Marxism and Money

[btpound]

I posted a topic on a similar question a little while ago, but here I will try to make my question more specific. What happens with the money after the revolution? I always kind of thought that the monetary system already established would be overthrown with the state. This to me means that we all sort of go back to zero (the ones who aren't already there.) Will the money we use now still be used later on? Or will all that money, physical and digital, be worthless? I understand that "money" will change in the way Marx talks about, I am asking what happens to the millions of US dollars already in circulation? Is this the purpose of graduated income tax? I guess what I am really asking is how the basis of the economy be restructure in the transition to socialism?

[Drace]

I'm thinking that it will lose its all its value and become worthless. This would actually have to be an essential task to rid the problem of the existing inequality and wealth disparity.

[ArrowLance]

It is doubtful that money will be removed immediate at the time of revolution, or even soon after. Without some system of distribution and infrastructure to carry it out, we will have to keep the old until we can make a socialist and then communist system a possibility.

[ZeroNowhere]

After the revolution, it will be donated to Two-Face impersonators.

[FSL]

A communist revolution doesn't abolish money immediately. Heavy taxation on property is imposed and also the cause of inequality -means of production belonging to a few- is done away with. The wage system remains in place with people rewarded according to the knowledge, devotion, hardships or dangers their work requires. Gradually and as the productive forces grow, the "according to their work" becomes "according to their needs" and money is abolished.


An anarchist revolution does seek to abolish money. Some tendencies don't though, for example I think Bakhunin is either against or sees that as a distant opportunity.
Others should probably have a better idea on how this is arranged.

[robbo203]

A communist revolution doesn't abolish money immediately. Heavy taxation on property is imposed and also the cause of inequality -means of production belonging to a few- is done away with. The wage system remains in place with people rewarded according to the knowledge, devotion, hardships or dangers their work requires. Gradually and as the productive forces grow, the "according to their work" becomes "according to their needs" and money is abolished.
.

If that were the case then it quite simply mean that a communist revolution had not yet taken place. The existence of a wage system means you still have capitalism . This is why Marx called for "the abolition of wage labour, capital and their mutual relationship" (The Class Struggles in France) With that, money too would disappear with the "communistic abolition of buying and selling".

The excuse for retaining and prolonging capitalism before carrying out a proper communist revolution - namely to build up the productive forces to thepoint at which communism could effectively operate - probably became defunct around about the end of 19th century. It is absolutely absurd and reactionary to cling on to this excuse now. Even in the 19th century Engels was talking about the possibility of establishing communism in the near future on the grounds that the productive forces then were already sufficiently advanced to provide for a not unreasonable standard of living. Given the massive structural waste of capitalism today - the explosion in the number of socially useless jobs that only help to prop up capitalism and would be discontinued in communism - the productive potential today is far greater than it ever was in the past. Communism really is now on the cards! All we lack is the widespread consciousness and desire to establish it.

[FSL]

The existence of a wage system means you still have capitalism .


Actually, no.

[ZeroNowhere]

True, there was some wage labour under feudalism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If that were the case then it quite simply mean that a communist revolution had not yet taken place. The existence of a wage system means you still have capitalism . This is why Marx called for "the abolition of wage labour, capital and their mutual relationship" (The Class Struggles in France) With that, money too would disappear with the "communistic abolition of buying and selling".

So then was there no revolution in Paris in 1871? Since according to you a communist revolution must abolish wages, then the workers of Paris must have been simply propping up state capitalism right?


The excuse for retaining and prolonging capitalism before carrying out a proper communist revolution - namely to build up the productive forces to thepoint at which communism could effectively operate - probably became defunct around about the end of 19th century.So you would argue that the entire world had sufficient economic development to get rid of all class distinctions and operate economic exchanges and management on the basis of the needs of all people--by the end of the 19th century? Obviously there is a bit of a problem with this suggestion, since by the end of the 19th century the majority of people spanning the whole globe didn't even have access to electricity, or even a steady supply of food. Maybe you neglect the fact that some parts of the world are more developed than others, but when this fact is no longer accurate--then by all means lets have a "proper" communist revolution.


