Socialism

[Bright Banana Beard]

Does Socialism eliminate buying and selling?

Why it is called state-capitalism if there are no market and private property?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Concerning buying and selling, Robbo explained this well:


Socialism however involves the elimination of buying and selling. Buying and selling implies sectional owenrship -a differentiation into owners and non-owners of the means of prpduction This is totally incompatible with common ownership.

Concerning state capitalism, the state itself performs the role of the capitalist class. It still extracts surplus value.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Pretty much what Robbo said, actually. Although "socialism" actually involves a different kind of "buying" and "selling." Look up labour vouchers.

[robbo203]

Pretty much what Robbo said, actually. Although "socialism" actually involves a different kind of "buying" and "selling." Look up labour vouchers.

Well no its not actually buying and selling. Marx made the point that a labour voucher was no more money than was a ticket to the theatre. It doesnt circulate. He also argued that the lower phase of communism was based on common ownership of the means of production. This precludes buying and selling since, as we have seen, buying and selling precludes communism . Hence the reference in the Communist Manifesto to the "communistic abolition of buying and selling". And of course for Marx and Engels socialism and communism meant the same thing.

I think the point is that buying and selling necessarily entail a transfer of ownership - from seller to buyer. It therefore necessarily implies private ownership of the means of production by the seller in the first place who by virtue of this is able then to offer the commodity for sale in the market.

I dont personally support the idea of labour vouchers - I think the system would be far too cumbercome and prefer instead a "compensation model" of rationing operating alongside free access (which would eventually cede more and more ground to the latter as goods become more abundant). However I recognise the communistic basis of the labour voucher scheme upheld by my De Leonist comrades

[LOLseph Stalin]

Does Socialism eliminate buying and selling?

In a sense, yes. Buying and Selling pertains to private ownership and currency as in Capitalism. With everything collectively owned there would be an exchange of goods and services. If person A needed Item A and person B made item A really well person A could give person B item B for item A. Makes sense? Probably not...

[The Watcher]

I don't think so. Money just becomes what it was and what is should be: a tool.
And not a valuable.
Every man deserves equal treatment and salary (more or less), but you can't feed them with the same stuff. One likes vegetables and one does not.
You are giving them the chance to choose for themselves, and no man has dramatically lower or higher money pool.
Money is a tool, it's basically the same as tickets, but more... "basic" (you can use it to get anything, and not just food for example).

I don't think you can collectively own a meal.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Does Socialism eliminate buying and selling?

Socialism, meaning an established economic order where all the means of production are socialized and therefore owned collectively by all in society; yes, this does eliminate buying and selling because there is simply no need for buying and selling: everyone already owns everything.

However, this does not mean that once the worker's assume power that all of the sudden economic conditions can fundamentally change over night, and the laws of science and economics can be evaded and forgotten. In transition from capitalism to socialism, buying and selling will most likely still exist, for a number of reasons: the nature of a given economy that is under the ownership and control of workers may be underdeveloped, all of the means of production may not be socialized yet, etc etc.


Why it is called state-capitalism if there are no market and private property?State-capitalism (SC) is the accumulation of capital by the state, rather than private capitalists; therefore SC, is essentially 'leashed capitalism' or capitalism without the capitalists, to paraphrase Mao. SC, even according to Lenin, was a step forward for the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1918, as compared to the petit-bourgeois nature of the small-proprietors that formed the main characteristics of the Russian economy. SC only functioned in compatibility with the Russian dotp until the end of the first five year plan, where the backward nature of Russia's economy was forever abolished.

State-capitalism, when used to define the later Soviet Union, is wholly incorrect; but when describing the early transitory nature of the Soviet state, before the complete socialization of the MOP and industrialization of the Soviet economy, then it is accurate.

I would advise reading Lenin's Tax In Kind (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm).