is rationally planned (so long as this is still the best strategy for moving forward, which I think we all agree it is), no matter how that plan functions, it's over all progressive. Chinese socialism currently makes use of a large private commodity production sector, for example. It is how they've had sooooo much success in creating the conditions that socialism is built in, building up of the productive forces to achieve abundance, etc, right? The - being of the people, etc., and how they avoided a lot of the pitfalls the USSR experienced. So, while I think your video is great and all the points are great and well- explained, when we get down to the foundation, of what Marxism is, they're wrong on that account too. There is no recipe to make a socialism pie, after all. And Marx would have called such a recipe or checklist utopian. We don't work without outside forces effecting the progress of our primary dialectic, either, right? I often tell these types that we would absolutely usher in full communism right away if it were possible. We maintain to the concrete, however. And this is what makes us so successful.
by this logic, Portugal is socialist since it had a revolution and their constitution says they're moving towards socialism. nevermind the... you know... actual nature of the economy. and factoring in material conditions doesn't mean we get to redefine socialism to whatever we want. tactics may change, I'll give you that, but a socialist society, the end goal, must still have certain features
@@reddoctorproductions3746 Well that's why it's called scientific socialism. Just "socialism" is a very broad and loaded term. There are so many different types, most average people are socialists, just not of the Marxist variety. And this is because, all socialism really is, is when the goal of economic activity is for the good of the nation/people and not for profit(capitalism). I don't know if you are of the Marxist variety, but the commenter is correct in saying that Marx never laid out a recipe for making socialism, and he never fully elaborated on what a socialist society would look like.
@@Tehz1359 If " all socialism really is, is when the goal of economic activity is for the good of the nation/people and not for profit(capitalism)" the "socialism" is a useless term. Under this definition, Bill Gates would be a socialist. Hell, Adolph Hitler would a be a socialist! No one is gonna say the economy shouldn't function for the good of the people, the question is how we make it so it does. It's true that Marx never laid out a specific blueprint for what socialism would look like (though he does still make some predictions such as in his Critique of the Gotha program). that said, we can look at his criticism of capitalism and, from that, understand what socialism *shouldn't* be, at the very least, and one thing that is definitely incompatible with Marxist socialism is commodity production. The idea that a socialist nation is just any nation that has had a revolution and calls itself socialist is ridiculous. As I said, this would mean modern-day Portugal is a Marxist-Leninist state which. You have to analysis the actual conditions of a nation, it's relations of power and production, to determine how its economy functions. If there's anything Marxism stands for, it's that.
So, the country that has a capitalist economy, an upper class that lives lavish lifestyles at the expense of the common folk, and that commits human rights violations that don’t really seem to be on the people’s best interests is an example of a socialist country just because they had a revolution once and covered themselves with a red coat of paint?
@@eddie-roo My friend, I don't think you read what I typed out. Or... maybe didn't try to understand it? It seems like you saw "China" and then went into your own thoughts. Which you can tell anyone. If you'd, instead, like to respond to what I said, that'd be fine. In the interests of being friendly, however - you make some assertions that I don't believe pan out in the real situation. 1. "capitalist economy" - the entire post was centered around why this is a socialist economy. You seem to have forgotten that in your statement, and not said why. A market is not a "capitalist economy", after all. 2. "Upper class" - in Marxism, this is not how we view classes 3. "Expense of the people" - I don't think this is true. If it were, how has the living conditions of the people risen by leaps and bounds? How have they eliminated extreme poverty? How has the real wage quadrupled over the last ten years alone? I wish people would actually pay attention to each other and go back and forth, rather than just shouting assertions past each other.
Great video, it hit all the right spots, explained it concisely, all within dialectical understanding of the concept of commodity production and marxist-leninist framework. (One tiny critique - please speak slower, I have to pause and rewind to fully appreciate your every sentence)
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
@@kobemop "Chaz" was not supposed to be a true autonomous zone(that's why it's name was changed from "chaz" to something else), was not socialist, & was not anarchist; It was but a "liberal" attempt at having no police.
[Decentrally planned socialism with the means of production owned in common, and things not produced as commodities, but instead produced from each according to their ability to each according to their needs(not contribution/not deeds)] achieved via prefigurativist "decentralized dual power structures" of free-association, direct democracy, deliberative discussion, mutual aid, worker councils of recallable delegates|[(simultaneously instantly revocable & temporary) messengers that dictate nothing, merely serving to actualize the (simultaneously consensual & consensus-based) decision-making of the freely-associating inhabitants of a [(non-coercively) formed]-commune]|, et cetera? Not here; Such a true socialist would probably believe hakim's "socialism" to actually still be (what they call "capitalism").
You should check out new COD trailer，bro. ok, I'm Chinese, and communist. There's a real danger here. In the past two years, American Entertainment industry have begun to bring up ideological conflict again. If you are really in China, you will know that our media does see America as an imaginary enemy, but NEVER because of ideological conflict, it's always been about more specific issues. It's normal that there is conflicts between our countries and it is okay we hate each other. But if the reason why we hate each other is not because of specific problems, but because of ideological conflict, it is very dangerous. Because when you look at me in this way, you are no longer looking at a person, but a communist, an aberration, even nonhuman，and we can do everything bad in this way, just like what we did in the cold war and World War. We should keep eyes on our own government in case them bringing this kind of conflict back. This is the reason why I hate new COD trailer， not because there is some video of Tiananmen Square in 1989. I don't care about this. It's because this is not a warning danger trailer，It's a cause danger trailer. Video games shouldn't become this stuff --“ tool to cause conflicts". Video game should unite us and eliminate prejudice and this trailer does the opposite. These things in trailer are exactly what we think the United States has done to Eastern European, Asian and African , and exactly what a lot of chinese thinks Americans are doing in Hong Kong. Looking at those comments, like this trailer humiliated the Communists and exposed some conspiracy. Come on, for the third world countries, this is just what the United States and the Soviet Union have done in the past. This is a consensus, not a secret. I'm surprised that Americans really don't think they're doing the same thing as the Soviet Union in cold war. And for many Southeast Asian countries, this is what we China has done in the past. Yes, we've all done it, and the Americans are the same, but look at what cod trailer is about. America is just a simple victim. It's a very dangerous signal. The real danger is that some people want to use such things to provoke new ideological conflicts. I hope that there is noone behind the developers of COD, but watch out these changes in entertainment industry, my friends. It will cause great disaster. And believe me, today's United States cannot be the same as it used to be in WW2 , local people are hold a beauty pageant when whole world is at war. we will all fall into disaster. I have played cod when I was in junior high school. I can ignore the evil portrayal of Russia and China in COD and battlefield . But this time, this is really dangerous. Keep eyes on this shit . I apologize for I sent this same comment under different video，I feel fear about these changes in US Entertainment industry. To be honest, it makes me feel like America is really on the decline because some one have to use ideological conflict to transfer domestic contradictions. This is not what the United States would have done 10 years before.
Wondering if you can help out a comrade- what are the best books which give a marxist analysis of middle eastern politics/history preferrably relatively modern?
I'm pretty new to actually getting in to communist theory, and to be honest I'm pretty confused about the idea of abolishing commodity production. I don't really understand how we can have a world without commodities-- we'll need coats no matter what. Is the idea that we want to abolish the exchange value of a commodity so that things with use value can be distributed regardless of what can be traded for it?
Yep, you got it, its the second thing. To eliminate commodity production is not to eliminate production OF commodities, but production FOR commodities. Produced goods would be distributed according to planning, to meet the needs that underly the exchange values themselves.
true... analyze iran who has a history of mingling in asia and eurasia who adapted some socialism process... iran survived america sanctions with iran lands and peoples STILL STRONGLY INTACT... maybe, if america britain israel and saudi arabia military threats against iran would be balanced by america imperialists looting in weaker countries collapse, iran would become a true social democracy with islam as the dominating religion like syria... though the vast majority of iran people truly see islam as their lifetime, iran ruling body is politically holding on the guiding principles of islam to survive against saudi arabia... america imperialists is weakening because no more wealth in 3rd world countries to colonialize and loot... middle east oil is supposed to be the wealth to loot... but iran russia china seem to be obstructing america imperialists strategic plans in the middleeast... so no matter how good is socialism in the harmony and prosperity of the nations, branding socialism/marxism-leninism as EVILS branding iran-ayatollah ruling bodies as EVILS, is the verbal instrument of america-israel against the said countries... a dilemma... a dilemma...