It is absolutely absurd and reactionary to cling on to this excuse now. Even in the 19th century Engels was talking about the possibility of establishing communism in the near future on the grounds that the productive forces then were already sufficiently advanced to provide for a not unreasonable standard of living."The near future", can mean like a hundred years or even longer from Engel's perspective. Again I really don't think you could maintain a classless economic structure in China for example by the late 18th century, or even by the 1970's.


Given the massive structural waste of capitalism today - the explosion in the number of socially useless jobs that only help to prop up capitalism and would be discontinued in communism - the productive potential today is far greater than it ever was in the past. Communism really is now on the cards! All we lack is the widespread consciousness and desire to establish it.Yes today we could see the beginnings of a communist economics and the withering away of systematic distinctions of class but we need far more than consciousness and desire to establish socialism, then communism. Thinking in terms of these ideals will get you nowhere. We need actual political organization and unity among the working and exploited classes. It's a bit more difficult to attain than simply desiring it or being aware of the necessity of these conditions.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The ultimate aim of Marxism is a Communist society, a world without capital where everyone has equal access to goods. Money will not be eliminated immediately from society after a revolution in my mind.

[robbo203]

So then was there no revolution in Paris in 1871? Since according to you a communist revolution must abolish wages, then the workers of Paris must have been simply propping up state capitalism right? .

Well, put it this way - did the Paris Commune establish communism? Clearly not. So my point stands. There was still the need for a communist revolution and you cannot logically assert that a revolution has been accomplished until the objective of that revolution has been put in place. Surely no one could disagree with this point?



So you would argue that the entire world had sufficient economic development to get rid of all class distinctions and operate economic exchanges and management on the basis of the needs of all people--by the end of the 19th century? Obviously there is a bit of a problem with this suggestion, since by the end of the 19th century the majority of people spanning the whole globe didn't even have access to electricity, or even a steady supply of food. Maybe you neglect the fact that some parts of the world are more developed than others, but when this fact is no longer accurate--then by all means lets have a "proper" communist revolution. .

I have been through this before in a previous post. Pointing out that some parts of the world are undeveloped does not contradict the claim that the world as a whole is technologically ready for communism. Obviously in saying that the world as a whole is ready for communism one is assuming that, with the establisment of a global communist society there will be massive and rapid technological and material transfers from the developed to less developed parts and that this can be done most effectively within the framework of a global communist world. The idea that you can have communism or socialism in one country is a nonsense


"The near future", can mean like a hundred years or even longer from Engel's perspective. Again I really don't think you could maintain a classless economic structure in China for example by the late 18th century, or even by the 1970's.
.

No China could not maintain a classless economic structure on its own anymore than any other single country could. But that is not what I am arguing for. Im talking about the viability of global communism.

On Engels, I took the trouble to fish out the relevant quotes and here they are:

“…it is precisely this industrial revolution which has raised the productive power of human labour to such a high level that – for the first time in the history of mankind –
the possibility exists, given a rational division of labour among all, of producing not only enough for the plentiful consumption of all members of society and for an abundant reserve fund, but also of leaving each individual sufficient leisure so that what is really worth preserving in historically inherited culture – science, art, forms of intercourse – may not only be preserved but converted from a monopoly of the ruling class into the common property of the whole of society, and may be further developed.” The Housing Question”, in Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, pp.564-565.

and


“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Anti-Dühring, FLPH, Moscow, 1959, pp. 389-390.

Engels was writing in the 1870s and I think at the time what he had to say was still a bit of exaggeration. By the turn of the century would probably have been more likely in my view and incidentally in the view of quite a few others



Yes today we could see the beginnings of a communist economics and the withering away of systematic distinctions of class but we need far more than consciousness and desire to establish socialism, then communism. Thinking in terms of these ideals will get you nowhere. We need actual political organization and unity among the working and exploited classes. It's a bit more difficult to attain than simply desiring it or being aware of the necessity of these conditions.

