http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/58987/1/58987.pdf

I usually keep tabs on Paul Cockshott's Reality page, but this recent paper isn't to be found there.

This looks interesting, thanks for the link. I'll get back to you once I've read the thing.

You're welcome!

I've finished reading most of the articles contained within this compilation.

It's kind of a mixed bag in my opinion, but overall there are quite a few good articles. Their dates range from roughly 1991 to the present date, and the older ones tend to be the ones that are of lesser quality. "The peak of Marxism was in the 1970's" Seriously? Some of those writers seemed to regard the Soviet Union and Maoist China of this period as genuine socialist states, something I vehemently disagree with.

However, there were some that I thought were excellent. In particular, I thought "Beyond Anti-Imperialism" was pretty good. It's good to see that there are people willing to make a critical analysis of traditional "sacred cows" of the left. Even if I don't always agree with the findings, I think we could do with a bit more healthy self-criticism.

There were a few articles regarding the Labor Theory of Value that went over my head a bit, but it was worth my time. The definition of Nationalism they provided was the most comprehensive, yet concise one I have ever seen. I shared this with a few of my acquaintances.

I was not able to read all the book "Arguments For Socialism", it is too vast for me but my interest was caused with some quote from last section "Towards a New Socialism":

Could I ask some comrades to explain what things this quote mean. If I understand it correctly the phrase

Quote:

… the replacement of money and prices with value-based economics, with economics based on labor time.

means the abolishing of the monetary system and this is fundamental principle for the construction of the communist society with its moneyless economy. It means that capitalist mode of production has to be replaced with the communist mode of production. And this replacement is a revolutionary act but not an evolutionary act. The revolutionary act means the fitful one but not continuous act. If to replace capitalist mode of production with communist mode of production evolutionarily you will inevitably get a mixture of both: communist and capitalist modes of production in one economy. In result it will be an eclectic economy which is neither communist nor capitalist but deformed economy similar to Duhring's scheme aka Stalinism. So ideally capitalist mode of production (MoP) must be replaced with communist MOP "by one stroke" i.e. as quickly as possible, as simultaneous act for the whole society. But it is not possible for the whole society. And the authors recognize it:

Quote:

The question why socialism would be preferred to capitalism can’t be answered in the abstract, in general, because not everyone is going to prefer it.

So we have to solve economic issues for different parts of society variedly i.e. by organizing different sectors of economy: a) the communist sector of moneyless economy based on planning and labour time for those who are ready for new communist relations and b) state-capitalist / traditional capitalist sector(s) of economy on the base of monetary system who deny communist relations. This multi-economy when communist sector will be increasing and capitalist/state-capitalist sector will be decreasing will demand definite transition period. And this transition period will demand definite political structure. It will still be class society or , more exactly, combination of class and classless parts of society in its development with classless perspective. So one of the form of proletarian power (class power) is necessary till the end of the transition period..

This point of view on the revolution as transformation of capitalism into communism seems to me logically reasonable.

I suppose that the authors' work is made for their conception of revolution as transformation of capitalism into communism.
So I'm curious how the authors would elucidate the next questions:

1) Is it supposed any transition period? If yes then

2) is it supposed the society of the transition period still to be as class society? If yes then

3) in what moment the class society could be considered as classless society (within the transition period)?

4) if the society of the transition period is still class society then the rules/reforms have to be applied to the society as a whole or it is supposed to be different sectors of economy (market and nonmarket economies)?

5) what scheme of abolishing of the monetary system has to be used according their conception?
a) is it general stopping of functioning of monetary system and simultaneous passing to moneyless economy for the whole society?
b) is it still functioning traditional monetary system since class society exist for a while then in what moment the point a) could be applied?
c) is it the using of existing monetary system for accomplishment of functions of moneyless economy (Duhring's scheme) for the whole society?
d) does the authors' conception permit to exist of any multi-economy i.e. separate monetary sector and separate moneyless sector (I mean that different schemes are applied to different parts of society but not to the whole society)?

6) in what moment the planning system could be applied? Is it could be in point 5-a)? or in 5-b) just after the beginning? or in 5-c)? or in 5-d) only in moneyless sector but not in monetary sector?

There are some more questions but it depends from the above.
Again I ask to excuse my not working with the authors' original text, it's too vast for me and I am now a bit limited to sit in front of computer for a long time.

Those are good questions, I try to answer some of them in my critique of the Trotskyist writer Alan Woods http://www.scribd.com/doc/85016500/Review-of-Alan-Woods