

Thanks for the response!
I’m trying to think of how that would work with the limited knowledge I have. I’m trying to piece together all these scattered teachings into something coherent in my brain lol. I don’t have an education in political economy so you’ll have to bear with me. I preface my response with this because I feel like in online writing everyone defaults to assuming bad intentions or hostility. I’d just like to try to better synthesize everything I’m slowly learning.
Is the following one way of approaching why Stalin’s plan worked: So the full job guarantee would allow the available labor of the economy Ltotal to be maximally allocated to production of use values at some volume Qmax given the productive capacity of the economy.
Given the equation of exchange, which to my knowledge is a tautology re. how the velocity of money isdefined. So it is (trivially) always true by definition - which may make if a pointless equation lol
M v = P Q
Rearranging for the price level given full employment,
P = v M/Qmax
So the price level shouldn’t increase as long as the maximal allocation of labor can keep up with money production, i.e. increases in M are matched by increases in Qmax given static v (which I know in practice is never static though). If Qmax can’t increase, then the only way to increase if is to improve productivity, Ltotal is already allocated. How does Stalin’s dual circuit monetary system break this equation, or overcome it? As it is a tautology I thought it would be true by definition, but is it built on assumptions that the dual circuit can bypass? Thanks!
Going on a tangent regarding the allocation/distribution/division of labor to various sectors, the above just discusses aggregate quantities, like the aggregate labor L or aggregated volume produced Q. This labor myst be reallocated to sectors, and this reallocation would have to be commanded or allocated via a law of value. Soviet textbooks post Stalin do mention that the law of value still regulates the economy, and Stalin in his Economic Problems of the USSR mentions the law of value as operating in the economy, but as a limited regulator, or if not a regulator then an influencer.
It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system.
Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist.
In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.
But the operation of the law of value is not confined to the sphere of commodity circulation. It also extends to production. True, the law of value has no regulating function in our socialist production, but it nevertheless influences production, and this fact cannot be ignored when directing production. As a matter of fact, consumer goods, which are needed to compensate the labour power expended in the process of production, are produced and realized in our country as commodities coming under the operation of the law of value. It is precisely here that the law of value exercises its influence on production. In this connection, such things as cost accounting and profitableness, production costs, prices, etc., are of actual importance in our enterprises. Consequently, our enterprises cannot, and must not, function without taking the law of value into account
It appears that for consumption goods the law of value appears and regulates, but in the production of intermediate goods the law of value does not regulate, but since consumption goods are required to reproduce labor, the law of value (in consumption goods) does have an impact, or influence on intermediate goods.
Does the above relate to the dual circuit you were discussing?
Thanks again!
Do they believe their own bullshit? Because imagine only ever predicting shit with a straight line, where everything is linear, quantitive change is steady and predictable and qualities never evolve. There is no nonlinearity, there is no potential for collapse, chaos, or punctuated equilibrium. The small changes you see today will continue as they are for centuries.
I know it’s nerd talk to discuss dialectics, or complexity, but it’s mind boggling how undialectical these serious people are. Part of me thinks it just cope on their part to make their masters happy because how could one make that prediction without smelling your own bs and knowing its a completely meaningless number. But banks and think tanks do select for the smoothest of minds.