It's great you bring up the need for any socialist country to obtain "hard" currency for international trade, and therefor the need for socialist countries to develop commodities to sell internationally to obtain the "hard" currency. This topic needs to be discussed now more than ever.
How money functions/functioned in socialist countries is the most important subject of all, in my opinion. It is why capitalism needed to kill communism. I really look forward to this video when you make it, Hakim.
Well I mean this just gets down to definitions - and generally people are more concerned about 'Socialism' rather than 'Commodity Production'... well except 'Commodity Production' is itself kind of ideologically loaded, since it implicitly ties the commodity form to production. The productive way to engage in this is always to defer to language as being useful, to be descriptive of the thing we're trying to engage with - and the unproductive way is to defer to language in a conservative sense, as referring to some kind of ontological platonic form, where ascription of terms is simply a game of power. An obvious analogy is the conservative vs leftist concepts of racism - where to a lefty, racism is something to be identified so as to deal with it as a problem, whereas to conservatives it is like casting a magic spell, where individuals can be racist or not, and it's all about the arcane alignment of occult mechanisms that determine whether the magic spell of 'racism' can be cast on people... because to them it has absolutely nothing to do with fixing racism, but rather distancing themselves from responsibility. Lets see what this fellow Hakim with the Colonel Sanders avatar has to say about this =D
Libertarian capitalist here, How do you think that some people dominate the commodity market? Division of labour? Use of technology? Better competition? Socialism would mean that prices would not be accurate at all. Price is subjective.
I feel like "material conditions" are sometimes too vague of a term to describe stuff. In this case the material conditions are that job specialization and mass production requires the selling of commodities. Every single human cannot learn how to produce everything they use. So instead everyone produces a lot of one thing and exchange it amongst each other. I would never be able to make my own car and my own smartphone. But I do know how to code web apps, so I could sell my labor of making many web apps in exchange for one car that someone else made. So, to summarize. People make stuff not for their use values but for their exchange values (and it will keep being this way for a while). Therefore, the labor necessary to create them was also spent for it's exchange value and not for it's use value, so even if he sold that labor to no boss he still sold that labor to a customer or to the state, labor will still always be a commodity as well. That is until either people somehow work in exchange for nothing, or until people find a way to make everything for themselves, or until no one does anything anymore and instead all is done through automation. I think that's how it works, I don't know.
“The exploitation of workers through extraction of surplus value did not exist” how are defining exploration here? Surely workers weren’t paid their full value because the state had to keep something in the form of taxes. Wouldn’t this technically be an extraction of surplus value? You add that since the market didn’t determine labor. You say there was no market for labor power to be exchanged as a commodity as employment was guaranteed, this seems to imply that all that’s needed to decommidify labor is a federal job guarantee. Would that be true? If not, what else is required? (The reason I ask is because Modern Monetary Theory promotes a job guarantee and while MMT is more of a SocDem capitalist policy, I wonder if it provides a path towards socialism)
From another comment: Generating surplus and surplus extraction through Capitalist exploitation are different things. We have to be very specific with our definitions. With surplus generation, you have two forms of labour: work for oneself, and work for society (as Marx outlined in his critique of the Gotha programme). Watch my video titled "Was the USSR Socialist?" for a better idea of this. Also, most Socialist states had very low taxes (if at all). I believe the USSR had the highest rate at 4-5% or something. You need a couple of things. First is the elimination of wage labour. Second is the elimination of Capitalist exploitation. Thirdly, is the political control of the workers (through trade-union and employee organizations in enterprises, and councils [soviets] at all levels of the state). The elimination of labour-power as a commodity kinda falls underneath the above criteria so I don't consider it a point on its own. You can stick it in the abolishing of wage-labour though. Federal jobs don't fulfill the above criteria, and usually operate along state-Capitalist lines. There's more to it ofc but this is long enough lol
First of all, Marx and Engels used (til the end of their lifes) socialism and communism indifferently. Second. Then, what is the difference between the URSS and the other countries? They both had wage labour (and extra wages in the USSR based on productivity and meritocracy based on unequal individuals with different capacities and needs, wich Marx criticised very hard) commodity production, division of labor, surplus value existed, manager/directors of the land and factories... common ownership of means of production didn't exist. Alienation of labor / estrangement of labor existed in the USSR and East Bloc, so I don't see differences between free market capitalism and "Soviet State Capitalism" When you have the production in the hands of the state bureaucracy and the economic planning is made according to the opinion/vote of the members of the Central Committee or the Supreme Soviet, you are advocating for the same that occurs in capitalist countries with bourgeois parliaments and big capitalist rulling it, then and currently. This is no common ownership of means of production, is private, no more. When the councils, sóviets or the class unions... cease to be the "institutions" of the organization and decision-making of the proletariat and peasantry, you aren't in a socialist nor communist mode of production, you are in a radical social-democrat capitalist country (what Marx and Engels used to call the bourgeois socialism). So, ¡Marx were midlife making a critique of the value and commodity production, advocating for the abolition of the value and commodity production, and now there are "Marxist" and "socialist" who defend the value form and commodity production under socialism! Unbelievable.
In short: since products of co-ops like collective farms dont belong to society but only to the co-op, they had organize exchange between co-ops and society (though within a framework of economic planning & regulation). This exchange does not entail exploitation. Labour was not a commodity, and society primarily functioned through planning as opposed to a capitalist society ruled by generalized commodity production.
@@pierreproudhon9008 and the country known in the anglophone world as "Georgia" is better transliterated as "Gruzia," unless you ask its president www.rferl.org/a/georgia_asks_friends_to_stop_calling_it_gruzia/24264848.html
@Karl Marx I'm not very knowledgeable about the theory but I don't think so. Your personal satisfaction decreasing with each successive commodity doesn't change the labor that created it. Marx's LTV does take supply and demand into account and the fact that someone needs to have use for it. So it doesn't deny subjectivity. Really all you need to understand to subscribe to the notion of exploitation is that the workers created the product and do everything that's involved getting it to customers so even if you want to say "value is subjective" then that subjective satisfaction they're willing to pay for is all thanks to workers and workers should get the money.
During the rapid industrialization period of almost all former socialist experiments in agrarian countries, mismanaged commodity production by the state, which mostly consisted agricultural product in exchange for machinery and other industrial goods in international trade, greatly damaged the proletariat-peasant alliance and induced many tragedies. Future movements should avoid this pitfall.
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
Although I'm in line with most of critiques of USSR made by Leon Trotsky I never understood some of the critiques by people who considered themselves as disciples of Trotsky, of Stalin's USSR. They've later, after murder of Trotsky by Stalin, abandoned his notion that USSR is a "Deformed socialist state" and started calling Soviet Union "State Capitalist" state, which in my opinion is completely infantile and un-dialectical position, considering that capitalism's core is in private and individual incentive and in ownership of means of production, and there was no such thing in USSR of course. (Just a thought vaguely linked with the subject of this video)
Socialism commodity production should be called residual commodity production. Under capitalism, there is generalised production...most striking feature is where the worker is forced to sell their labour power(as a commodity) for a wage. To quote Marx " Otherwise with capital. The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world’s history. Capital, therefore, announces from its first appearance a new epoch in the process of social production. " Excellent video.
This was confusing as all hell, I really need to read more theory hahaha. Appreciate the effort you go to to answer complex questions about socialism and explaining theoretical concepts in depth, it really puts you a head and shoulders above any other leftist youtuber imo
All I need to know is if I can still have my video games, anime figures, and ultra real feel silicone megabater with nut collecting tray 3000. I need this, man. I'll just become a Soc-Dem if I can't. And I'm looking for a genuine answer. While I did hyperbolize, there are certainly people just like that who must know
“Such an idea, applied to the national question, resembles Proudhon’s idea, as applied to capitalism. Not abolishing capitalism and its basis - commodity production - but purging that basis of abuses, of excrescences, and so forth; not abolishing exchange and exchange value, but, on the contrary, making it “constitutional”, universal, absolute, “fair”, and free of fluctuations, crises and abuses - such was Proudhon’s idea. Just as Proudhon was petty-bourgeois, and his theory converted exchange and commodity production into an absolute category and exalted them as the acme of perfection, so is the theory and programme of “cultural-national autonomy” petty bourgeois, for it converts bourgeois nationalism into an absolute category, exalts it as the acme of perfection, and purges it of violence, injustice, etc.” - Lenin
Very good video. Simply saying "[insert nation here] didn't adhere PERFECTLY to doctrine" is idiotic. NO country, regardless of ideology, will ever PERFECTLY adhere to that ideology. The welfare programs of capitalist nations don't negate their capitalism, likewise, commodity production in socialist nations don't negate their socialism.
