this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23013 readers
113 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have a friend who is essentially communist, we debate all sorts of things and he generally agrees we need to get rid of capitalism. However he is assured that there is no way to determine the value of commodities as effectively as the market can through supply and demand (aside from his argument that soon an AI super-intelligence can save us without the market incentives). I try to point out that the market as it is isn't efficient and creates massive waste, pointing to various ways that our system generates waste due to capitalism, and he agrees it is extremely inefficient but still the best we can do right now.

I have read a lot more theory about resistance to capitalism, insurgency, organization and the like but not as much about the specific economics of a communist society once we move past capitalism. Where would be a good place to start? Should I just quote Das Kapital to him?

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] context@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Where would be a good place to start? Should I just quote Das Kapital to him?

of course not. start with value, price and profit and engels' synopsis of das kapital

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/1868-syn/

[–] tocopherol@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago
[–] context@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

that said, it's probably most fruitful to focus on the "supply" side of things. how are goods and services supplied? does the supply of goods and services ultimately depend on anything else that perhaps provides the true source of value? some kind of socially useful labor time, perhaps? get your friend to the labor theory of value on his own intuition and he'll drop this silly supply and demand liberal economics nonsense.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Just bring up the Daraprim price hike and ask him if that was a predictable effect of supply and demand.

S&D do not govern the markets. Power does. Every economic relation has a social relation behind it. Marx says this in tens of thousands of words but sometimes you need to whack someone over the head with a grotesque example when you make a parameter arbitrarily large to understand the mathematical function behind it.

[–] ChaosMaterialist@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Even if we accept his argument that it's too complex for humans and need computers to manage it, I'll point to Wall Street high-speed trading software that already runs the economy by this logic. It means we should seize Wall Street and direct those machines towards a different outcome.

Besides, we don't need super-intelligent AI, just computing resources. It's computationally feasible to turn the economy into a big sheet of equations that need balancing. If you squint it's a bunch of Linear Algebra. Like a chess AI, the question becomes how long do you give the computer to calculate a more fine-grained production balance. Finally, we can fudge all of this with buffers (storage tanks, grain silos, warehouses, etc) that can store these materials to absorb inaccuracies in the planning or simply to prepare when plans need changing, like a natural disaster. Paul Cockshott and Allin F. Cottrell's Toward a New Socialism details such a program.

[–] Lesrid@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

Marx's point is that capitalism is the tyranny of value. Value is useless to communists because it's useless to humanity. Capitalism is bad because it is the just and fair exchange of equivalents, not because it is an inefficient exchange.