1. My Critic of wage-based Cyber-Socialism
2. Dapprich’s Response to an Ultra-leftist Critique of Cybersocialism
3. My Defense of post-wage Commonism

As I stated in my first article I enjoy discussing with wage-socialists and although my main argument against wage-socialism – that the domination of exchange value over use value persists and therefore efficient planning must fail – isn’t addressed, Dapprich presents other important arguments. In the first article I criticized Dapprich’s “class-centered understanding of Marx” and I think this lies at the heart of our different approaches to socialism/communism. I don’t criticize wage-socialism and real socialism primarily for its exploitation of workers, that “workers are […] robbed of both their time and the fruits of their labour“. Exploitation exists in wage-socialism and workers still lack(ed) the access to the means of production, but the distribution of goods is far more equal than in capitalism. My argument is that forcing people to work via wages (be it in tokens or money) makes wage-socialism very akin to capitalism. They share a similar socialization of humans as consumption-driven and work-averse, a similar organization of work places, ongoing privatization of care work and ongoing opposition between individual and enterprise interests and general interest. Finally, this opposition of individual and general interest doesn’t allow what is so dearly important to Dapprich and other plan economists: efficient, ecological planning. Exchange value dominates use value. This creates wrong and harmful material incentives that the state can only partially compensate. This argument Dapprich didn’t address. My response will discuss exploitation and class within wage-socialism, the wage and post-wage planning and discuss Dapprich’s different understanding of productive needs. 

(mehr …)