I wont get into the argument about socialism being different from communism. I take the traditional marxist pre-Leninist viewthat these are interchangeable terms.

But on the question of consciousness, of course you need political organisation as well as the vehicle for such consciousness. I thought that went without saying and certainly have never denied the need for this and the need for such organisations to democratically capture state power to immediiately dismantle capitalism and its state machine

One final point - even if you disagree with my claim that communism was technologically feasible around the end of the 19th century or beginning of the 20th, do you agree that today the issue is now completely beyond dispute and that at a global level we now easily have the potential to materially and technologically sustain a global communist society? I pointed out that the level of structural waste in global capitalism has never been so high as it is today. It is in fact truly massive in scope. Communism, by getting rid of a vast multitude of socially useless occupations that are necessary only to prop up capitalism will more than double the available manpower and resources for socially useful production to meet human needs. This is the biggest single dimension of the communist productive potential yet it staggers me that so few who call themselves communists today seem to be even aware of its significance or care to say much about it


FSL - OK let me slightly modify my original claim in the light of ZeroNowhere's comment. Assuming society is not going to regress to some pre-capitalist social formation like feudalism, the existence of capitalism today is evidenced by the existence of wage labour and that if you dont get rid of the wages system it follows that you still have capitalism. That is precisely why Marx called for "the abolition of wage labour, capital and their mutual relationship" (The Class Struggles in France) . Note the expression here - "mutual relationship"

[ckaihatsu]

I am asking what happens to the millions of US dollars already in circulation?


One word: Biodiesel. Padding for babies' cribs. Earthworm food. Fancy, if somewhat stiff, toilet paper (and don't say you haven't tried it already).





It is doubtful that money will be removed immediate at the time of revolution, or even soon after. Without some system of distribution and infrastructure to carry it out, we will have to keep the old until we can make a socialist and then communist system a possibility.





In my attached document, 'communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors', at post #101, you'll see that I advocate a system of rolling valuations of recently active workers, through a system of labor credits that apply to *work hours* only, and not to tangible material properties of any sort. This acknowledges that a fully collectivized, or gift, economy, would have *no need or function fulfilled* by assigning quantitative valuations to material products, since everything *could be* coordinated through a *political* economy of collective intention by the society and workers themselves.

The labor credits would serve to take the place of private collections of capital, which today function as the means of coordinating workers in a workforce, through the labor markets. The replacement for today's professionalized managerial staff would be the locality's daily prioritized political demands, aggregated and sorted for the consideration of all liberated workers who would seek to gain labor credits (and to be close to the point of production).

[mykittyhasaboner]

One final point - even if you disagree with my claim that communism was technologically feasible around the end of the 19th century or beginning of the 20th, do you agree that today the issue is now completely beyond dispute and that at a global level we now easily have the potential to materially and technologically sustain a global communist society? I pointed out that the level of structural waste in global capitalism has never been so high as it is today. It is in fact truly massive in scope. Communism, by getting rid of a vast multitude of socially useless occupations that are necessary only to prop up capitalism will more than double the available manpower and resources for socially useful production to meet human needs. This is the biggest single dimension of the communist productive potential yet it staggers me that so few who call themselves communists today seem to be even aware of its significance or care to say much about itToday, yes the ability to establish and maintain a communist society is within reach-but that was not the point of my reply to you.

The point was that the entire world will not simultaneously overthrow capitalism, this means that a period of transition is necessary. Further, if there are to exist a single or various instances of workers overthrowing capitalism and establishing their own rule (in one or multiple countries, but not globally) then it is not possible to access the resources of the entire world and more importantly has to fight for it's own existence against remaining blocs of international capital. This is why in my opinion your perspective is flawed, because you are under the impression that the only time a worker's revolution is possible is when there is "widespread consciousness and desire" across the whole world--meaning you deny any revolution that isn't at first global. Well the working classes of the entire globe aren't going to just unilaterally decide to cast off their oppression under the capitalist system at the same time. That's wishful thinking if you ask me.