Yeah, don't be critical for the sake of communism's success or anything. That would be absurd. We should just accept the way things turn out if the state says they are 'socialist' or 'building socialism', even if they are obviously permitting/promoting capitalist relations of production (for the nationalized nation-state itself of course).
The simple answer; there is no commodity production in socialism. Like you realize Marx pointed out you can have a capitalist economy with no one personally owning capital right? Like the estrangement of labor from itself via wage is cornerstone of capitalist economics. And regardless of the form of organization of the reproduction of capital it remains capitalist production. So were Soviet citizens paid in wages? Yes, yes they were. The ussr left and she’s not coming back, it’s time let her go. Something new will probably come, but no one outside of MLs and Russian nationalists really gives a fuck about the USSR. The here and now of things matter more than the internal functionings of a nation that no longer exists.
Given that the USSR was both the first and the most successful socialist state to date, its blueprint is a fundamental thing to consider for any future projects.
Hi comrade Hakim Brother I just found your channel last night and I love it especially because of your obvious sincerity and dedication and of course knowledge... I'm from your neighbor country Iran and would really really really appreciate it if I could ask you some of the questions I have regarding Communism plz plz plz tell me how I can contact you whether by email or phone or anything else hope to hear from you soon
I know you game, so do I. I've been trying to wrap my.head around how gaming would work in a socialist system. Games, gaming pc parts, consoles all these things are commodities so if we eliminate commodities would these things simply not exist or will they exist under a different label, would the government even invest in making games consoles and gaming pc parts??
They could either be planned and alocated through a leisure incentive fund in worker's payment, or collectively/socially owned and used like comunal arcades.
Hey Salam Comrade I was wondering if you would consider make videos on the history of our socialist experiments how they really came about pros and cons etc I hope you Consider My Salams Comrade
@@sksmasine8412 Yes, there have been and some of them still exist as of today. Socialism is not an impracticable idealized system that only exists in your head.
I don't think the problem is commodity production or surplus extraction. Even in a totally centrally planned economy (before complete abundance and according to ability/according-to-need system) people would be given labour credits for portion of hours worked. This can easily be described as an exchange, i.e. commodity production. Also in this situation surplus would have to be extracted to pay for social labour required to run the state, social services, and investment in future production. I really don't see how you will eliminate a situation that can't be described as commodity production. I would be very much interested in a video about a discussion of how it is possible to eliminate commodity production and why such a system cannot be described as an exchange. In any case, it seems to me that commodity production under socialism, even centrally planned, will go on for a while. If that's true, we can't focus solely on figuring out how to end commodity production but we must also discuss ways to prevent bureaucratisation during commodity production, for example using balanced job complexes. Do you know anyone, particular in ML community, who has written about this?
I'm having trouble understanding what a lot of people are saying here. So the example with farms is fine because, much like healthcare, it's a inelastic good; people need food and healthcare to live. Socializing those makes sense. I don't see how this all fits in with luxury goods though. Let's say I make a video game. Is it state owned/run/distributed now? Was I allowed to make the game in the first place? I will need support to run my game (i.e. servers, IT, etc), but without commodity exchange who decides whether or not I receive the necessary infrastructure to be successful? In capitalism, you'd take out a loan, seek investors to start you out, and/or charge for your game so that it can support its own infrastructure. How does this work under socialism/communism (sorry, again not sure which this channel is advocating as I'm new here and don't have all the nuance yet).
@@Suedocode It's a great question. Re inelastic don't forget housing. If Housing was socially produced/controlled housing costs would plumet drastically, likely to 20% of current rents, consisting only of labour cost of maintenance and required expansion of housing if necessary. The first thing to notice is that if we socialised all production assets and removed profit-taking by capitalists, salaries would roughly double since approx 50% of output goes to small minority (1-2%) of capitalists. With the elimination of rents under socialism people could survive very well working 1/2 time. For example in the USA the average salary is $48,672. So double that. Workers would earn $96k (full time)). If housing was only maintenance cost (e.g. $400 for 1br apt) then even half-time salary would easily pay for your needs. So socialism would make space for such personal projects. Regarding larger investment and production/running costs the society could either choose to allow a secondary market economy based on democratic workplaces, or it could allow democratic allocation of investment funds. The idea would be that you would go to your local county office and apply for investment. There might also be a way for citizens to invest their labour hours in your venture, with some chance of a fixed reward if the community decides to integrate production into the planned output. Some of these ideas are covered in "Towards a New Socialism" by Paul Cockshott but we need much more research into these questions. Making a video game is a great example. Maybe you can email Paul (www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/) and ask him this question. If you get a reply please post it here.
Commodity production is production based on exchanging commodities in a MARKET specifically. And you are conflating 'surplus value' with 'social surplus'. Re: preventing bureaucratisation during socialism, Paul Cockshott co-authored a book called Rethinking Socialism that talks a lot about using computing and different democratic forms to help fight against beauracracy and the money system in a socialist system so that might be worth checking out if you're interested.
@@kavabean Housing is a great example too. As society progresses, houses get more features (plumming->electricity->internet->fiber->smart homes->etc...). While determining what parts of housing are necessary is probably not that hard, that determination changes over time. This means new houses are built with more value than previous ones. Are older houses grandfathered in somehow with additional credits to make up the difference in some way? Maybe some kind of recurring renovation eligibility? I'd also be worried about this system causing wide-spread rampant cookie cutter houses (it's the cheapest way to make decent houses en masse, but it makes neighborhoods looks extremely monotonous), but it's not like capitalism is preventing that in any way either (cities often usher in developers for cheap residential expansions like in Austin). "The first thing to notice is that if we socialised all production assets and removed profit-taking by capitalists, salaries would roughly double since approx 50% of output goes to small minority (1-2%) of capitalists." That seems like an extremely optimistic oversimplification imo. "The idea would be that you would go to your local county office and apply for investment." I don't think putting a few people in charge of deciding which projects go forward is a good idea. This would need some Kickstarter-esque system, but Kickstarter is also a great example of how crappy/scam ideas can still get a lot of traction. By socializing the risks involved in starting a venture, you also socialize poor decisions in a way. Is there a better way? "There might also be a way for citizens to invest their labour hours in your venture, with some chance of a fixed reward if the community decides to integrate production into the planned output." What does "invest their labor hours" mean? Is it not just a currency like any other? That link you posted 404's for me. I am in the US if it matters.
@@Suedocode About housing: I think it should be established a standard for housing quality; any building below such standard would be subject to remodelation in future economic plans, and any building over such standard should be taxed a small ammount to pay for the remodelation program previously mentioned. About investment in luxury entrepreneurism: you said you _"don't think putting a few people in charge of deciding hich projects go forward is a good idea"_... nonetheless, the current system works exactly like that. Investors in gaming aren't a lot of people, financial capitalists (bankers, stock inverstors, etc) are a tiny minority of the population. In the proposed socialist scheme, however, democratic participation in the process of investment allocation is an important step which the current system doesn't have, and which guarantees that luxury goods produced satisfy the best interests of the community in which are created (that basically means, in the particular case of videogames, a more direct control in gamer communities deciding which games are made and which characteristics should that games have to qualify for funding). About investment in labour hours, it could be either the virtual acounting unit proposed by Cockshott (equivalent to Proudhon's labour credits, Owen's labour vouchers or Marx's labour certificates), or directly actual work time spent on the project somehow as a collaborator. As the former refer just to a representation of abstract labour, they're technically the same for economic purposes. However, labour credits/vouchers/certificates aren't currency, as they don't circulate (they're destroyed at use) and can't be used to buy means of production, just means of consumption. About the contact with Paul Cockshott, he has a UA-cam channel and is actually quite engaged with his userbase, always reads the comments (he has responded me on numerous occasions). You could start there.
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
@Hussein You can't have Central Planning under a Market. The best you can have are guidelines but that's it. Also China's labor if used to prop up global capital how is that Socialist.
@@YaBoiHakim ok comrade hakim but an Instagram account of yours is really needed by us to spread your thoughts to a wider audience. I applaud you for you efforts in providing the necessary information for Marxist newcomers like me. 🙏
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
Of course. Workers' co-ops, collective farms (kolkhozes), and household production were all private property. The video doesn't deny that (even further, it takes from this the need for commodity production in [lower stage] socialism). That doesn't mean an economy with those ownership forms isn't socialist.
