You didn’t provide what the contradictions of the socialist mode of production are. You gave critiques of planned economy and authoritarianism.
I… did… what? The critiques were in the form of contradictory forces: central planning (seeks to centralize power) and democracy (seeks to distribute power), those who work “according to their ability” (incentive to minimize work) those who receive “according to their need” (incentive to maximize receipt of goods) (contradiction comes from the added premise max work -> max goods). These are as contradictory as the class differences between capitalist and worker, even moreso since they are contradictions between the worker and himself. Society and itself.
This is about philosophy, not a critique of marxian economics or dielectical materialism
Which are we talking about again? Philosophy or Marxism? Wait, Marxism and dialectical materialism are philosophies. Wait, Deleuze comments on them. Wait… wtf are you talking about?
Those aren’t contradictory. Centralized planning refers to organizing aspects of the economy, in particular things with inelastic demand, through the government (the public sector). It’s run as a business, same as in the private sector, except profit is not the point. It can be organized based on a capitalist mode or a socialist mode. If it’s organized in a socialist mode, the entire body of workers have a say in the process of the central planning.
Centralized planning is critical for inelastic demand, such as housing, healthcare, and for the most part food. It is not a replacement of markets, it is supplementing them to ensure basic necessities are available to everyone. The private market can still exist just fine, it’s the organization within the companies that change. The ratio of public to private, and planned economy to market economy, depends on a significant amount of factors, internal and external.
Marx’s critique of political economy says you can’t have a half capitalist half socialist system like that. If there is any form of money or profit it will pool. It will become political power. It will oppress the socialist tendencies, and just like you see in America, it will privatize them over time. It will eventually destroy any gains you made socializing the economy.
Capitalism is a centralizing/monopolizing force, and under Marxism the goal is to benefit from that centralization materially, simply bring it under the dictatorship of the proletariat. There are so many passages in Marx and Engels about “economic anarchy” (describing free markets, not anarchism) vs the prosperity that comes from central planning, the nationalization of the imperialist monopolies.
I just don’t think you’ve read anything. I’m not even that read and I know this shit.
“The entire body of workers have a say in the process of central planning” - you can have a democratic system where you vote on planning, true, but it’s hardly non-authoritarian. Imagine if our democracy decided all the material goods you could consume and all the work you must do? Would you be satisfied? No, because democracy at its best is slow, ineffective, and ultimately authoritarian. It’s how you do things when you have no other choice, not how you want to live, eat, and breathe each day of your life. Democracy is not freedom. Anarchy is freedom. It’s only benefit is its not literal fascism.
You are a Bernstein-esq social democrat with Proudhon-esq mutualist and cooperativist elements. Not a Marxist. Not a socialist under any modern use of the term.
I… did… what? The critiques were in the form of contradictory forces: central planning (seeks to centralize power) and democracy (seeks to distribute power), those who work “according to their ability” (incentive to minimize work) those who receive “according to their need” (incentive to maximize receipt of goods) (contradiction comes from the added premise max work -> max goods). These are as contradictory as the class differences between capitalist and worker, even moreso since they are contradictions between the worker and himself. Society and itself.
Which are we talking about again? Philosophy or Marxism? Wait, Marxism and dialectical materialism are philosophies. Wait, Deleuze comments on them. Wait… wtf are you talking about?
Those aren’t contradictory. Centralized planning refers to organizing aspects of the economy, in particular things with inelastic demand, through the government (the public sector). It’s run as a business, same as in the private sector, except profit is not the point. It can be organized based on a capitalist mode or a socialist mode. If it’s organized in a socialist mode, the entire body of workers have a say in the process of the central planning.
Centralized planning is critical for inelastic demand, such as housing, healthcare, and for the most part food. It is not a replacement of markets, it is supplementing them to ensure basic necessities are available to everyone. The private market can still exist just fine, it’s the organization within the companies that change. The ratio of public to private, and planned economy to market economy, depends on a significant amount of factors, internal and external.
Marx’s critique of political economy says you can’t have a half capitalist half socialist system like that. If there is any form of money or profit it will pool. It will become political power. It will oppress the socialist tendencies, and just like you see in America, it will privatize them over time. It will eventually destroy any gains you made socializing the economy.
Capitalism is a centralizing/monopolizing force, and under Marxism the goal is to benefit from that centralization materially, simply bring it under the dictatorship of the proletariat. There are so many passages in Marx and Engels about “economic anarchy” (describing free markets, not anarchism) vs the prosperity that comes from central planning, the nationalization of the imperialist monopolies.
I just don’t think you’ve read anything. I’m not even that read and I know this shit.
“The entire body of workers have a say in the process of central planning” - you can have a democratic system where you vote on planning, true, but it’s hardly non-authoritarian. Imagine if our democracy decided all the material goods you could consume and all the work you must do? Would you be satisfied? No, because democracy at its best is slow, ineffective, and ultimately authoritarian. It’s how you do things when you have no other choice, not how you want to live, eat, and breathe each day of your life. Democracy is not freedom. Anarchy is freedom. It’s only benefit is its not literal fascism.
You are a Bernstein-esq social democrat with Proudhon-esq mutualist and cooperativist elements. Not a Marxist. Not a socialist under any modern use of the term.