Talk:Production for use

Not simply/quite a mode of production

In the received usage, the alternation of "production for profit" vs. "production for use" is actually somewhat above the mode of production (moP) and these two are taken to exhaust the top level division of types of production. Not sure how express this ATM. Lycurgus (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is true; the accumulation of capital (capitalism) began sometime in the 16th century, while the capitalist mode of production emerged much later in the 18th century. Similarly, production for use (socialism) may emerge separately from the socialist mode of production, implying they are distinct but related concepts. Alternative modes of production can exist under any one type of economic arrangement (production for profit or production for use), so yes, I agree that concept of mode of production is below the distinction between production for profit/use, though I am unsure how the distinction can be clearly expressed. Battlecry (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Neoclassical critique is nonsense

The neoclassical critique is nonsense. Not only because I disagree with it, but because it is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the entire concept--a strawman. I suppose this would be okay, if the writer of that piece had provided a source of an opponent of socialism making these claims, but it seems it's just his or her personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinions, therefore, unless sourced with a similar or identical critique I'm going to delete it.

Clarifying I don't believe above is Battlecry and it's not me, log will show who. At this point there are four voices on this talk page, me Battlecry and two anonymous editors. Lycurgus (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually looks like opener of this thread was registered and just didn't sign, bot missed somehow. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not neutral

I am astonished at how non neutral this article is... particularly the section that discusses the irrationality of capitalism.

Needs written in a neutral voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.204.124 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Virtually this entire article is written by others, but I am the author of the last ¶ of the current lede. If the place where an assertion of the irrationality of Capitalism can be pointed out I will redact. If not I will remove the tag as neurotic/uninformed. It is not ever the rationality but rather the inferior rationality of Capitalism vis a vis thetically scientific and therefore even in principle optimizable forms that is in question. Lycurgus (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, human beings, outside of disease states are inherently rational, so in discourse when a thing is called irrational, what in fact is meant is that it is an inferior but not diseased form of thinking, typically due to the failure of education/culture. Outside of say, an implicity Marxist or other anti-capitalist subject where this is a well known feature, the statement as a flat fact that Capitialism is irrational would be cause for an automatic redact to, as you say, more neutral, if not viewpoint from nowhere text. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is non-neutral at least under the Description heading. I take serious issue with this paragraph and have added citation needed tags for the moment. Many socialists argue that production for use and free access are possible/necessary without a market.

For example, final output (goods and services for consumption) would still be distributed to consumers through a market[citation needed]. Only in a sufficiently developed stage of socialism whereby the forces of production are advanced enough to allow for superabundances of goods and services can distribution be based on free-access / according to needs[citation needed].

--Baryonic Being (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)