Marxian Economic Theory

How can you make rent profitable, if you can't add anything rentier can't add himself (since labour has no input in production)?

They have no choice but to do it, as there is no central authority over them to make them keep their agreements binding.

It's called "dialectical materialism". But 'murricans aren't taught philosophy, so you literally can't understand the problem. Transition from Capitalism to Communism for you like flicking the switch. Even when pointed out that such a period lasts longer than a blink of an eye, you can only think that switch is being flipped real slow.

And all of this is still Capitalism? Capitalism that still exists from point zero, until … what point exactly?

> Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
And what about economy, señor Expert? What modes of production are used in economy? Transitionary?

Communism is a classless society, only if communism is understood as a vernacular for society that tends to emerge under communist mode of production (i.e. social production for use).

Once we separate those, once we recognize the difference between Basis and Superstructure, once we stop conflating modes of production and societies that are shaped by them, the picture becomes completely different and any notions of lower stage communism somehow not existing under DotP - or abolition of DotP being prerequisite for Communism - turn utterly ludicrous.

Just like Feudal state was not abolished overnight - despite Capitalist mode of production growing alongside it and becoming dominant for many decades (if not centuries) - so would DotP co-exist alongside growing Communist mode of production for a long time.

Except it is not society that defines classes, but classes (which are inherent to modes of production) define society.

Consequently, it is not society that you should be looking at, but modes of production. I.e. only as far as Communist mode of production extends and manifests itself, can classless society extend and manifest itself.

Attached: what in the nine fucks.png (241x209, 83.12K)

I can't make sense of that statement. Small cells of capitalism spontaneously spawned everywhere during feudalism like a bad case of acne, a development that has to happen to a feudal order. The pimples can then organize in their interest to get concessions from the state or directly take over the state, but this merely speeds up the process. There is no equivalent development under capitalism that communist cells must spawn.

If the Labor Theory of Value only pertains to the capitalist system, then what "theories of value" apply to pre-capitalist feudal or slave societies?

it doesn't
The LTV

The LTV only applies in an economy where commodity trading predominates. In feudal societies, there was no abstract labour, only concrete labour: you had to work a set number of days in a physically separate field, that of the lord or monastery, or had other kinds of corvee labour.

Marx explains it here,

"Every child knows that any nation that stopped working, not for a year, but let us say, just for a few weeks, would perish. And every child knows, too, that the amounts of products corresponding to the differing amounts of needs demand differing and quantitatively determined amounts of society’s aggregate labour. It is self-evident that this necessity of the distribution of social labour in specific proportions is certainly not abolished by the specific form of social production; it can only change its form of manifestation. Natural laws cannot be abolished at all. The only thing that can change, under historically differing conditions, is the form in which those laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labour asserts itself in a state of society in which the interconnection of social labour expresses itself as the private exchange of the individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value of these products."
Marx, Letter to Kugelmann
marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11.htm

Short answer: Marx's LTV is meant to explain the value of commodities in a capitalist society specifically but there are underlying principles that apply across historical epochs.

I didn't say it was a good plan, in a situation in which the RoP was reduced to 0%, I cannot see any other way for capitalism to survive.

the fact it's a different way of extracting surplus doesn't change mean anything, the LTV applies nonetheless

How can you say that when almost nothing is commensurate? Almost nothing is traded as a commodity, and those things that are skew to being luxury products. I think it's a stretch to assume the LTV applies outright. Maybe it does in a vague sense like says, but certainly not as the law it is today in capitalism.

Quite the opposite, as I've said before it is a process of transition frome one mode of production to another.
This is a process, obviously once the proletariat gains political supremacy capitalism is still the dominant mode of production. Elements of socialist production, capitalist production, peasant and small producer production exist alongside each other.
As noted above, a few modes of production exist alongside the socialist mode of production that is being built.
Quite obviously communist society is that society that arises from the communist mode of production.
Thats nice and all, but you haven't said anything about why that notion is ludicrous.
Yes, and the communist mode of production (and thus the society that arises from it) is classless.
Do you care to explain what classes exist in the communist mode of production?