Did the USSR have wage labor? Why or why not? Did the USSRs currency represent value...

Maybe you should read a book. Yugoslavia had wage labour as well. If you have commodity production, then you have wage labour.

how about you provide an explanation for that inane claim of yours? wage labour deals with the question of whether labour is a commodity to be bought and sold. this has nothing to do with whether material goods are produced in the form of commodities or not.

If you have commodity production then the individual firm is making products for exchange and thus profit. This neccecarily means that labour is also a commodity as a commodity production market cannot function without labour as a commodity, as redistribution of labour in a commodity producing system works on the basis of diminishing or increasing profits. This growth or shrinking of the company also neccecarily means the shrinking and growing of the employee base and as such companies have to compete with one another to attract employees and employees in return have to compete for the best jobs.

Commodity production neccecarily means labour is sold to the employer, be it a firm or a capitalist, because in commodity production the firms produce and exchange their products for something, and the only thing the workers can exchange for is their labour.

If you have commodity production, you necessarily have labour commodification, and thus wage labour.

Jesus, this board has really fallen from grace

yugofags have been here since the start dont worry. They are just on their journey from socdemism to marxism

the moment you "sell" your labour power to a company you become its co-owner and get paid for the value you create (minus social expenditure). you aren't working for a wage. besides, at least in the ussr, despite the country having commodity production in agriculture, workers were assigned centrally and not through market mechanisms.

I think you mean generalized commodity production.

yugoslavia and any form of market "socialism" is shite, i'm just making a point here.

….. doubt…

why are threads like this even allowed?
and the replies are just as bad
and i keep reposting this same old shit, giving you the very basic fucking thing to read up on to actually have a discussion on the issue rather than an exchange of opinions
fuck every single one of you, from OP at the top to the last reply above mine
and every single post that follows mine crying about whatever stupid fucking issue you take with me calling this shit out
ya'll are faggots and it's getting real fucking tiresome to put up with your shit
and you fucks wonder why i'm fed up and just fucking link a text and leave you with it
who the fuck do you think you are that after this shit show you are deserving of any more care or attention
eat a fucking load of dicks
= REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE =
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch33.htm

disregarding the obscure dumb shit he otherwise talks about, have some Bill Bland quoting from a wide collection of soviet economic literature after the market reforms
later editions of the textbook in the post above also reflect this

oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

Value, like the law of value, is a historical category connected with the existence of commodity production. With the disappearance of commodity production, value and its forms and the law of value also disappear.

In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labour expended on the production of goods will be measured not in a roundabout way, not through value and its forms, as is the case under commodity production, but directly and immediately - by the amount of time, the number of hours, expended on the production of goods. As to the distribution of labour, its distribution among the branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will have ceased to function by that time, but by the growth of society's demand for goods. It will be a society in which production will be regulated by the requirements of society, and computation of the requirements of society will acquire paramount importance for the planning bodies.

Totally incorrect, too, is the assertion that under our present economic system, in the first phase of development of communist society, the law of value regulates the "proportions" of labour distributed among the various branches of production.

If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why our light industries, which are the most profitable, are not being developed to the utmost, and why preference is given to our heavy industries, which are often less profitable, and some-times altogether unprofitable.

If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why a number of our heavy industry plants which arc still unprofitable and where the labour of the worker does not yield the "proper returns," are not closed down, and why new light industry plants, which would certainly be profitable and where the labour of the workers might yield "big returns," are not opened.

If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why workers are not transferred from plants that are less profitable, but very necessary to our national economy, to plants which are more profitable - in accordance with the law of value, which supposedly regulates the "proportions" of labour distributed among the branches of production.

Obviously, if we were to follow the lead of these comrades, we should have to cease giving primacy to the production of means of production in favour of the production of articles of consumption. And what would be the effect of ceasing to give primacy to the production of the means of production? The effect would be to destroy the possibility of the continuous expansion of our national economy, because the national economy cannot be continuously expanded with-out giving primacy to the production of means of production.

These comrades forget that the law of value can be a regulator of production only under capitalism, with private ownership of the means of production, and competition, anarchy of production, and crises of overproduction. They forget that in our country the sphere of operation of the law of value is limited by the social ownership of the means of production, and by the law of balanced development of the national economy, and is consequently also limited by our yearly and five-yearly plans, which are an approximate reflection of the requirements of this law.

Some comrades draw the conclusion from this that the law of balanced development of the national economy and economic planning annul the principle of profitableness of production. That is quite untrue. It is just the other way round. If profitableness is considered not from the stand-point of individual plants or industries, and not over a period of one year, but from the standpoint of the entire national economy and over a period of, say, ten or fifteen years, which is the only correct approach to the question, then the temporary and unstable profitableness of some plants or industries is beneath all comparison with that higher form of stable and permanent profitableness which we get from the operation of the law of balanced development of the national economy and from economic planning, which save us from periodical economic crises disruptive to the national economy and causing tremendous material damage to society, and which ensure a continuous and high rate of expansion of our national economy.

In brief, there can be no doubt that under our present socialist conditions of production, the law of value cannot be a "regulator of the proportions" of labour distributed among the various branches of production.
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm

"hurr hurr let's make a thread about the soviet union, wage and value, but let's not actually quote any of soviet literature on the subject, we are far too genious to bother with reading, i have an opinion already!"

Is there a newer version of that?

...

test