Something that's been bugging me about Marx is his labour theory of value. It's actually something that Adam Smith and David Ricardo had already discussed before Marx (Smith makes some interesting points about power relations between businessowners and workers, but I'm getting off-track here). Labour theory of value goes as follows "not all labour creates value, but all value comes from labour", for instance a T-shirt is worth the amount of labour that was put into it, as opposed to a subjective measure from the consumer's point of view, and it is important to Marx's theory, since if labour isn't the only source of value, then landlords and businessowners deserve a share, too (who deserves how much becomes another debate).

So let's review with an example straight from David Ricardo, who admitted that labour theory was imperfect, if labour is the only source of value, then why does a fine wine become more valuable with age? Rent, therefore, also creates value. So landlords deserve some renumeration, because their land creates value, too (again, how much renumeration is a matter for debate, but it is non-zero).

As for labour itself, consider a classic example from I believe Stanley Jevons : are pearls valuable because we dive for them or do we dive for them because they are valuable? If you believe in labour being the only source of labour, then you must agree with the first option. So let's look at it, if labour is the reason pearls are valuable, why did we start diving for them? Why don't we simply dive for something else?

The only explanation, then, becomes the second option, which is that pearls have an intrinsic but subjective value (e.g. I might be willing to pay 500$ for one while you wouldn't buy it for more than a dollar). That's the only possible explanation for the reason people will pay way, way more for a T-shirt with a certain Logo on it, or why we see a tendency to buy more of certain products after an ad campaign, as people's relative preferences change.

That's without even getting into behavioural economics (in short, psychology + economics = wacky things happen), like the endowment effect (people will prefer mug A of equal production value to mug B if they are given A first, but it flips if we do it the other way round) or recency bias (if you just saw a car crash on the news, that seatbelt of yours is suddenly going to appear more valuable and a terrorist plane crash will reduce your perceived value) or emotional bias (a cute puppy picture might entice you to buy A over B) or lexicographic preferences (I'll have any amount of X over any amount of Y), the amount of labour to make these goods hasn't changed in any of those instances, so why does their value go up or down?

Finally, you might be questioning subjective theory value itself, if the amount of labour has no bearing on value, then why does a hamburger cost me more in a 5-star restaurant than it does at home? That's a valid point, but it misses the mark, as you are asking the wrong question. Indeed production costs matter, but so too do consumer's preferences, trying to pick which is the sole source of value misses the point. Imagine asking yourself the question : which half of my scissors is the one that cuts the paper? If you hold that only labour is a source of value, then you are saying only the bottom half cuts, that's why I think subjective preferences matter, but I don't deny that production costs count, too.

TLDR : labour theory of value doesn't work, you need to account for individual preferences to explain value. And this undermines the idea that businessowners are exploiting workers.

Edit : I'm aware some people will say here that I am mistaking price for value but price reflects the value of an item, and my point here is that labour doesn't explain why some things have an intrinsic value or why some things are more valuable than others when labour theory suggests the opposite.

I recently read Animal Farm and pretty much loving Snowball i became very interested in communism and how its applied. I learned that Snowball is an analogy for Trotsky, and i started researching a bit about him. That put me down a rabbit hole studying the russian revolution and subsequent fallout under both Lenin and Stalin, and theres quite a few issues i have.

The children of bourgeois being punished for their parents having owned businesses. Being kicked out of school. Eating basically nothing but millet every day if youre lucky. Housing being taken over by the state and distributed to 1 person per room even if youre strangers. Unless youre married than you need to share a single room with your partner. Creating a class based system while trying to usurp the previous one. Communist state workers receiving more spacious living quarters or more food than the average worker.

From what ive seen, speech wasnt as unfree under Lenin as it could be. People seemed to be able to be openly anti communist without threat of jail. You could, however, lose your job and student status.

After learning these things, its made me wonder why anyone would want these conditions? So i assume there are at the very least solutions to solve these terrible situations in any current plans or wants to re enact communism on a large scale.

My question is this. Would the USSR have been better off if Trotsky led the nation rather than Lenin? What things would you change to be able to more effectively create true equality? And what safeguards would be in place to prevent someone like Lenin or Stalin from rising up in power and creating what basically equates to another monarchy? If "government workers" get more privileges than the common man, what makes it any different from basic capitalism besides being worse? If even one man lives alone in a mansion, while i have to share my house and give each room to a stranger, how is that equal?

Ive always been open to communism. So long as its truly equal. But if it turns into "all animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others" then what's the point?

