>>67529
>If you think planning is the ultimate goal of Communism you're sorely mistaken. For a start, Marx sets out to explain the mechanisms of Capitalism and doesn't talk about planning at all to 'fix' Capitalism.
I never said anything to that effect.
>The labour theory of value sets out at explaining equilibrium prices, and makes predictions about the whole Capitalist economy from there. All of these predictions, bar it's actual downfall, have so far come true. Unless you can point out a logical contradiction in the theory itself, it's reasonable to assume too that eventually, Capitalism will collapse on it's own. This is just science.
Most anti-capitalist sentiments come from the middle class and not the workers, workers are steadily growing richer, class consciousness is a ridiculous concept, he never even defined class, workers are a dwindling class, he never defended his LTV against utility-based conceptions, he doesn't even talk about capitalism so much as about mercantilism, and his theory of historical determinism has already been refuted by history itself as slavery and feudalism weren't ended by a revolution from a marginalized class. Those are the false premises he argues from.
>The actual 'goal' of Communism is not some forced equality through price fixing, Socialism actually abolishes the concept of value altogether. The whole idea of central planning is advocated by specific sects of leftism, only for the short transition phase from Capitalism to Socialism. You can still be a Marxist and think central planning is a bad idea.
Call it as you want, it cannot work. Without prices, you cannot rationally allocate capital goods. So I don't care that much if "true" socialists want a centrally planned economy, syndicalism, fairy dust or whatever else you have, it cannot work.
>Well idk what to tell you then. You're saying you can't calculate prices, I'm showing you something that says you can and you don't wanna read it. That's that until you do, I guess.
You could sum up their argument if you want. I don't expect that, unless you want to press the issue further. Again, I've read a treatise and at least one other article by Cockshott and Cottrell and I don't trust them. I stumble over ten articles every day that might be interesting to read, so then why read something from two pseudo-economists who already fucked up before? And these aren't some small errors they made, it's them criticizing an economist that they apparently haven't read at all.
>Again that pamphlet just talks about how a Socialist society would look like, doesn't talk about Capitalism at all. Idk why you're reading it.
For the single reason that some socialist suggested I read it because it supposedly btfo'd capitalism.
>And, again, don't read Capital. It's a philosophical text before it's an economic one, you're not gonna understand shit if you haven't read and understood Hegel, and for Hegel you need Kant, and for Kant you kinda need Descartes.
I understand enough so far to know that Marx is arguing from false premises.