If there are successful workers' revolutions in one or multiple countries, but have not yet completely gotten rid of capitalism in all parts of the world, then obviously communism isn't possible--that's a global system. If you don't want to get into the discussion surrounding the difference between socialism and communism then that's fine, but I'm afraid that's the main difference between our arguments so this discussion is then rather pointless.

[robbo203]

Today, yes the ability to establish and maintain a communist society is within reach-but that was not the point of my reply to you..

Good . At least that has got one thing clear. Technologically speaking communism is possible on a global basis


The point was that the entire world will not simultaneously overthrow capitalism, this means that a period of transition is necessary. Further, if there are to exist a single or various instances of workers overthrowing capitalism and establishing their own rule (in one or multiple countries, but not globally) then it is not possible to access the resources of the entire world and more importantly has to fight for it's own existence against remaining blocs of international capital. This is why in my opinion your perspective is flawed, because you are under the impression that the only time a worker's revolution is possible is when there is "widespread consciousness and desire" across the whole world--meaning you deny any revolution that isn't at first global. Well the working classes of the entire globe aren't going to just unilaterally decide to cast off their oppression under the capitalist system at the same time. That's wishful thinking if you ask me. .

Weve been here before. This is an Aunt Sally argument. It is not being suggested that the whole world literally on the same day and the same hour or minute goes over to communism en bloc. What I am talking is a comparatively short time - perhaps a few years at most between the first instance of communism being established until the last across the globe in domino fashion. It is not going to take long for a very simple reason. If the communist movement is a massive one in one part of the world - and I mean a communist movement that actively seeks a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth - then it is going to be a very significant force elsewhere too. It is inconceivable that you could have communist ideas widely circulating in one country and not in another. This is why I say you cannot use past boruegois revolutions as the template for a future communist revolution. Marx too made this point

and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm


You can call this a "transition period" if you like between partial communism and fully global communism but it cannot be a "transition" in the sense that we are not yet talking about a communist society being immediately established whereever it is the communist movement first captures political power. I say that will be communism but it will be a communism to some extent compromised by the need to maintain material links with other parts of the world that are not yet communist but are well on the way to become so. This might perhaps be via some kind of external temporary barter arrangment for instance.

However the main point is this - if communism is ever going to come about it has to start at some point hasnt it. If you are saying that communism cannot be achieved simultaneously throughout the word while implying that this is the only way it can be achieved, you are effectively saying communism is not possible. Is this your position?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Weve been here before. This is an Aunt Sally argument. It is not being suggested that the whole world literally on the same day and the same hour or minute goes over to communism en bloc. What I am talking is a comparatively short time - perhaps a few years at most between the first instance of communism being established until the last across the globe in domino fashion. It is not going to take long for a very simple reason. If the communist movement is a massive one in one part of the world - and I mean a communist movement that actively seeks a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth - then it is going to be a very significant force elsewhere too.
Right as history rightly shows but as history also shows not all movements will succeed and the successful revolutions will be left to defend themselves. The point of "Socialism in One Country" is simply to develop a given socialist revolutionary society as if it were the only one--in order to be able to defend against counterrevolution, and the constant threat of encroachment by international capital. It would be ideal if the period of transition was relatively short but it seems this will not be the case. The real pressing matter is that a socialist republic declare itself capable of developing it's own socialist system of production and ownership even if there is no other republics to aid it's development in the near future. This task however has only been undertaken in societies that are initially very backward, and as a result the economic development of these countries never went further than distribution based on "to each according to their work", which came in the form of monetary compensation for one's labor. Certainly socialist transition has the achievement of a "moneyless commonwealth" as the ultimate goal but an advanced economic basis is required for this.

