What exactly is it that you folks want?

No, commodity production is based around the production of social goods privately so that the labour in the commodity is validated as social only mediately through an exchange relation while Capital is the production of surplus value where the mass of labourers freed from the means of production produce a surplus of goods above that equivalent of their means of sustenance. But close.

Also your claim that “it’s a consumer market therefore not commodity production!” reminds me of all the critiques Engels and Marx made of the so called “socialist” for doing precisely this - divorcing production and distribution with the belief that you can have “socialist production” but with a bourgeois form of distribution.

That means litterally the same as I said, with different words.

Its not a fucking market, its just fucking rationing according to how much stuff there is. It only superficially sorta of kinda little bit resembles a market because the amount of credits you need to get a thing can vary.
Its not a bourgeois mode of distribution either, because there is no bourgeoisie, nor is there any form of class involved in it, unless you are of course just using "bourgeois" as a codeword for "anything I dont like". There is no owning class, there is no buyers or sellers, there is no differing class interests, theres nothing that resembles a market, its just a rationing system that changes rations according to how much you worked (which marx wants) and how scarce or plentifull it is, with a nice side effect of allowing you to see the discrepancy between the "correct" productive ratios and the actual ratios.

also
No he did not and no that is not possible until we have reached full communism, which is not what the economic system cockshott proposes is for.

No it’s not the same thing as what you said. You defined it as something based around individual gain, whereas Marx defines it as a type of allocating social labour. One is only tenuously related to Marxism, the other is the proper one.

Anyway when I’m home I’ll grab quotes from Cockshott’s book as well as Marx to try and support my argument.

exactly that

It is litterally the same, as the individual gain is what leads to the allocation of the social labour. As individuals or groups of individuals produce their goods and bring it to the market, their value is realized in that market, and those who made stuff that is not needed cannot trade their commodities for the same equivalent value, but less, and vice versa, leading them to seek out production of commodities that have the highest (or higher) exchange value comrades to their labour value. This is the maximization of individual gain, both in the changing their production and additionally in any haggling or scamming (due to information asymmetry) that occurs during the selling and buying of the commodities.

Do try, I cannot promise I will read them because I got shit to do.

Also keep in mind that the interpretation of marx and the economic system that cockshott proposes are not the same. I do not agree with him, he calls his own economic system commodity production. I do not think it is commodity production.
His system is good, his (irrelevant semantic ☭TANKIE☭ fuckery) theory around it is flawed.

IE I dont give a fuck if you quote cockshott saying that his system is x or y, I only care about the system itself.

Based on his definitions of terms, not that they're neccessarily the correct ones, he's not wrong. It's a completely different argument as to whether his backwards views about X or Y particular thing should be endorsed that has quite literally fuck all to do with his theory until we bring women (as in, faab) into his economic analysis. Tbh I'm getting a little fucking sick of this "criticism" even being entertained because it's always brought up off-topic as a smear, which is it's function, regardless of whether you agree with him or not (I don't). There literally just isn't any need for it, if you want to repudiate his blogposts attacking low hanging fruit like Butler then do that but don't fucking bring it up when discussing his work on econophysics or cybernetics or whatever.

The abolishment of the present conditions

It is superior because it abolishes the present conditions.