Generating surplus and surplus extraction through Capitalist exploitation are different things. We have to be very specific with our definitions. With surplus generation, you have two forms of labour: work for oneself, and work for society (as Marx outlined in his critique of the Gotha programme). Watch my video titled "Was the USSR Socialist?" for a better idea of this.
Hi, comrade. There's another communist on Instagram who asked how the USSR could have been a workers' state if managers got paid more, and could hire and fire. How would you personally respond?
Managers are still workers, their income is still mediated by the same mechanism of every other worker (a salary, democratically determined and proportional to their hours of work). Whether they were paid more or not isn't an issue in socialism (as long as the difference isn't big enough to accumulate). About work allocation (through "hiring" and "firing") in historical workers' states, staff turnover was relatively common in socialist firms because there wasn't any living threat if you were unemployed for a couple of weeks, as: - There were always more positions available (labour demand) than unemployed people (labour supply); economy was always at full employment, there wasn't a "reserve army of labour" threatening workers if they choose to work elsewhere. - The state guarantees you the bare minimum for survival (housing, transport, water, electricity, healthcare, education) for free or heavily subsidized, so even if you didn't get work for a couple of weeks (pretty improbable because of the later point) you still could live well. - Managers were elected by the workers, or by their direct representatives in the factory comitees, labour unions or soviets (or a mix of all of them), and they were revocable, so there was a direct interest in managers to keep workers satisfied in order to keep their positions. So, normally, managers "competed" between firms to get the best conditions for their own workers, making the staff turnover even bigger. So, basically, "hiring" and "firing" didn't have any meaningful effect.
Well the production will be based off labour time and use value (use value being demand) Paul Cockshott has some wonderful lectures on this topic and details modern socialist planning.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
A drier video than usual, but definitely a necessary one. A quick point by point discussion on what is commodity production, its existence under various modes of production, and its sometimes necessary (albeit unsavory) continuation into Socialism. The gist of the video? Material conditions! We're Marxists, and must analyze things based on their material conditions. Commodity production is not a button to press on or off, and certain realities of especially third-world nations make it practically impossible to immediately abolish commodity production short of stopping production entirely (real Pol Pot hours? 🤔). Cease the dogmatism, and realize that Socialism is a process, not a set of affairs to be established. Love you all.
Can you also debunk "Market Socialism" and Dengism?
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
I’m so happy there’s a communist youtuber who actually goes into the details and depths of theory and the like. Keep up the good work.
@Matthew Heckman Bad Empanada does some good stuff on Latin America, including Venezuela. Not _everything_ he does is perfect, but a lot of that stuff is good and fills a gap in English-language content.
If you want to add me on Discord, this is me:
Master of Unlocking#9473
There you can ask me any questions you have about socialism any time you want. Reading that you're homeless, I feel that the least I can do is give you someone to talk to in case that helps at all. Best of luck.
@Matthew Heckman I've never heard of those. I think I can go with the excuse that I'm old. I don't really like the idea of downloading more stuff like that, but I'll have a look.
For introductory Marxist stuff, halim alrah's channel is really really good. Very understandable for beginners.
@Matthew Heckman Sorry to hear of your miseries, your family sounds like a nightmare. You are certainly not a wack-job, comrade. Here is some media regarding Venezuela, if you are interested:
Leftist Debunks John Oliver's Venezuela Episode (Mike Prysner, Empire Files): ua-cam.com/video/_fV-C1Ag5sI/v-deo.html
The War on Democracy (90 minute documentary by John Pilger):
vimeo.com/16724719
@Matthew Heckman ua-cam.com/video/O1bumXoY1Bg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/B5Pcvefosuw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ZLDV9A4JNJg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/MjwL1mSrPLA/v-deo.html
Your welcome comrade
@Matthew Heckman Welcome aboard, Matthew Heckman. Americans have been brainwashed by the Cold War. The average person here has an infantile emotional makeup that worships power and authority. We would be lucky to live in Venezuela. Socialism meets the needs and wants of the people. Capitalism meets the needs and wants of owners. If you aren't an owner, then you are not living in a country that is able to meet your needs. YOU have to meet the needs of the owners (of the country). Everything is upside down in capitalism. Hang in there, brother. You will persevere and happier days are coming.
Pediatric therapist Hakim, curing infantile disorders one armchair at a time
Comrade Louro José is best Comrade.
@@gabrielsantiago3016 Com certeza, camarada
Morri
Cope absurdo.
Literalmente o único motivo para não abolir o dinheiro seria para manter o comércio com países capitalistas como USSR comprando maquinaria britânica. Mas de resto não faz a mínima ideia a não abolição das mercadorias. Vocês apenas são oportunistas que temem o comunismo.
@@sirmakhno6801 okay Makhno, beleza, volta lá pra Ucrânia fazer bandidagem feito um Lampião kkkkk. Os trabalhadores tinham poder político-econômico durante a existência da URSS? Os capitalistas fizeram tudo para abolí-la? Um país pode viver sem comércio estrangeiro algum? Até os Jucheistas lá em Pyongyang têm que fazer comércio com a China e sei lá mais quem.
Pode ser que certos aspectos da URSS inevitavelmente deram luz ao seu fim, não a estudei bastante para refutar isso. Más pô, é difícil reconhecer que a vida e o poder político-econômico dos trabalhadores soviéticos foi maior entre 17 e 91? É tão difícil assim aceitar que erros foram feitos, e que esta ou aquela revolução não andou segundo a tua preferência? Eu certamente não apoio o projeto soviético sem questionar ou queixar.
Considere o 'apoio crítico', Rosa Luxemburgo também o teve em relação ao projeto de 1917.
Aliás, não tô afim de ter conversa séria em mídia social, então adeus companheiro :^)
@@pedrosampaio7349 Morri, achando que eu sou anarquista sem perceber a ironia. Eu não neguei o comercio exterior em nenhum momento, péssima interpretação de texto de vossa parte, eu quis dizer que o UNICO motivo a qual seria um bom argumento para a não abolição do dinheiro e do formato de mercadoria era diante ao comercio externo, mas não existe nenhum motivo para a USSR não ter abolido, não faz mínimo sentido, por favor Leia Marx e pare de ler oportunistas Russos que cristalizaram o Czarismo.
Simplesmente a USSR vivia até os anos 50, um sistema capitalista de acumulação primitiva, ou seja, consumo como extração de mais valia para usar desse acumulo para investir e etc entre outras áreas, ao invés de meramente estabelecer uma boa alocação de recursos. Sem dizer que mesmo com escassez de recursos o uso de vales trabalho para racionar o consumo ou mesmo as leis econômicas sobre aumento do valor de acordo com a escassez não alteraria em uma economia sobre abolição completa da mercadorias. Hakim junto aos todos são meros propagadores do capitalismo russo. Todo plano era baseado em que o futuro bloco oriental seria mero grande bloco consumidor gerador de lucros para os Russos. Mesmo quando chamam o Comunismo de esquerda de doença infantil baseado em Lenin se esquecem que a critica de Lenin nunca foi sobre a economia comunista, mas sim as táticas desorganizadas de grupos comunistas de esquerda.
I had a hard day at work and then Comrade Hakim uploaded. You've made my day!
Hope your day gets better buddy :)
Since an election is coming up in the US, bourgeois candidates are helping to fund Comrade Hakim's channel through their ads!
They'll sell you the rope eh (;
Is it legal to make ad for political candidate on youtube ? I thought it wasn't
#justamericathings@@lhommedelayaute1989
Unpaid allocation of products is precisely why socialism is more efficient and advanced than capitalism. It is why the U.S. economy has not been able to handle covid19.
Comrade Hakim I'm a newbie to the ML world. Could u please explain how the Soviet Judiciary worked? Thanks
So... while I agree with just about everything you say in this video, Hakim, I think... in the interests of friendly discussion among comrades... the sort of.. liberal- minded people who say things like "lolz, not real socialism" this seems to be about don't understand the scientific foundation of Marxism.
