communist economy

[Unregistered]

how would a communist economy function?
would it be similar to gift, barter, or free economy?

[Gustav HK]

In a real communist society, there would be no money. People would contribute to the society according to their ability, and take what they need.

[Unregistered]

In a real communist society, there would be no money. People would contribute to the society according to their ability, and take what they need.

oh alright, so what if they were to exchange goods with each other?

how would people obtain commodities? for example, video games, clothes, art supplies, transportation such as a car or bike? would that all be free?

[robbo203]

oh alright, so what if they were to exchange goods with each other?

how would people obtain commodities? for example, video games, clothes, art supplies, transportation such as a car or bike? would that all be free?


They woulnt be commodities. A commodity is somehing that is bought and sold on a market. Buying and selling implies sectional or class ownership of the means of production - you cant buy somehing that already belongs to you. Therefore, in a communist economy the principle of free acesss applies. You simply take what you need from the distribution points (and also volunarily contribue to the production of goods and services..). No money or barter is involved at any point. his implies we have the technological infrastructure to produce enough to satisy our reasonable needs. Communists argue that we have such a potential already but it is held back by capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Therefore, in a communist economy the principle of free acesss applies
Not necessarily. Then again, there's no exact answer to this, it's quite likely that there would even be variation among different areas.

[Black Sheep]

oh alright, so what if they were to exchange goods with each other?
Why would they? if you can get everything you need from the 'natural' source (from the community's production), why would you want to get it from an exchange?

Doesn't make sense to me.

[SecondLife]

Stop quote those old fairytale books. Those books are only for held in favor people thinking and general principles of working class freedom. Communism is not some religion or dogma, but rather dynamic movement. And economic positions that exist in hundred years ago are just piece of shit nowadays.



People would contribute to the society according to their ability, and take what they need.
This is not possible - what if I don't have any ability but I have huge amount of needs. If example you give me more than I give for you, then I become automatically bourgeoisie and again arise classes and class struggle.
This postulation have more philosophy (or ethic) mean than realistic. Communism is in many aspects rather philosophy.


No money or barter is involved at any point. his implies we have the technological infrastructure to produce enough to satisy our reasonable needs. Communists argue tNo money or barter is involved at any point. his implies we have the technological infrastructure to produce enough to satisy our reasonable needs.

Paper money is unnecessary, but wage must stay. If there don't exist paper-money, then there is also eliminated automatically ownership. But people still want to sell and buy their old stuff. Why they must discard this stuff, maybe someone wants it.
For this to people can sell-buy their old stuff when don't exist paper-money, special institution is needed for this, because money transfer among people must not be allowed (to avoid bourgeoisie, private ownership, exploitation and profit). This institutions control that nobody don't start give profit with means of production etc.

p.s. Also don't forget that for people in socialist state must allowed also to travel into capitalist countrys and also to buy from it personal belongings (and also through internet). This requires hard currency that state must convert for it's citizens. This process can't organize without state control by special institution.

[robbo203]

This is not possible - what if I don't have any ability but I have huge amount of needs. If example you give me more than I give for you, then I become automatically bourgeoisie and again arise classes and class struggle.
This postulation have more philosophy (or ethic) mean than realistic. Communism is in many aspects rather philosophy..

What are you alking about? You seem to be assuming the continuaion of an exchange economy. This is not communism. Exchange implies sectional ownership of the means of production and therefore a class society



Paper money is unnecessary, but wage must stay. If there don't exist paper-money, then there is also eliminated automatically ownership. But people still want to sell and buy their old stuff. Why they must discard this stuff, maybe someone wants it.
For this to people can sell-buy their old stuff when don't exist paper-money, special institution is needed for this, because money transfer among people must not be allowed (to avoid bourgeoisie, private ownership, exploitation and profit). This institutions control that nobody don't start give profit with means of production etc.

If you have a wage system you have capitalism. Is this what you are advocating? You are presupposing capitalism when you talk abou people wanting to buy or sell stuff

[sanpal]

To robbo203:

Seems SecondLife talks about lower phase of communism and he is partly right excepting "wages" and so and you talk about higher phase of communism and in this part of point your correct

[sanpal]

They woulnt be commodities. A commodity is somehing that is bought and sold on a market. Buying and selling implies sectional or class ownership of the means of production - you cant buy somehing that already belongs to you. Therefore, in a communist economy the principle of free acesss applies. You simply take what you need from the distribution points (and also volunarily contribue to the production of goods and services..). No money or barter is involved at any point. his implies we have the technological infrastructure to produce enough to satisy our reasonable needs. Communists argue that we have such a potential already but it is held back by capitalism.