As far as "statelessness" goes that's a bit different. If we are talking about a revolutionary process with the final victory of socialism (i.e. the elimination of the last bastions of capital) in it's sights then we can talk about statelessness. However if we are talking about one or a bloc of republics developing their societies after the initial victory of socialism in their respective countries then statelessness is out of the question as of that time.




It is inconceivable that you could have communist ideas widely circulating in one country and not in another. Obviously, but this does not mean communist movements are going to be successful in all these countries.


This is why I say you cannot use past boruegois revolutions as the template for a future communist revolution. Marx too made this pointSurely you can't use it as a template, because it's an innately different process, but that does not mean socialism cannot arise first in a single republic, or a bloc of republics and then face the rest of the world for any given period of time.


However the main point is this - if communism is ever going to come about it has to start at some point hasnt it. If you are saying that communism cannot be achieved simultaneously throughout the word while implying that this is the only way it can be achieved, you are effectively saying communism is not possible. Is this your position?No in fact my position is that the establishment of socialism has to start somewhere. However this does not necessitate a short period of time between the initial outbreak of revolution and the transformation of the entire globe. What if one part of the world has established socialist rule, but the revolution in the other parts of the world are rather late in coming, if in they are to take place in the foreseeable future at all? In that case "socialism in one country" is the only option besides defeat until other parts of the world follow suit in overthrowing capitalism.

Lenin and Stalin argued the same thing. Basically because the world is so unevenly developed as a result of the characteristics of capitalism that need not be explained here, it is in fact unlikely that the majority of the world will undergo socialist transformation even within an interval of a "few years at most". Yes, the universal development of productive forces have intertwined the relations of all the markets and private owners of the world--and with it it has also grouped the workers of the world into an internationally distinct class of laborers. Knowing this though, it is also important to note that in different parts of the world the proletariat and other exploited classes are stronger or weaker than in others; in terms of their consciousness, organization, etc. This uneven consciousness among the workers of the world stems directly from the unevenness of development and economic discourse in my opinion.

[btpound]

I think Robbo203 has a sort of utopian view of how socialism will play out. I don't know what you think, but capitalism will not disappear overnight. NOTHING will disappear over night. This is a rigid, nodal way of thinking, that the day after revolution the good witch Lenin pops out and waves his magic wand and presto-polaris, you've got socialism. The capitalist model is still tied to production. The only diffrence is that most of the capitalists have been driven out, killed, or jailed. That's all the revolution has acheived. The hard stuff is still ahead of you. So what you have left is state capitalism. It's scary I know. But gradually we expropriate these industires, nationalize them, give them over to worker control, and slowly dismantle them. Rome wasn't built in a day, not will it be dismantled in a day. If you have a tower made of Janga blocks, you can't remove the bottom and expect it all to stand. You have to gradually de-contruct it, and rebuild. I would really like to hear your vision of how to create socialism in a country like america without using any of the current means of production, or are they not tied to a capitalist model? In that case we have already achieved socialsim!

[robbo203]

I think Robbo203 has a sort of utopian view of how socialism will play out. I don't know what you think, but capitalism will not disappear overnight. NOTHING will disappear over night. This is a rigid, nodal way of thinking, that the day after revolution the good witch Lenin pops out and waves his magic wand and presto-polaris, you've got socialism. !