That is, they don't truly look at things dialecticaly, though they sometimes mouth the words. Through Marxism, we prove that the conditions present in a society dictate our ideas, which we in turn apply to society. In Marxism, there's nothing that can't happen in socialism, so long as we've passed the revolutionary moment (or nodal point of qualitative change) and continue that progress (not a counter revolution). So, if commodity production is a particular way of building socialism, provided we've past that nodal point, the economy is rationally planned (so long as this is still the best strategy for moving forward, which I think we all agree it is), no matter how that plan functions, it's over all progressive. Chinese socialism currently makes use of a large private commodity production sector, for example. It is how they've had sooooo much success in creating the conditions that socialism is built in, building up of the productive forces to achieve abundance, etc, right? The - being of the people, etc., and how they avoided a lot of the pitfalls the USSR experienced.
So, while I think your video is great and all the points are great and well- explained, when we get down to the foundation, of what Marxism is, they're wrong on that account too. There is no recipe to make a socialism pie, after all. And Marx would have called such a recipe or checklist utopian. We don't work without outside forces effecting the progress of our primary dialectic, either, right? I often tell these types that we would absolutely usher in full communism right away if it were possible. We maintain to the concrete, however. And this is what makes us so successful.
by this logic, Portugal is socialist since it had a revolution and their constitution says they're moving towards socialism. nevermind the... you know... actual nature of the economy.
and factoring in material conditions doesn't mean we get to redefine socialism to whatever we want. tactics may change, I'll give you that, but a socialist society, the end goal, must still have certain features
@@reddoctorproductions3746 Well that's why it's called scientific socialism. Just "socialism" is a very broad and loaded term. There are so many different types, most average people are socialists, just not of the Marxist variety. And this is because, all socialism really is, is when the goal of economic activity is for the good of the nation/people and not for profit(capitalism). I don't know if you are of the Marxist variety, but the commenter is correct in saying that Marx never laid out a recipe for making socialism, and he never fully elaborated on what a socialist society would look like.
@@Tehz1359 If " all socialism really is, is when the goal of economic activity is for the good of the nation/people and not for profit(capitalism)" the "socialism" is a useless term. Under this definition, Bill Gates would be a socialist. Hell, Adolph Hitler would a be a socialist! No one is gonna say the economy shouldn't function for the good of the people, the question is how we make it so it does.
It's true that Marx never laid out a specific blueprint for what socialism would look like (though he does still make some predictions such as in his Critique of the Gotha program). that said, we can look at his criticism of capitalism and, from that, understand what socialism *shouldn't* be, at the very least, and one thing that is definitely incompatible with Marxist socialism is commodity production.
The idea that a socialist nation is just any nation that has had a revolution and calls itself socialist is ridiculous. As I said, this would mean modern-day Portugal is a Marxist-Leninist state which. You have to analysis the actual conditions of a nation, it's relations of power and production, to determine how its economy functions. If there's anything Marxism stands for, it's that.
So, the country that has a capitalist economy, an upper class that lives lavish lifestyles at the expense of the common folk, and that commits human rights violations that don’t really seem to be on the people’s best interests is an example of a socialist country just because they had a revolution once and covered themselves with a red coat of paint?
@@eddie-roo My friend, I don't think you read what I typed out. Or... maybe didn't try to understand it?
It seems like you saw "China" and then went into your own thoughts. Which you can tell anyone. If you'd, instead, like to respond to what I said, that'd be fine.
In the interests of being friendly, however - you make some assertions that I don't believe pan out in the real situation.
1. "capitalist economy" - the entire post was centered around why this is a socialist economy. You seem to have forgotten that in your statement, and not said why. A market is not a "capitalist economy", after all.
2. "Upper class" - in Marxism, this is not how we view classes
3. "Expense of the people" - I don't think this is true. If it were, how has the living conditions of the people risen by leaps and bounds? How have they eliminated extreme poverty? How has the real wage quadrupled over the last ten years alone?
I wish people would actually pay attention to each other and go back and forth, rather than just shouting assertions past each other.
Great video, it hit all the right spots, explained it concisely, all within dialectical understanding of the concept of commodity production and marxist-leninist framework.
(One tiny critique - please speak slower, I have to pause and rewind to fully appreciate your every sentence)
I agree, I had to change the video speed to understand what you were saying at some points
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
[Hook]
Leftcoms mad (x24)
Will the one true socialism please stand up?
Best comment ever
Cause I'm real socialism, all the other socialism's are just imitating
chaz. there you go.
@@kobemop "Chaz" was not supposed to be a true autonomous zone(that's why it's name was changed from "chaz" to something else), was not socialist, & was not anarchist; It was but a "liberal" attempt at having no police.
[Decentrally planned socialism with the means of production owned in common, and things not produced as commodities, but instead produced from each according to their ability to each according to their needs(not contribution/not deeds)] achieved via prefigurativist "decentralized dual power structures" of free-association, direct democracy, deliberative discussion, mutual aid, worker councils of recallable delegates|[(simultaneously instantly revocable & temporary) messengers that dictate nothing, merely serving to actualize the (simultaneously consensual & consensus-based) decision-making of the freely-associating inhabitants of a [(non-coercively) formed]-commune]|, et cetera? Not here; Such a true socialist would probably believe hakim's "socialism" to actually still be (what they call "capitalism").
I love when he does the hello there or hey there intro, DO IT MORE OFTEN!
Some of this went over my head, I will need to watch it again.
You should check out new COD trailer，bro.
ok, I'm Chinese, and communist. There's a real danger here. In the past two years, American Entertainment industry have begun to bring up ideological conflict again. If you are really in China, you will know that our media does see America as an imaginary enemy, but NEVER because of ideological conflict, it's always been about more specific issues. It's normal that there is conflicts between our countries and it is okay we hate each other. But if the reason why we hate each other is not because of specific problems, but because of ideological conflict, it is very dangerous. Because when you look at me in this way, you are no longer looking at a person, but a communist, an aberration, even nonhuman，and we can do everything bad in this way, just like what we did in the cold war and World War. We should keep eyes on our own government in case them bringing this kind of conflict back. This is the reason why I hate new COD trailer， not because there is some video of Tiananmen Square in 1989. I don't care about this. It's because this is not a warning danger trailer，It's a cause danger trailer.
Video games shouldn't become this stuff --“ tool to cause conflicts". Video game should unite us and eliminate prejudice and this trailer does the opposite. These things in trailer are exactly what we think the United States has done to Eastern European, Asian and African , and exactly what a lot of chinese thinks Americans are doing in Hong Kong. Looking at those comments, like this trailer humiliated the Communists and exposed some conspiracy. Come on, for the third world countries, this is just what the United States and the Soviet Union have done in the past. This is a consensus, not a secret. I'm surprised that Americans really don't think they're doing the same thing as the Soviet Union in cold war. And for many Southeast Asian countries, this is what we China has done in the past. Yes, we've all done it, and the Americans are the same, but look at what cod trailer is about. America is just a simple victim. It's a very dangerous signal.
The real danger is that some people want to use such things to provoke new ideological conflicts. I hope that there is noone behind the developers of COD, but watch out these changes in entertainment industry, my friends. It will cause great disaster. And believe me, today's United States cannot be the same as it used to be in WW2 , local people are hold a beauty pageant when whole world is at war. we will all fall into disaster.
I have played cod when I was in junior high school. I can ignore the evil portrayal of Russia and China in COD and battlefield . But this time, this is really dangerous. Keep eyes on this shit .
I apologize for I sent this same comment under different video，I feel fear about these changes in US Entertainment industry.
To be honest, it makes me feel like America is really on the decline because some one have to use ideological conflict to transfer domestic contradictions. This is not what the United States would have done 10 years before.
Wondering if you can help out a comrade- what are the best books which give a marxist analysis of middle eastern politics/history preferrably relatively modern?
*central asia
Ah, it looks like you taught me what a commodity is. Thank you.
I think it's capitalism and inequality, not commodity production itself that's the problem
What is your opinion on the youtube channel Secular Jihadists ?
I'm pretty new to actually getting in to communist theory, and to be honest I'm pretty confused about the idea of abolishing commodity production. I don't really understand how we can have a world without commodities-- we'll need coats no matter what. Is the idea that we want to abolish the exchange value of a commodity so that things with use value can be distributed regardless of what can be traded for it?
Yep, you got it, its the second thing. To eliminate commodity production is not to eliminate production OF commodities, but production FOR commodities. Produced goods would be distributed according to planning, to meet the needs that underly the exchange values themselves.
Also - same man, im just getting into this stuff myself since lockdown, its good to see new Marxists helping each other study in times like these.