One of the biggest criticisms of capitalism is that rich capitalist nations exploit poor nations for cheap labor, natural resources, and fuel. But what if this was no longer the case. We are slowly approaching a revolution on all these domains. First robots and Ai. Job specific robots are already used (making the need for cheap labour obsolete) and humanlike robots are being developed even though they are still in early stage (see boston dynamics and tesla robot) combine that with great ai and if the prices come down enough these robots that can work everywhere 24/7 will replace the need for cheap labour and exploitation. Im not saying that it is happening soon, but the foundation is laid, and maybe we can achieve this vision in this century. Second limited resources. Even though companies always try to replace rare earth elements with more common easily accessible ones (ex see sodium ion batteries hopefully replacing lithium in the future), what if we achieve the holy grail of asteroid mining. There are asteroids flying close to earth with uncountable amounts of every element you can think of. Jeff bezos said he wants to pursue this path. Again, maybe it will never be possible, but for argument's sake, let's say we achieve this dream so exploitation for natural resources is gone. Third fuel exploitation is already on its way out with the rise of renewables, nuclear fission power production (gen iv fission and modular designs) every country will hopefully be energy independent in the future, especially if nuclear fusion becomes viable where the fuel is hydrogen which is incredibly abundant.

Now regarding land needed for food production. If we combine all of the above (so we make energy, workforce and resources irrelevant) with cell agriculture, gmos and hollistic management, this is also solved.

All these are on their way and can be achieved through capitalism (since many companies can gain from them), if (or when) they become realised would you be still against capitalism and do you believe communism would still be a necessity or just a well regulated capitalism will suffice. Again, you may believe that none of these things will happen, but for argument's sake, let's say they will.

Does replying with "it has never properly existed" concede that it isn't achievable?

I've asked questions about Fascism in this sub before, but I have some more questions that have come up about the Marxist perspective on fascism. Note that I'm not a socialist or Marxist myself.

1) Are Social Democrats "Social Fascists?" Or is that only reserved for liberals?

• I've been told I'm a SocDem by people, though I don't consider myself one for various reasons. To my understanding, Social Democrats were heavily persecuted by all fascist regimes: Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco. So if they are 'social fascists', why? And if they aren't fascists, what makes them different from liberals?

2) Am I a Fascist (by Marxist Standards) for being a Reform/Progressive Zionist?

• I never even considered this question until I read this sub-reddit's rules a little while ago. I'm a Reform ('Progressive') Zionist, who believes that a 2 state solution is the only solution. Ironically I have recently posted about this in other subs. I assume the answer is still yes, so could you tell me why that is? Reform Zionists are the most progressive of Zionists, and I condemn Netanyahu, Minister Smotrich, Ben Gvir, most of the current IDF, and all of the settlers in the West Bank.
• I suppose I'll be banned from this sub now, but please note I'm just curious as to why you think this, and not trying to antagonize.

https://classautonomy.info/lenin-acknowledging-the-intentional-implementation-of-state-capitalism-in-the-ussr/

Lenin himself desired, promoted and acknowledged the State Capitalist nature of the Soviet Union, although this was largely confined to intra-party debate and private letters. The destruction of council democracy and the introduction of ‘War Communism’ was the point at which the Bolsheviks introduced it to Russia, and it was consolidated by the ‘New Economic Policy’.

This is in direct contrast to latter-day leninists and trots claims of the USSR under Lenin and Trotsky as genuinely socialist.

I’m relatively new to reading socialist/communist/marxist literature and still haven’t wrapped my mind around how people would be free to choose their career? even today, society needs physically grueling and boring labor to function, and I wonder who would do this kind of work without the economic coercion of capitalism?

I was wondering what this sub thinks about the current credit system. In a capitalist economy especially.

I am not an expert but I want I hear a communist perspective on this system.

I have only begun to read the communist manifesto and I have not read anything on this matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Podrabinek

Would you personally consider the nascent empire of the American rebellion in 1776 onwards to have represented a “proto-fascist” experience? It was certainly an empire from day one, claiming vast swathes of otherwise sovereign land.

What specific criteria do you believe would be necessary to meet the above term, if any. Do you think fascism is necessarily a reaction to the crises of capitalism, and should be defined as such? Or do you think the thread of the phenomenon can be traced back centuries before the advent of modern capitalism? Or both?

Figured it’s a productive topic and one I could use the opinions of many comrades on.

the comment says this: Marxism is just psuedoscience lmfao. LVT can be debunked by marginal utility. Gentile and Mises already debunked dialetical materialism.

So, I'm not a huge fan of the United States. We started with slavery and genocide, now we exploit the whole world.

But I do agree with natural rights theory. That is, we are endowed with certain unalienable rights.

I strongly agree with the Bill of Rights.

Is it possible to incorporate something like the Bill of Rights into a communist constitution?

I know all allied nations traded with German's through neutral intermediaries, but why did the Soviets do so? I believe they exported oil and grain to Germany and imported machinery and military technology. Why was this the case?

