Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

The Soviet Union...

124»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    Of course invested money can come from profit. Investment is financed by either borrowing or retained profit.

    No. Business exists to make more and money for private hands. Its a legal requirement for companies to increase their profits to shareholders every year.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    Yes they do. Not discussing the definition of business are we.

    and businesses exist as part of capitalism, yes?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Errrr...you're wrong. The making of money has become an end in itself. Money ploughed back in is not profit, its an expense and is accounted for as such. Private personal profit is the goal of capitalism.

    Im going to revise that statement earlier. Profit and wealth are the end goals. To increase profits the capital stock must be expanded as profit is proportional to the capital stock. This is why profit is reinvested into more capital and the definition still stands.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    Then why are you going on about Businesses?

    I believe you started talking about them on page 4 or 5 not me.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    I believe you started talking about them on page 4 or 5 not me.

    Nope, i was arguing with Blagsta, then business suddenly came into it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bottom of page 6. If that was aimed at blagsta then quote him.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no, was aimed at you because i thought you changed the tac of this thread to business.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    Im going to revise that statement earlier. Profit and wealth are the end goals. To increase profits the capital stock must be expanded as profit is proportional to the capital stock. This is why profit is reinvested into more capital and the definition still stands.

    Yes, you're proving my point for me thanks. Some profit is reinvested to...create more profit. Its what Marx meant by M-C-M'. Money is used to buy commodities that are then sold for more money. Its the circulation of capital. Buying in order to sell to gain more money. Money has become a goal, an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Yes, you're proving my point for me thanks.

    That the definition was inaccurate? Nope.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    That the definition was inaccurate? Nope.

    Eh? :confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Eh? :confused:

    You said the definition in the op was inaccurate. I said it isnt for the above reasons, i.e. reinvestment of profit into capital (which you said wasn't profit) and you just said that proves your point?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    btw when i say capital i mean modes of production not money, just incase you are using the term for money.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    You said the definition in the op was inaccurate. I said it isnt for the above reasons, i.e. reinvestment of profit into capital (which you said wasn't profit) and you just said that proves your point?

    Yes, reinvestment into capital to get more money. The former USSR was state capitalist for this very reason. Capital is used to increase wealth. The accumulation of capital to gain more money.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    btw when i say capital i mean modes of production not money, just incase you are using the term for money.

    Capital is first and foremost a social relation, a means of increasing value.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Soviet Union used a planned economy and used forced labour to build up its capital stock rather than profit gained from private production in a free market.

    Investment wasn't possible because it didn't create profit from its output but simply designated a portion of its labour force to creating capital stock.

    It was a socialist planned economy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it was state capitalist because (a) labour was a commodity (b) profit was expropriated from that labour and (c) invested back as capital to increase the profits for (d) the ruling elite. Capitalism is first and foremost about the social relations in society - the minority putting the majority to work for their private gain.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Labour was not a commodity. It was controlled by a single entity and had no part in commercial activities (bar the miniscule proportion of goods that had to be traded outside the Soviet unions influence, granted).

    Value certainly was gained from labour for an elite but the means of procuction were owned by the state. It was a socialist planned economy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    Labour was not a commodity. It was controlled by a single entity and had no part in commercial activities (bar the miniscule proportion of goods that had to be traded outside the Soviet unions influence, granted).

    Errr...people sold their labour for money did they not?
    minimi38 wrote:
    Value certainly was gained from labour for an elite but the means of procuction were owned by the state. It was a socialist planned economy.

    Yes, the means of production were owned by the state. That does not translate into socialist unless the workers themselves had control of the means of production. The state acted as a collective capitalist.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it was state capitalist because (a) labour was a commodity (b) profit was expropriated from that labour and (c) invested back as capital to increase the profits for (d) the ruling elite. Capitalism is first and foremost about the social relations in society - the minority putting the majority to work for their private gain.

    So why do you also say that the current system isn't state capitalism?

    It isn't capitalism that's for sure.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Errr...people sold their labour for money did they not?

    They were told what to do and given money...more like tokens...to to buy food with, in my opinion.


    Yes, the means of production were owned by the state. That does not translate into socialist unless the workers themselves had control of the means of production. The state acted as a collective capitalist.[/QUOTE]

    It was socialist...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    They were told what to do and given money...more like tokens...to to buy food with, in my opinion.

    How does that differ from the west?
    minimi38 wrote:
    Yes, the means of production were owned by the state. That does not translate into socialist unless the workers themselves had control of the means of production. The state acted as a collective capitalist.

    It was socialist...[/QUOTE]

    Saying it so won't make it so. State ownership != socialism.
Sign In or Register to comment.