Great as always, thanks Comrade
nice content as always
Marketism- Leninism.
true... analyze iran who has a history of mingling in asia and eurasia who adapted some socialism process... iran survived america sanctions with iran lands and peoples STILL STRONGLY INTACT... maybe, if america britain israel and saudi arabia military threats against iran would be balanced by america imperialists looting in weaker countries collapse, iran would become a true social democracy with islam as the dominating religion like syria... though the vast majority of iran people truly see islam as their lifetime, iran ruling body is politically holding on the guiding principles of islam to survive against saudi arabia... america imperialists is weakening because no more wealth in 3rd world countries to colonialize and loot... middle east oil is supposed to be the wealth to loot... but iran russia china seem to be obstructing america imperialists strategic plans in the middleeast... so no matter how good is socialism in the harmony and prosperity of the nations, branding socialism/marxism-leninism as EVILS branding iran-ayatollah ruling bodies as EVILS, is the verbal instrument of america-israel against the said countries... a dilemma... a dilemma...
It's great you bring up the need for any socialist country to obtain "hard" currency for international trade, and therefor the need for socialist countries to develop commodities to sell internationally to obtain the "hard" currency. This topic needs to be discussed now more than ever.
Great video
Soooo can I get rich yes or no?
Great
How money functions/functioned in socialist countries is the most important subject of all, in my opinion. It is why capitalism needed to kill communism. I really look forward to this video when you make it, Hakim.
Well I mean this just gets down to definitions - and generally people are more concerned about 'Socialism' rather than 'Commodity Production'... well except 'Commodity Production' is itself kind of ideologically loaded, since it implicitly ties the commodity form to production. The productive way to engage in this is always to defer to language as being useful, to be descriptive of the thing we're trying to engage with - and the unproductive way is to defer to language in a conservative sense, as referring to some kind of ontological platonic form, where ascription of terms is simply a game of power. An obvious analogy is the conservative vs leftist concepts of racism - where to a lefty, racism is something to be identified so as to deal with it as a problem, whereas to conservatives it is like casting a magic spell, where individuals can be racist or not, and it's all about the arcane alignment of occult mechanisms that determine whether the magic spell of 'racism' can be cast on people... because to them it has absolutely nothing to do with fixing racism, but rather distancing themselves from responsibility.
Lets see what this fellow Hakim with the Colonel Sanders avatar has to say about this =D
F4WP
Libertarian capitalist here, How do you think that some people dominate the commodity market? Division of labour? Use of technology? Better competition? Socialism would mean that prices would not be accurate at all. Price is subjective.
Class power right? Weilding power over your contending class
I feel like "material conditions" are sometimes too vague of a term to describe stuff.
In this case the material conditions are that job specialization and mass production requires the selling of commodities.
Every single human cannot learn how to produce everything they use. So instead everyone produces a lot of one thing and exchange it amongst each other.
I would never be able to make my own car and my own smartphone. But I do know how to code web apps, so I could sell my labor of making many web apps in exchange for one car that someone else made.
So, to summarize. People make stuff not for their use values but for their exchange values (and it will keep being this way for a while). Therefore, the labor necessary to create them was also spent for it's exchange value and not for it's use value, so even if he sold that labor to no boss he still sold that labor to a customer or to the state, labor will still always be a commodity as well.
That is until either people somehow work in exchange for nothing, or until people find a way to make everything for themselves, or until no one does anything anymore and instead all is done through automation.
I think that's how it works, I don't know.
Imagine being named Hakim
“The exploitation of workers through extraction of surplus value did not exist” how are defining exploration here? Surely workers weren’t paid their full value because the state had to keep something in the form of taxes. Wouldn’t this technically be an extraction of surplus value? You add that since the market didn’t determine labor. You say there was no market for labor power to be exchanged as a commodity as employment was guaranteed, this seems to imply that all that’s needed to decommidify labor is a federal job guarantee. Would that be true? If not, what else is required? (The reason I ask is because Modern Monetary Theory promotes a job guarantee and while MMT is more of a SocDem capitalist policy, I wonder if it provides a path towards socialism)
Socialist states work towards the elimination of taxes, indeed socialist Korea abolished Taxes like 50 years ago.
From another comment:
Generating surplus and surplus extraction through Capitalist exploitation are different things. We have to be very specific with our definitions.
With surplus generation, you have two forms of labour: work for oneself, and work for society (as Marx outlined in his critique of the Gotha programme). Watch my video titled "Was the USSR Socialist?" for a better idea of this.
Also, most Socialist states had very low taxes (if at all). I believe the USSR had the highest rate at 4-5% or something.
You need a couple of things. First is the elimination of wage labour. Second is the elimination of Capitalist exploitation. Thirdly, is the political control of the workers (through trade-union and employee organizations in enterprises, and councils [soviets] at all levels of the state). The elimination of labour-power as a commodity kinda falls underneath the above criteria so I don't consider it a point on its own. You can stick it in the abolishing of wage-labour though.
Federal jobs don't fulfill the above criteria, and usually operate along state-Capitalist lines. There's more to it ofc but this is long enough lol
@@YaBoiHakim good on ya Comrade! Up the Revolution.
Hakim thanks comrade!
First of all, Marx and Engels used (til the end of their lifes) socialism and communism indifferently.
Second. Then, what is the difference between the URSS and the other countries? They both had wage labour (and extra wages in the USSR based on productivity and meritocracy based on unequal individuals with different capacities and needs, wich Marx criticised very hard) commodity production, division of labor, surplus value existed, manager/directors of the land and factories... common ownership of means of production didn't exist. Alienation of labor / estrangement of labor existed in the USSR and East Bloc, so I don't see differences between free market capitalism and "Soviet State Capitalism"
When you have the production in the hands of the state bureaucracy and the economic planning is made according to the opinion/vote of the members of the Central Committee or the Supreme Soviet, you are advocating for the same that occurs in capitalist countries with bourgeois parliaments and big capitalist rulling it, then and currently. This is no common ownership of means of production, is private, no more.
When the councils, sóviets or the class unions... cease to be the "institutions" of the organization and decision-making of the proletariat and peasantry, you aren't in a socialist nor communist mode of production, you are in a radical social-democrat capitalist country (what Marx and Engels used to call the bourgeois socialism).
So, ¡Marx were midlife making a critique of the value and commodity production, advocating for the abolition of the value and commodity production, and now there are "Marxist" and "socialist" who defend the value form and commodity production under socialism! Unbelievable.
Hell yeah bro you know we produce those commodities all day son
In short: since products of co-ops like collective farms dont belong to society but only to the co-op, they had organize exchange between co-ops and society (though within a framework of economic planning & regulation). This exchange does not entail exploitation.
Labour was not a commodity, and society primarily functioned through planning as opposed to a capitalist society ruled by generalized commodity production.
so no?
Wait so coop capitalism aka market socialism is actually socialist wooow
@@MrAntiVision what?
@@WM-gf8zm no "exploitation" in a market socialist society
@@MrAntiVision that has nothing to do with markets
this channel is the only one that has made me start to read theory instead of just watch videos on socialism.
Real
"q" in mandarin is closer to a soft "ch" sound than it is to a hard "k" sound
Thank you for the correction.
@@YaBoiHakim Of course! Thank you for all the work you've put into this channel.
Ach, pronunciation police. Can find them in every youtube video.
@@pierreproudhon9008 and the country known in the anglophone world as "Georgia" is better transliterated as "Gruzia," unless you ask its president
www.rferl.org/a/georgia_asks_friends_to_stop_calling_it_gruzia/24264848.html
Workers of the world unite!
@Karl Marx what about it?
@Karl Marx I'm not very knowledgeable about the theory but I don't think so. Your personal satisfaction decreasing with each successive commodity doesn't change the labor that created it. Marx's LTV does take supply and demand into account and the fact that someone needs to have use for it. So it doesn't deny subjectivity. Really all you need to understand to subscribe to the notion of exploitation is that the workers created the product and do everything that's involved getting it to customers so even if you want to say "value is subjective" then that subjective satisfaction they're willing to pay for is all thanks to workers and workers should get the money.
It's 5 in the Morning and I'm finally on time for a Comrade Hakim video.
how timezone-centric of you. You have been reported to the committee of ultras to be canceled on Twitter shortly.
@@user-fg8ux8zo6wsocialism is when one time zone
Holy shit read Bordiga and Lenin
real
Yay communism
Yay
Boo
Yay!
Yay!
During the rapid industrialization period of almost all former socialist experiments in agrarian countries, mismanaged commodity production by the state, which mostly consisted agricultural product in exchange for machinery and other industrial goods in international trade, greatly damaged the proletariat-peasant alliance and induced many tragedies. Future movements should avoid this pitfall.
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
Although I'm in line with most of critiques of USSR made by Leon Trotsky I never understood some of the critiques by people who considered themselves as disciples of Trotsky, of Stalin's USSR. They've later, after murder of Trotsky by Stalin, abandoned his notion that USSR is a "Deformed socialist state" and started calling Soviet Union "State Capitalist" state, which in my opinion is completely infantile and un-dialectical position, considering that capitalism's core is in private and individual incentive and in ownership of means of production, and there was no such thing in USSR of course.
(Just a thought vaguely linked with the subject of this video)
@红兔子 You do understand that this is an extreme strawmaning right?
@红兔子 You got me...I'm destroyed! Long live Joe Biden and Kamala Harris!
Left-coms gonna be maaaad.
(Great video, comrade ✊)
This video can also be used to explain why China isn't Socialist. 😒
@@Pridetoons China literally isn't socialist.
@@nader50752 That's exactly what I'm saying.
@Hussein Not until the Chinese Workers take control of their nations economy. The Chinese "Communist" Party is filled with Capitalist.
@@Pridetoons
And also millions of ordinary people as well.
Hey, let me stimulate the algorithm.
Sounds fun
Mashallah Daddy Hakim has uploaded
Socialism commodity production should be called residual commodity production. Under capitalism, there is generalised production...most striking feature is where the worker is forced to sell their labour power(as a commodity) for a wage. To quote Marx
" Otherwise with capital. The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world’s history. Capital, therefore, announces from its first appearance a new epoch in the process of social production. "
Excellent video.
This was confusing as all hell, I really need to read more theory hahaha. Appreciate the effort you go to to answer complex questions about socialism and explaining theoretical concepts in depth, it really puts you a head and shoulders above any other leftist youtuber imo
All I need to know is if I can still have my video games, anime figures, and ultra real feel silicone megabater with nut collecting tray 3000. I need this, man. I'll just become a Soc-Dem if I can't.
And I'm looking for a genuine answer. While I did hyperbolize, there are certainly people just like that who must know
ua-cam.com/video/r1vCcxgTEu4/v-deo.html
you can have videogames and but not anime figures cause thats for losers
Great work as always, we need more Marxists like you
“Such an idea, applied to the national question, resembles Proudhon’s idea, as applied to capitalism. Not abolishing capitalism and its basis - commodity production - but purging that basis of abuses, of excrescences, and so forth; not abolishing exchange and exchange value, but, on the contrary, making it “constitutional”, universal, absolute, “fair”, and free of fluctuations, crises and abuses - such was Proudhon’s idea.
Just as Proudhon was petty-bourgeois, and his theory converted exchange and commodity production into an absolute category and exalted them as the acme of perfection, so is the theory and programme of “cultural-national autonomy” petty bourgeois, for it converts bourgeois nationalism into an absolute category, exalts it as the acme of perfection, and purges it of violence, injustice, etc.”
- Lenin
It’s like 2:00 I should be asleep
Sleep well
One cannot aid the revolution when one falls over from sleep; take care, comrade!
5am were I am.
Sleep well comrade
Sleep well.
Very good video. Simply saying "[insert nation here] didn't adhere PERFECTLY to doctrine" is idiotic. NO country, regardless of ideology, will ever PERFECTLY adhere to that ideology. The welfare programs of capitalist nations don't negate their capitalism, likewise, commodity production in socialist nations don't negate their socialism.
Yeah, don't be critical for the sake of communism's success or anything. That would be absurd. We should just accept the way things turn out if the state says they are 'socialist' or 'building socialism', even if they are obviously permitting/promoting capitalist relations of production (for the nationalized nation-state itself of course).
The simple answer; there is no commodity production in socialism. Like you realize Marx pointed out you can have a capitalist economy with no one personally owning capital right? Like the estrangement of labor from itself via wage is cornerstone of capitalist economics. And regardless of the form of organization of the reproduction of capital it remains capitalist production. So were Soviet citizens paid in wages? Yes, yes they were. The ussr left and she’s not coming back, it’s time let her go. Something new will probably come, but no one outside of MLs and Russian nationalists really gives a fuck about the USSR. The here and now of things matter more than the internal functionings of a nation that no longer exists.
Is everything okay at home Jeffrey?
Given that the USSR was both the first and the most successful socialist state to date, its blueprint is a fundamental thing to consider for any future projects.
Hi comrade Hakim
Brother I just found your channel last night and I love it
especially because of your obvious sincerity and dedication and of course knowledge...
I'm from your neighbor country Iran and would really really really appreciate it if I could ask you some of the questions I have regarding Communism
plz plz plz tell me how I can contact you
whether by email or phone or anything else
hope to hear from you soon
the answer is no, commodity production does not exist under socialism
Comrade, Please make videos on DPRK and Cuba. Very much needed to debunk US propaganda machinary
My brain isn't big enough for this video
I know you game, so do I. I've been trying to wrap my.head around how gaming would work in a socialist system. Games, gaming pc parts, consoles all these things are commodities so if we eliminate commodities would these things simply not exist or will they exist under a different label, would the government even invest in making games consoles and gaming pc parts??
They could either be planned and alocated through a leisure incentive fund in worker's payment, or collectively/socially owned and used like comunal arcades.
Leftcoms shaking rn.
nah
Well, yes there's work involve in creating socialism and it's a build-up towards communism.
Very timely- have been seeing lots of young leftists discrediting experiments citing commodity production, and misconstruing socialist concepts.
Oh thank you.
This was so informative thank you!
another great video by comrade hakim!
Hey Salam Comrade I was wondering if you would consider make videos on the history of our socialist experiments how they really came about pros and cons etc
I hope you Consider
My Salams Comrade
Great video mate, really helps to understand these important topics without reading a whole ton of theory
"Market Socialism" relies on Commodity Production.
**YES**
It's almost as if market "socialism" is just capitalism.
@@sksmasine8412 name a single socialist nation that abolished market
@@anschauung5129 There hasn't been a single socialist nation.
@@sksmasine8412 Yes, there have been and some of them still exist as of today. Socialism is not an impracticable idealized system that only exists in your head.
This made so much sense man. Good job explaining.
No
by the way, I'm from Khuzestan
so I'm very close to you
plz plz plz tell me how to contact you
[Hook]
Leftcoms mad (x24)
What is the name of the background music? The singer? I've been looking for a while and I'm not getting anywhere.
The internationale in afrikaans
@@thourayaarfaoui4841 Thank you so much! This song sounds wonderful.
If you decide to upload these as a podcast, you’ve got your first listener.
this is excellent. keep up the great work, you're one of the best people on here!
Where on earth can i find that version of the Internationale you use in your backgrounds? Its absolutely beautiful
Where is Charles????
Can someone post a pink to hakim's discord link
Can you make a video on how money functions differently under Socialism?
Has Hakim let us know what version of the internationale is playing in the background?
In Afrikaans.
Where does the images come from?
love your channel homie keep it up
It can.
Lmao got an Epoch Times ad for this vid.
Dont mind me, contributing to the algorithm
Hakim My Son
I came early
I don't think the problem is commodity production or surplus extraction. Even in a totally centrally planned economy (before complete abundance and according to ability/according-to-need system) people would be given labour credits for portion of hours worked. This can easily be described as an exchange, i.e. commodity production. Also in this situation surplus would have to be extracted to pay for social labour required to run the state, social services, and investment in future production.
I really don't see how you will eliminate a situation that can't be described as commodity production. I would be very much interested in a video about a discussion of how it is possible to eliminate commodity production and why such a system cannot be described as an exchange.
In any case, it seems to me that commodity production under socialism, even centrally planned, will go on for a while. If that's true, we can't focus solely on figuring out how to end commodity production but we must also discuss ways to prevent bureaucratisation during commodity production, for example using balanced job complexes. Do you know anyone, particular in ML community, who has written about this?
I'm having trouble understanding what a lot of people are saying here. So the example with farms is fine because, much like healthcare, it's a inelastic good; people need food and healthcare to live. Socializing those makes sense.