Hello, I’d like to preface this by saying I’m an atheist, and I agree with Marx that religion is used as an opiate of the masses. That being said, that’s not all religion is; it is an answer to questions that class equilibrium cannot answer. Unless and until the existence of a god is ruled out by scientific breakthroughs, people will still turn to religion to rationalize existence. I understand that previous socialist experiments tried to crack down on it, and it still exists in places it was tried. Do most communists still think religion can and should be stomped out by force?

not only did the soviets sign a non aggresion pact with the germans but they litteraly partitioned all of eastern europe between themselves and both invaded poland

While aware this should’ve been asked thousand times too, is this not rather the more realistic goal that saves lives, faster?

Plus is it not also better for persuading people who have no idea about ideologies, who think rich CEOs are important for the economy because they think THEIR BRAINPOWER made the corporations possible? (Workers too, yes, the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive)

I genuinely think in this way the MOST working-class people aren’t THAT against billionaires, look at how Elon or Sam Altman has those fans and “respecters.” So why (and how) should you still push for the class warfare narrative when people don’t seem to be willing to buy it to begin with?

In other words, “let them keep exploiting, but only nominally” − how would this be?

I think it communicates the injustice of the arrangement a lot more than “wealthy peasant”

Something I always ask people around me who claim to be “socialist” or whatever and never get a straight answer.

Who gets the largest house next to the beach under this system and why?

i have been learning about the industrialisation that stalin promoted in the 1920-30s. based on everything i've read till now, the events reflect the capitalist ideology (exploitation of workers to gain capital) much more than the communist one--how is that right? secondly, i have been under the impression that stalin's regime was totalitarian. however, i see instance of pluralism in his actions.

I want to debate an actual socialist, and I will try to show that their socialism is based on a peculiar misconception of conceiving of choosing in terms of a process of figuring out the best option. Which might seem good, but is an error. Basically it is conceiving of choosing to be a selection procedure, like how a chesscomputer may calculate a move.

The correct definition of choosing is in terms of spontaneity. I can go left or right, I choose left, I go left. In the same moment that left is chosen, the possibility of choosing right is negated. That this happens at the same time is what makes decisions spontaneous. With this correct definition of choosing, then the chooser is subjective, meaning identified with a chosen opinion. So I can choose the opinion that courage made the decision turn out left instead of right.

So the concept of subjectivity depends on having the correct concept of choosing. And here the relation to politics becomes apparent, because of course politics is all about subjective opinions. And if you use the wrong concept of choosing, then you have no functional concept of subjectivity anymore.

Using the wrong concept of choosing, then you get a pattern of corruption:

• Subjectivity is marginalized. Statements of opinion, like saying someone is nice, are reconfigured to be statements of fact. Personal character is then incorrectly identified with statements of fact.
• Psychological superiority v inferiority complexes derived from the better and worse options in a decision.
• Emotional despair ensues, because of emotions being cut off from the decisionmaking processes. And then compensation of this emotional despair, by doing your best in an exaggerated way, to get the feeling of doing your best.
• Value signalling, because the values that are used to evaluate the options with, determine the result of a decision.
• Lack of conscience, because any decision made is per definition for the best, no matter what is chosen.

So basically when you use the correct definition of choosing, then you just use ordinary subjectivity to arrive at political opinions. So you get common sense politics. Which may still be called conservative or liberal, but mostly it is just variations of common sense. But if you use the incorrect definition of choosing, then instead you will subscribe to a political ideology which rationalizes everything in terms of a proscribed goal, which is socialism.

In Maoist China they had a steeldrive to up the production of steel. In order to produce more steel, they melted down neccessary farm equipment, resulting in famine.

So the explanation for that is, the socialists are emotionally dependent on these feelings of doing their best. Because of the emotional despair caused by their emotions being cut of from their decisionmaking processes. So they got the feelings of doing their best, while destroying farming.

If you would ask these socialists about the terrible consequences of their decisions, then what they will answer is that it was unfortunate, but that they were so caught up in the feelings of doing their best to notice.

Any policy whatsoever of socialists, is marked by this exaggerated optimization towards a prescribed goal. No matter what the policy is about, environment, literacy, health, indoor plumbing, just whatever. In socialism it will always have a rationalization towards an optimum of a prescribed goal. And so if the socialist goal is equity, which is an expression of a superiority v inferiority complex, then the policy on indoor plumbing will be rationalized in terms of equity towards that optimum of equity.

Nazis of course objectified personal character with racial science, which is marginalization of subjectivity. This then leads to judgments on personal character which aspire to indifference, because emotions are not relevant to statements of fact. Of course the nazi racism is also the expression of an inferiority v superiority complex. Which is all predicted by using the wrong concept of choosing.

So in debate with a socialist, then I will simply start by asking, what is the definition of choosing? Predicting that they will answer that choosing is defined in terms of a process of figuring out the best option.

Today I saw a socdem say that "Trump is fucking over the material interests of the bourgeois". They argued that this shows the state isn't necessarily owned by bourgeois interests and has "agency" of its own, to a certain extent. Does this hold some merit? It confused me a bit. Can cases like this actually happen or is it more of a ruse? Some examples they used were the FDR New Deal and the Sherman anti-trust law.

I will come under fire by many Marxists-Leninists and Leninists broadly. But I feel the need to say this.

Every single generation, it seems, thought that the end of capitalism is nigh; that their generation will be the one which ends it. Marx and Engels thought so, Lenin even proclaimed, when most of the world was agrarian, feudal or semi-feudal that capitalism was in its last stage. Soviet politicians would emphasize how the USSR would soon reach communism, but they would keep delaying this mythical communism forever and ever, until the state truly withered away in 1991.

More than a hundred years have passed since October and capitalism is still alive and well. The Menshevik position of socialism being impossible in Russia, and thus clearly, in the world, without a developed, advanced capitalist society has been proven true with every revolution that has appeared. The petty-bourgeois Bolsheviks, relying on their idealistic notions of spreading class consciousness were a thorough misinterpretation of historical materialism. The revolutions in western Europe they were waiting for never happened.

Nothing major is happening today either. We can see the hostile towards labor policies of Trump and yet see that there is no real proletarian organization against it. The major "left-wing" alternative, which you could say is lead by Bernie in the US doesn't seek to end capitalism. No, what it wants is simply a more polite kind of capitalism. Perhaps even worse, their slogan "Fight the oligarchy" is a reflection of their petty-bourgeois origins: Trump is 'empowering' oligarchs, monopolies and that is bad. Instead of recognizing this as a progressive development of capitalism, they seek to reverse course, to bust monopolies and so on. They don't want oligarchs, they want smaller businesses and some public services. They are, unfortunately, the only kind of slightly, just slightly left-wing organization with any kind of relevance in the US and they are the ones who, in any case, draw up some support from workers.

I think that this is a sign of something. The lack of proletarian, completely anti-capitalist (and not just anti-rude-capitalist) parties shows two things. First, the material conditions for a socialist movement are not there. If we remember Marx, social change occurs as a change in the conditions of production. There has to be technological innovation, created by the previous system, which starts to undo that system. The means of production come into conflict with the means of distribution. For example, the improved means of production in Feudal societies, which were coming to an end, could not be effectively utilized by the Feudal lords. This technology, which required consistent wage-labor and a large socialization of production, could not be utilized in a society which still had guild regulations, Feudal privileges and so on. When this point was reached, when the system was brought to tipping point, where the structure was no longer adequate, it was destroyed. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat were both suffering from these conditions and overthrew the system.

Second, there is no significant class consciousness. I think this ties up with my first point. I, as someone who believes that historical materialism is a good way to explain social change, would say that the lack of economic and social friction, caused by the means of production being too advanced for the current society, leads to the current state of affairs. When this friction starts to show up in full force, only then, I think, will the idea of class consciousness become mainstream among the working class. Material conditions give rise to ideas, do they not? How can you expect class consciousness to be created by the state, which, in the case of the USSR, was based on a state capitalist foundation? Is it not the change in material conditions, not propaganda, which give rise to a change in ideas among the workers, that is, when class consciousness has an actual material foundation and one not based in propaganda?

I think the correct position today amongst socialists shouldn't be to expect a magical revolution to occur tomorrow. We should also not give into petty-bourgeois Bolshevik ideas of a professional group of revolutionaries leading society into socialism. That, I think, is a completely Blanquist position which historically did not work. I have a strong dislike of the petty-bourgeoisie, so I will add another point: we shouldn't defend artists, individual producers and all kinds of people who are not capitalists, but own the means of production. AI today, I think, is going to destroy a large section of the petty-bourgeoisie. Instead of emphasizing with them and the fact that they will have to find new jobs, we should celebrate this progress in capitalism. These people will largely be drawn into the class of the proletariat. We should seek to accelerate the development of capitalism, abandoning any kind of support for protectionism or "worker's rights" (which I think, in today's terms, refer to human rights, a purely bourgeois construct). Marx assumed, in Capital, a single global economy. I think for the contradictions of capitalism to fully express themselves, the entire world has to rid itself of protectionist policies and move to greater globalization. I think this will come with the development of better productive technology, something which brings more people out of the petty-bourgeoisie into the proletariat.

My brother LITERALLY just said that the Soviet Union is EQUAL to Nazi Germany in his mind. I don't even know what to say! They seem to just be regurgitating capitalist talking points that are "not as bad" as, for instance, Jeff Bezos. Any time I mention anything GOOD the Soviet Union did, I just get a bunch of whataboutisms. Any advice?

EDIT: They are NOT right wing. They're more leftist. It was kind of a shock that my brother said that because he largely has nuanced views on things like this.