Correctly but don't forget about the transitional period from capitalism to communism when the first communist sector could be created i.e. the lower phase of communism and where still could be birthmarks of bourgeois right, in another words there could be distribution of someone's needs according theirs labour contribution. And that any needs and services they couldn't get in the communist sector they could satisfy in capitalist and state capitalist sectors of economy co-existing alongside with communist sector during transition period (DOTP).

[robbo203]

To robbo203:

Seems SecondLife talks about lower phase of communism and he is partly right excepting "wages" and so and you talk about higher phase of communism and in this part of point your correct

Not really. He also referred to buying and selling - commodity production - which is completely incompatible wih the lower phase of communism in my view. On your other point, I dont quite see how how you can have two fundamentally different and indeed antagonistic modes of production coexisting. You talk of the communist and capitalist (including state capitalist) sectors operating in the same time frame of the transiional period. How is this possible? Common ownership of the means of producion precludes sectional or class ownership. If you are alking about certain industries under common ownership, Stalin justified the existence of commodity production in his so called socalist (actually state capitalist) regime on the grounds that there was still a large non-socialised agricultural sector in the USSR (he completely ignored the fac that there were commodity relationshiops between state enterprises in his "Socialist" sector). But I think the Stalin argument is a pretty feeble one anyway

To my mind, the only reasonable use of the term "transitional" relates to the period we are in now up to the establishment of communism. I can envisage non-capitalist relaions developing for example in the form of LETS, mutual aid projects, intentional communties of all sorts. But the state capitalist road to communism is a complete dead end and a total distraction from rhe communist cause

[SecondLife]

He also referred to buying and selling - commodity production - which is completely incompatible.....

Well, you want all commodity for free and there also don't exist requirements to work. All old commodity, that people don't use anymore but are still in working condition, people just throw to trash. What you think, how many days this society can exist becore collapse and famine. I think question is even in hours. Also, if there don't exist money,sell-buy,
then nobody can't even travel, because for this is needed money. Remember that other countries don't allow you just travel and eat for free.
It becomes prison. Also in planned economy (only in one country), regardless how democratic this planning is organized, there is always possibility that in country don't exist some commodity product that someone needs (example medical product). For this must be allowed possibility for people to buy some rare product outside country, example from capitalist state. This is not necessarily planned economy problem. In capitalist free market, there exist also the same problem and some products are rare and can obtain only from other country.



, I dont quite see how how you can have two fundamentally different and indeed antagonistic modes of production coexisting. You talk of the communist and capitalist (including state capitalist) sectors operating in the same time frame of the transiional period. How is this possible?

There simply haven't other way. You can't make all countries socialist in the same time. This is fairy tale.



Common ownership of the means of producion precludes sectional or class ownership.

Who talk about ownership or about classes. I don't see any need for them even in low state of communism. Not in cities, nor in countryside.

[robbo203]

Well, you want all commodity for free and there also don't exist requirements to work. All old commodity, that people don't use anymore but are still in working condition, people just throw to trash. What you think, how many days this society can exist becore collapse and famine. I think question is even in hours. Also, if there don't exist money,sell-buy,
then nobody can't even travel, because for this is needed money. Remember that other countries don't allow you just travel and eat for free..

I dont know if you realise just how deeply reactionary and conservative your views on communism actually are. I mean this is the sort of nonsense that the extreme disciples of free market gurus like Ludwig von Mises come out with. Wihout money society will collapse, they claim. They have no idea about how a communist economy will actually function. You seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for all the old myths about human nature. Such as - unless people are forced to work they will not work. Such as - unless people have to pay for things they will take far more than they need. So we need money to "discipline" us. Its a rubbishy argument and easily demolished.
.

Oh yes and you still dont understand what a "commodity" means. By definition commodities are NOT free, they are something that you buy and sell on the market


It becomes prison. Also in planned economy (only in one country), regardless how democratic this planning is organized, there is always possibility that in country don't exist some commodity product that someone needs (example medical product). For this must be allowed possibility for people to buy some rare product outside country, example from capitalist state. This is not necessarily planned economy problem. In capitalist free market, there exist also the same problem and some products are rare and can obtain only from other country
There simply haven't other way. You can't make all countries socialist in the same time. This is fairy tale..

Nobody is suggesting that literallly all over the world and at the precise same moment, communism will be introduced. I dont subscribe to this idea so your argument is an aunt sally argument, frankly.

