Love All Barbarian ☭

BLOCK ME = I WIN

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@1998_chevy__ @willsgardevoir @M1das_OW2 What’s wrong with it

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@PAHoyeck 1 Hegel 1 Wittgenstein 10 Marx

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 Whether or not you think a social form makes actual the potential of socialism, this does not inherently make that social form socialist if it does not have any relation differentiating it from bare capitalism, those relations which we know by Marx’s stipulation.

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 I say capitalism must have XYZ because this is what Marx explicitly says in the passage above (Capital vol III). I say socialism must not have XYZ because this is what Marx explicitly says in the CotGP. Unless, we use socialism differently than Marx and Lenin.

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 I’m not sure what you have in mind when you say “those XYZ are tools of the relations within the mode of production” because the XYZ things are the relations themselves. Capital, the value-form/commodity-form, etc etc are all social relations of production, which constitute a MOP

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@down2thariver @heterophobeV2 @GenossinLily Labor is the transhistorical substance of value. The issue is that value isn’t transhistorical.

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 Also all of those relations rest on the value-form and the exchange relation, which again, Marx says doesn’t exist in socialism (and so does Lenin since Lenin agrees with Marx’s description in the text provided)

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 A distinguishing feature is something that sets apart one thing from another. If A has xyz distinguishing features, and something has them, then that something is A. Socialism cannot have the 2 *distinguishing* features of capitalism, otherwise itd be the same MOP.

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@Lunare69775402 @KaizaZaraki @JoesKnocking @sigmahamster2 I was being playful

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 Repeating that it’s socialist doesn’t prove the point. What is your disagreement with the texts from Marx or Lenin cited above?

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 I just explained to you how this isn’t the case. Generalized markets (as opposed to incidental ones) do determine whether a country is socialist because the value-form and exchange relation (which rest on bourg property) don’t exist in socialism as Marx explains in the text above

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@Lunare69775402 @KaizaZaraki @JoesKnocking @sigmahamster2 Thanks

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@Pobeir @ahmethasimfan @SkyeNet_01 (Obviously Capital is not using a priori concepts but the derivations using empirical concepts are still a priori)

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@Pobeir @ahmethasimfan @SkyeNet_01 How can a posteriori reasonings be universally true? Engels conceived of his laws as generalizations, since there is no necessity or universality in the sensuous as Hume proved and Kant+Hegel+everyone else took up.
Marx’s Capital being mostly a priori is its greatest merit.

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@PamphletsY Make the circle a little bigger to include the entire pyramid.

[некосаттвачік @nekosattva_chan]

communists don't understand economics 101. but fortunately for them, reality doesn't seem to either

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 Lenin would not agree that China is socialist. He identified socialism with LPC, and as demonstrated, China is not in LPC.

[Love All Barbarian ☭ @deathstrafing77]

@JJJAMES0 Since relations of production over the forces of production are what constitute a mode of production, China having and preserving these exact relations with little room for interpretation or wordplay very clearly tells us what mode of production it has.