added a footnote, edit
(fixed image) |
(added a footnote, edit) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
For example, in regard to the capitalist system, Marx says that value-form is the most ''abstract'' (highest in form) and most universal (dominant) taken by the product.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1]</ref> In the instantiations of socialism it would obviously not be the case, as the dictatorship of the proletariat has the strongest, most abstract and universal command over production. Dialectics really is the important part here; abolition is not what determines the change, it is the ''telos;'' i.e, A and not-A are contained within each other, one taking dominance over the other in each economic system because of who controls the forces of production. | For example, in regard to the capitalist system, Marx says that value-form is the most ''abstract'' (highest in form) and most universal (dominant) taken by the product.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1]</ref> In the instantiations of socialism it would obviously not be the case, as the dictatorship of the proletariat has the strongest, most abstract and universal command over production. Dialectics really is the important part here; abolition is not what determines the change, it is the ''telos;'' i.e, A and not-A are contained within each other, one taking dominance over the other in each economic system because of who controls the forces of production. | ||
Footnote: But is the appearance of planning in the economy, socialism? For example, the capitalist-state, the state of antagonistic private-interests planning only a part of the economy, socialism for the rich, while Communist planning entails the whole of the economy. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
__FORCETOC__ | __FORCETOC__ | ||