However, I do believe it is quite reasonable to assume that within a very short space of time - a matter of years - most parts of the world will turn communist and the rest will follow in short order. This is chiefly becuase the communist movement iself is necessarily an international movement and will strive to direct is resources to ensure a fairly balanced growth in the spread of communist ideas. Also capitalism itself tends to create more unifomity of experiences and outlook among the working class worldwide



Who talk about ownership or about classes. I don't see any need for them even in low state of communism. Not in cities, nor in countryside.

If you dont want class ownership of the means of production then be consisent and logical! Getting rid of class owenrship means getting rid of all forms of exchange - including money!

[SecondLife]

Such as - unless people are forced to work they will not work. Such as - unless people have to pay for things they will take far more than they need.

Of course, you can work without wage for slaveowners, but then society becomes not communist, but instead feudalism.
.


However, I do believe it is quite reasonable to assume that within a very short space of time - a matter of years - most parts of the world will turn communist and the rest will follow in short order.

You can make this even more faster with nuclear bomb. :D


Getting rid of class owenrship means getting rid of all forms of exchange - including money!
This is not accordance with history and there isn't also any logic, if you of course know what means private ownership or private property at all. Again fairy tale.
There isn't any relationship between private property and money in general. Private property is bound with profit and capital accumulation.

[robbo203]

Of course, you can work without wage for slaveowners, but then society becomes not communist, but instead feudalism..
.

Eh? What on earth are you talking about? Yes feudalism did not involve wage slavery in the main but that does not mean commmunism does not also involve the abolition of wage labour. Why do you think Marx wrote that workers should call for the abolition of the wages system? It is just that in other respects communism is totally different from feudalism. Did you not realise that communism means a moneyless wageless society based on common ownership of the means of production?



This is not accordance with history and there isn't also any logic, if you of course know what means private ownership or private property at all. Again fairy tale.
There isn't any relationship between private property and money in general. Private property is bound with profit and capital accumulation.

Of course there is relationship between money and private property! How can you say such a daft thing? The works of Marx and others contain plenty of references to the abolition of money in communism and the "communistic abolition of buying and selling". Money implies economic exchange and economic exchange implies private property. Thats not hard to figure out is it?

[SecondLife]

.
..... and economic exchange implies private property.


How? I see that it absolutely don't imply this. Why you mean that all that can exchange with money is private property? No, it is personal belongings, personal property. Can you understand difference between private property and personal property? The difference lies in the profit and capital accumulation. If you buy toothpaste to wash teeth, then you don't make profit with this.

[Lynx]

Money can be designed so that it is only a means of exchange. This is the basis for the (electronic) labour-time voucher.

[ckaihatsu]

This is not possible - what if I don't have any ability but I have huge amount of needs. If example you give me more than I give for you, then I become automatically bourgeoisie and again arise classes and class struggle.


Not necessarily. The First World "privileged consumer" can be accused of being "bought off" by capitalism with cheap, time-wasting consumer conveniences, but as much as a worker in the advanced economies may enjoy their consumer goods that fact alone doesn't automatically mean that they're bourgeois. That's because to be bourgeois you have to own capital, and it has to be capital that exploits existing labor by extracting surplus labor value from their work. Some workers *do* have access to this kind of capital -- we'd have to ask what *percentage* of their living expenses come from wages versus what percentage comes from returns on investments.

Another point on this is that *automation* and *computerization* have been the driving force behind the empowerment of the contemporary consumer. As consumer goods have become cheaper to produce their empowering technology (like home computers) have become more readily available to millions and billions of people, through the markets. This means that even if millions of people *don't* work the factories would *still* have enough to continue to pump out cheap consumer goods. Evidence of this is all around -- look at how devalued and accessible many common consumer products are these days compared to just one or two decades ago -- today, under capitalism, if people take more than they need (given that they're overpaid) it doesn't *strain* the economic system *at all* -- these days there's massive *overcapacity* compared to market demand.

Under a *collectivized* economy all of this productive capacity would be *even more* available to actual human need and desire, *not* measured by the yardstick of elitist wealth (money). If *lots* of people didn't work and took as much as they could, every day, it probably wouldn't even be an issue -- the factories could always be revved up to pump out more, with minimal effort required by others, thanks to automation and computerization.

This is why, as Marxists, we're not necessarily anti-consumerist -- consumerism itself isn't at the root of the problem -- *capitalism* (commodity production) *is*.


---


I think a global post-capitalist revolutionary workers economy would stay within the practices of all civilized societies prior and it would keep statistics on material quantities, along with news, analyses, reports, and so on, about material production. This way it could respond to actual rates of consumption and reduce waste to a minimum, unlike the crude, wasteful speculative capital practices we see under capitalism.

