Both value-form theory and communisation express dissatisfaction with received interpretations of Marx, and thus a rejection of “orthodox” or “traditional” Marxism. For us, there is an implicit commonality between value-form theory and the theory of communisation such that each may productively inform the other. We will here examine the historical parallels, and points of convergence, between these two tendencies. Endnotes, Communisation and Value Form Theory, Endnotes #2 (2010), https://endnotes.org.uk/articles/communisation-and-value-form-theory

This is why value-form theory points, in terms of the notion of revolution that follows from it, in the same direction as communisation. The overcoming of capitalist social relations cannot involve a simple “liberation of labour”; rather, the only “way out” is the suppression of value itself — of the value-form which posits abstract labour as the measure of wealth. Communisation is the destruction of the commodity-form and the simultaneous establishment of immediate social relations between individuals. Value, understood as a total form of social mediation, cannot be got rid of by halves. Endnotes, Communisation and Value Form Theory, Endnotes #2 (2010), https://endnotes.org.uk/articles/communisation-and-value-form-theory

I disagree with this part of the argument. I don’t think we need the value-form theory to arrive at the communization thesis. Marx’s sociological analysis of the commodity (and his observation that value is a social relation) can lead us to the understanding that we must abolish it and its logic of relating to each other by strictly quantifying our contributions to the social product. I believe that Kropotkin and the anarchist communists arrive at the communization thesis already at the end of the 19th century. The fact that Marx himself believed that we need an intermediate stage or that the socialist/pro-state strategy was the dominant one until recently doesn’t mean that the argument wasn’t there long before. It was just seen as utopian.