I don't see how this all fits in with luxury goods though. Let's say I make a video game. Is it state owned/run/distributed now? Was I allowed to make the game in the first place? I will need support to run my game (i.e. servers, IT, etc), but without commodity exchange who decides whether or not I receive the necessary infrastructure to be successful? In capitalism, you'd take out a loan, seek investors to start you out, and/or charge for your game so that it can support its own infrastructure. How does this work under socialism/communism (sorry, again not sure which this channel is advocating as I'm new here and don't have all the nuance yet).
@@Suedocode It's a great question.
Re inelastic don't forget housing. If Housing was socially produced/controlled housing costs would plumet drastically, likely to 20% of current rents, consisting only of labour cost of maintenance and required expansion of housing if necessary.
The first thing to notice is that if we socialised all production assets and removed profit-taking by capitalists, salaries would roughly double since approx 50% of output goes to small minority (1-2%) of capitalists. With the elimination of rents under socialism people could survive very well working 1/2 time. For example in the USA the average salary is $48,672. So double that. Workers would earn $96k (full time)). If housing was only maintenance cost (e.g. $400 for 1br apt) then even half-time salary would easily pay for your needs. So socialism would make space for such personal projects.
Regarding larger investment and production/running costs the society could either choose to allow a secondary market economy based on democratic workplaces, or it could allow democratic allocation of investment funds. The idea would be that you would go to your local county office and apply for investment. There might also be a way for citizens to invest their labour hours in your venture, with some chance of a fixed reward if the community decides to integrate production into the planned output. Some of these ideas are covered in "Towards a New Socialism" by Paul Cockshott but we need much more research into these questions.
Making a video game is a great example. Maybe you can email Paul (www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/) and ask him this question. If you get a reply please post it here.
Commodity production is production based on exchanging commodities in a MARKET specifically. And you are conflating 'surplus value' with 'social surplus'.
Re: preventing bureaucratisation during socialism, Paul Cockshott co-authored a book called Rethinking Socialism that talks a lot about using computing and different democratic forms to help fight against beauracracy and the money system in a socialist system so that might be worth checking out if you're interested.
@@kavabean
Housing is a great example too. As society progresses, houses get more features (plumming->electricity->internet->fiber->smart homes->etc...). While determining what parts of housing are necessary is probably not that hard, that determination changes over time. This means new houses are built with more value than previous ones. Are older houses grandfathered in somehow with additional credits to make up the difference in some way? Maybe some kind of recurring renovation eligibility? I'd also be worried about this system causing wide-spread rampant cookie cutter houses (it's the cheapest way to make decent houses en masse, but it makes neighborhoods looks extremely monotonous), but it's not like capitalism is preventing that in any way either (cities often usher in developers for cheap residential expansions like in Austin).
"The first thing to notice is that if we socialised all production assets and removed profit-taking by capitalists, salaries would roughly double since approx 50% of output goes to small minority (1-2%) of capitalists."
That seems like an extremely optimistic oversimplification imo.
"The idea would be that you would go to your local county office and apply for investment."
I don't think putting a few people in charge of deciding which projects go forward is a good idea. This would need some Kickstarter-esque system, but Kickstarter is also a great example of how crappy/scam ideas can still get a lot of traction. By socializing the risks involved in starting a venture, you also socialize poor decisions in a way. Is there a better way?
"There might also be a way for citizens to invest their labour hours in your venture, with some chance of a fixed reward if the community decides to integrate production into the planned output."
What does "invest their labor hours" mean? Is it not just a currency like any other?
That link you posted 404's for me. I am in the US if it matters.
@@Suedocode About housing: I think it should be established a standard for housing quality; any building below such standard would be subject to remodelation in future economic plans, and any building over such standard should be taxed a small ammount to pay for the remodelation program previously mentioned.
About investment in luxury entrepreneurism: you said you _"don't think putting a few people in charge of deciding hich projects go forward is a good idea"_... nonetheless, the current system works exactly like that. Investors in gaming aren't a lot of people, financial capitalists (bankers, stock inverstors, etc) are a tiny minority of the population. In the proposed socialist scheme, however, democratic participation in the process of investment allocation is an important step which the current system doesn't have, and which guarantees that luxury goods produced satisfy the best interests of the community in which are created (that basically means, in the particular case of videogames, a more direct control in gamer communities deciding which games are made and which characteristics should that games have to qualify for funding).
About investment in labour hours, it could be either the virtual acounting unit proposed by Cockshott (equivalent to Proudhon's labour credits, Owen's labour vouchers or Marx's labour certificates), or directly actual work time spent on the project somehow as a collaborator. As the former refer just to a representation of abstract labour, they're technically the same for economic purposes. However, labour credits/vouchers/certificates aren't currency, as they don't circulate (they're destroyed at use) and can't be used to buy means of production, just means of consumption.
About the contact with Paul Cockshott, he has a UA-cam channel and is actually quite engaged with his userbase, always reads the comments (he has responded me on numerous occasions). You could start there.
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
What is the name of that music you use in the background of all your videos?!
I really like it!
Hey can you make a video explaining why "Market Socialism" isn't Socialism.
It is socialism, but you are ignorant
@@superpolymerization4169 The Market is antithetical to Socialism. Watch the video.
@Hussein You can't have Central Planning under a Market. The best you can have are guidelines but that's it. Also China's labor if used to prop up global capital how is that Socialist.
Dude this video is basically an attempt to explain that market socialism is good
@@Pridetoons China isn't socialist but Yugoslavia was
Based video comrade
Can you please make a video on the undemocratic dissolution of the USSR
Already done. Check my earliest videos.
@@YaBoiHakim ok comrade hakim but an Instagram account of yours is really needed by us to spread your thoughts to a wider audience. I applaud you for you efforts in providing the necessary information for Marxist newcomers like me. 🙏
the fact that commodity production existed is proof of private property existing.
This video starts out fine by describing (accurately) what a commodity is. Then it goes and describes "simple commodity production," which exists outside of capitalism, since generalized commodity production is what characterizes capitalism. Then it becomes total dogshit by making the argument that because the USSR only had simple commodity production rather than generalized (Stalin actually says it has generalized, but whatever) it qualifies as socialist; however, this is an argument for it having a *PRE*-capitalist mode of production rather than a post-capitalist one.
@@patricks1333 Exactly! A regression to bartery like the ICP wrote
Of course. Workers' co-ops, collective farms (kolkhozes), and household production were all private property. The video doesn't deny that (even further, it takes from this the need for commodity production in [lower stage] socialism). That doesn't mean an economy with those ownership forms isn't socialist.
Why was there no surplus value extraction in the Ussr?
Workers still had to generate surplus value to support the non-producing members of society.
Generating surplus and surplus extraction through Capitalist exploitation are different things. We have to be very specific with our definitions.
With surplus generation, you have two forms of labour: work for oneself, and work for society (as Marx outlined in his critique of the Gotha programme). Watch my video titled "Was the USSR Socialist?" for a better idea of this.
Hi, comrade. There's another communist on Instagram who asked how the USSR could have been a workers' state if managers got paid more, and could hire and fire. How would you personally respond?
Managers are still workers, their income is still mediated by the same mechanism of every other worker (a salary, democratically determined and proportional to their hours of work). Whether they were paid more or not isn't an issue in socialism (as long as the difference isn't big enough to accumulate).
About work allocation (through "hiring" and "firing") in historical workers' states, staff turnover was relatively common in socialist firms because there wasn't any living threat if you were unemployed for a couple of weeks, as:
- There were always more positions available (labour demand) than unemployed people (labour supply); economy was always at full employment, there wasn't a "reserve army of labour" threatening workers if they choose to work elsewhere.
- The state guarantees you the bare minimum for survival (housing, transport, water, electricity, healthcare, education) for free or heavily subsidized, so even if you didn't get work for a couple of weeks (pretty improbable because of the later point) you still could live well.
- Managers were elected by the workers, or by their direct representatives in the factory comitees, labour unions or soviets (or a mix of all of them), and they were revocable, so there was a direct interest in managers to keep workers satisfied in order to keep their positions. So, normally, managers "competed" between firms to get the best conditions for their own workers, making the staff turnover even bigger.
So, basically, "hiring" and "firing" didn't have any meaningful effect.
This video just helps understand a whole text of theory.
I still can't understand how production will be planned towards use and not exchange without prices !!
Can someone explain it for me with an example?
Well the production will be based off labour time and use value (use value being demand) Paul Cockshott has some wonderful lectures on this topic and details modern socialist planning.
I was actually thinking about this!!!🔥🔥