There *could* be no economic (political) co-existence with capitalist countries -- a revolution would *have* to displace capitalism altogether, not attempt to find a conversion ratio for trade with capitalist commodities. The capitalist financial world would simply organize and conspire to *devalue* the non-market-based economies and raise up another Cold War against them (remember the space race and the nuclear arms race?). Just as the slavery-based Southern economy and the Northern wage-labor-based economy could not co-exist in the pre-Civil War United States, the same mutually contradictory situation would exist between communist-labor-based and commodity-labor-based economies, thus leading to an inevitable political showdown.


Chris





--




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[SecondLife]

To eliminate only capitalistic artificial consumption isn't enough alone for good economy. It is only first step and nothing more. If factories just stay pump goods, this means nothing more than bad economy planning, just as it was in USSR. And who the hell wants to work in those factories if working isn't requirement. I don't want.
Also don't forget military ressources against capitalist states. This requires lots of money. Also if you end relationship (any kind) with other capitalist countries, then this becomes prison (no any worker love you anymore) and economy collapses soon (nobody like this too).

[mel]

Also don't forget military ressources against capitalist states. This requires lots of money. Also if you end relationship (any kind) with other capitalist countries, then this becomes prison (no any worker love you anymore) and economy collapses soon (nobody like this too).

Did you completely ignore this post right above you?


There *could* be no economic (political) co-existence with capitalist countries -- a revolution would *have* to displace capitalism altogether, not attempt to find a conversion ratio for trade with capitalist commodities.

Some of us think that socialism is necessarily an international movement, and the simultaneous, worldwide removal of capitalism is a necessary component of any revolution.

[SecondLife]

There *could* be no economic (political) co-existence with capitalist countries --


I don't see any incumbrance for this. All goods and money exchanges can be regulated with transformation by state. Also "cold war", if it happens, can win socialist state because there don't exists dissipation.
Altough China isn't very good example (it's too capitalist), its still in general socialist state and today it is the nr. one in economy and maybe also in military. USA is just yesterday, USA is now in agony. It seems still very powerful, but this is because inertia.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't see any incumbrance for this. All goods and money exchanges can be regulated with transformation by state. Also "cold war", if it happens, can win socialist state because there don't exists dissipation.
Altough China isn't very good example (it's too capitalist), its still in general socialist state and today it is the nr. one in economy and maybe also in military. USA is just yesterday, USA is now in agony. It seems still very powerful, but this is because inertia.


Well, *wouldn't* you want to liberate *all* of humanity and *not* stretch things out and slow down the revolution with trade relationships with market-based (profit-extracting) economies???





To eliminate only capitalistic artificial consumption isn't enough alone for good economy. It is only first step and nothing more. If factories just stay pump goods, this means nothing more than bad economy planning, just as it was in USSR. And who the hell wants to work in those factories if working isn't requirement. I don't want.


Right -- these are *very* good points against the runaway bureaucratic elitism of Stalinism. Their production quotas were competition-oriented, just as the ones in China have been, among Communist Party officials who are looking to one-up each other. As with *any* (public-sector) bureaucracy, officials have *careers* to think about, and the way to be career-minded is to look good on paper, with as many glorious-sounding projects attributed to your name as possible.

The USSR was implicitly competing with the Western nations through a historical period of industrialization and modernization, and they wanted to show off the productive prowess of their bureaucratic (single-nation-based centralized planning) regimes -- their industrial productivity *was* impressive, and even better than the West's, but it certainly *wasn't* democratic, much less proletariat-controlled.





Also don't forget military ressources against capitalist states. This requires lots of money. Also if you end relationship (any kind) with other capitalist countries, then this becomes prison (no any worker love you anymore) and economy collapses soon (nobody like this too).


Correct again -- while your tagline espouses "nationalization!" all of your arguments are critiques *against* nation-centric economic planning -- Stalinism, in short. As Marxists we *don't* want production- and military-based *competition* with capitalist countries, because *that's* implicitly capitulating to a market-based approach on a world scale (buy low, exploit labor, sell high, show off, etc.).

We *need* a *paradigm shift* -- a *transcending* of the competitive, market-oriented approach, and that's only possible through the *worldwide* workers' control of the means of mass production so that "ownership" never leaves the factory. A rough approximation, for the sake of illustration, might be something like a community of artists who never sell what they produce, but instead they give away and exchange their pieces with each other as desires and requests percolate up. In turn the artists would have all of their living and artistic requirements readily fulfilled by the larger society. This is, arguably, the essence of what society is about anyway....

[SecondLife]

Well, *wouldn't* you want to liberate *all* of humanity and *not* stretch things out and slow down the revolution with trade relationships with market-based (profit-extracting) economies???

This is populism.


As with *any* (public-sector) bureaucracy, officials have *careers* to think about, and the way to be career-minded is to look good on paper, with as many glorious-sounding projects attributed to your name as possible.

No, career is progressive tendency.


, but it certainly *wasn't* democratic, much less proletariat-controlled.

Yes, USSR wasn't democratic, but in USSR wasn't also classes.


Correct again -- while your tagline espouses "nationalization!" all of your arguments are critiques *against* nation-centric economic planning -- Stalinism, in short. As Marxists we *don't* want production- and military-based *competition* with capitalist countries, because *that's* implicitly capitulating to a market-based approach on a world scale (buy low, exploit labor, sell high, show off, etc.).

No, I don't see here any interconnection. Competition with outside countries don't mean domestic competition.


-- a *transcending* of the competitive, market-oriented approach, and that's only possible through the *worldwide* workers' control of the means of mass production so that "ownership" never leaves the factory.

You talk abot ownership within one factory? This is not Marxism, this is exactly capitalism as it exist today. I don't care who exactly personally is owner. Any bourgeoisie can name itself worker or workers can own stocks and bonds and become bourgeoisie.
In socialist state, there must not exist any private ownership at all.


A rough approximation, for the sake of illustration, might be something like a community of artists who never sell what they produce, but instead they give away and exchange their pieces with each other as desires and requests percolate up. In turn the artists would have all of their living and artistic requirements readily fulfilled by the larger society. This is, arguably, the essence of what society is about anyway....
You want to exchange your production with other worker production.
You are hairstylist and want to exchange your production with example doctor? Are you sure what about you are talking? Think again.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, *wouldn't* you want to liberate *all* of humanity and *not* stretch things out and slow down the
revolution with trade relationships with market-based (profit-extracting) economies???





This is populism.


You should elaborate -- if you mean that the official (bourgeois) politics would begin to orient to the building revolution, trying to defuse and co-opt it by mimicking its slogans for the sake of rhetoric, then, yes, that would be populism. The bourgeois establishment would adopt revolutionary-themed marketing campaigns in order to market-ize the prevailing popular political sentiment. A good example would be what Madison Avenue did with the hippie / counterculture movement of the '60s and '70s, mainstreaming it into commercial venues for the purposes of appealing to the Baby Boomers.

Your statement is somewhat cryptic because I was talking economics and you're talking politics.





No, career is progressive tendency.


No, career-building is usually *not* a progressive tendency, because it involves the institutionalization and politicization of a person's work life. It *can* be a progressive dynamic, granted, if the person is able to be *overtly* politically progressive / revolutionary while maintaining their professional position -- a tricky and risky undertaking and accomplishment.

Most people with careers are *careerists*, meaning that they will do whatever they have to do politically to retain their professional positions. In this way they become props for the establishment's prevailing political culture, usually some type of liberal-nationalist set of political positions. We on the left would call this 'twisting in the wind'.





Yes, USSR wasn't democratic, but in USSR wasn't also classes.


This is a tricky topic -- the USSR's economy *wasn't* profit-driven, and the bureaucrats weren't nearly as parasitical on the nation's economy as capitalists are, but they did still occupy an elitist strata of unelected administration and privileged lifestyles, well above those of the average person. In a technical sense we probably couldn't call the bureaucrats a separate *class*, but they were definitely a different, distinct *strata*.





No, I don't see here any interconnection. Competition with outside countries don't mean domestic competition.


C'mon, lets not get hung up on terminology -- you have to admit that competition on an international level *will* *necessarily* change the politics of a country *internally* -- the USSR's bureaucracy revved up the same kind of patriotic fervor for *their* masses that the Western politicians did for *theirs* -- the Cold War was on and it served the elites in both the First *and* Second World countries to play the Cold War game in order to keep their respective populations in check.

International political competition between countries with conflicting modes of production perhaps cannot be *technically* called market-based competition, but really it is when you consider the international currency exchange rates -- effectively the "geographic" borderlines of inter-economy trade.





In socialist state, there must not exist any private ownership at all.


Agreed.





You want to exchange your production with other worker production.
You are hairstylist and want to exchange your production with example doctor? Are you sure what about you are
talking? Think again.


I was giving a scenario in an attempt to illustrate socialized production. I agree with you politically, based on your previous point. If you want to make a point *here*, please do.