This is exactly what I am not saying. It is a complete caricature and misunderstanding of the process involved. "Happening overnight" when presumably we are safely tucked up in our beds asleep is totally the wrong metaphor. Socialism/communism will be established rather, metaphorically speaking, in the full glare of daylight - consciously. The switchover to socialism/communiusm - and yes it can only be immediate switchover since logically there is nothing in between a society based on wage labour (capitalism)and a society without wage labour ( unless you want to defy logic and claim that there is) - will have been anticipated for years before. Attitudes on a whole range of things would have been steadily altered in the build up to this point when the movement is poised to capture political power. There will already be in a place a vast number of diverse grassroots projects and experiments that in one or other seek to transcend the commodity relationship - from LETS to mutual aud projects and freecyle ventures. This kinds of things prefiguring a communist society will expand in tandem with the growth of the communist movement itself and help to radically transform attitudes across the board BEFORE communism is finally enacted. Communism is not something that will creep up on us like a "thief at night" as someone once said, catching us unawares



The capitalist model is still tied to production. The only diffrence is that most of the capitalists have been driven out, killed, or jailed. That's all the revolution has acheived. The hard stuff is still ahead of you. So what you have left is state capitalism. It's scary I know. But gradually we expropriate these industires, nationalize them, give them over to worker control, and slowly dismantle them.


But dont you see - it cannot possibly happen like this! If you nationalise industries you havent got rid of capitalism. By your own admission you still have capitalism. Who is the "we" who is going to do this and then "give them over to worker control". Implicit in the very way you construct this scenario is the existence of a new ruling class ruling paternaistically over the workers. A vanguard in other words This is sheer substititionism. And if you still have capitalism those who administer it will be driven to adminsiter it in the only way in which it can be adminsitered - in the interests of capital and not the workers. And you are wrong , you know - the hard stuff is not ahead of you once you have a revolution and establish communism (and you cannot have had a revolution unless and until you have established communism). The hard stuff is actually well before the revolution is carried out. Right now it is probably the hardest of all




Rome wasn't built in a day, not will it be dismantled in a day. If you have a tower made of Janga blocks, you can't remove the bottom and expect it all to stand. You have to gradually de-contruct it, and rebuild. I would really like to hear your vision of how to create socialism in a country like america without using any of the current means of production, or are they not tied to a capitalist model? In that case we have already achieved socialsim!

Like I said, nobody is suggesting Rome be built in a day. The outlook that will enable a communist society to come into being will take years to build up. Nor am I suggesting that we dispense with the current means of production. That is a crazy idea. Factories, offices, power stations, farms, utilities of one sort or another that have been created under capitalism will be taken over and continue to be used under communism but progressively adapted or finetuned to meet the needs of the population.

I think you are very misinformed on quite a number of points. Might I recommend you read up something which will help to clarify matters enormously. Can I recommend to you a pamphlet that was produced by the WSM some years back called Socialism as a Practical Alternative http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/saapa.pdf . Please do have a look at it. Seriously.

[mykittyhasaboner]

it can only be immediate switchover since logically there is nothing in between a society based on wage labour (capitalism)and a society without wage labour ( unless you want to defy logic and claim that there is)Perhaps a transitional period from a wage-labor society to a society w/out wage labor? If there is to be an immediate switchover between wage labor and non wage labor society, how do you propose wage labor be suddenly abolished? Is wage labor to be replaced with production and distribution according to need immediately? Certainly this would cause many problems in the economic sphere of society.

On the other hand, if you do acknowledge that a period of transition (which I refer to as socialism, just so we don't confused with terms here) must take place before the whole of society can transcend class relations and establish communist classlessness and "moneylessness", then what kind of economy should be implemented?

[ckaihatsu]

---





If you nationalise industries you havent got rid of capitalism. By your own admission you still have capitalism. Who is the "we" who is going to do this and then "give them over to worker control". Implicit in the very way you construct this scenario is the existence of a new ruling class ruling paternaistically over the workers. A vanguard in other words This is sheer substititionism. And if you still have capitalism those who administer it will be driven to adminsiter it in the only way in which it can be adminsitered - in the interests of capital and not the workers.




I *like* to think that this classic anarchism vs. Marxism schism is simply a difference of *focus*, that of micro vs. macro, respectively. But I just can't accept the profound anxiety and mistrust of the anarchist position that the proletariat would be inherently *unable* to correctly wield its control over the state as a means of undoing the bourgeoisie. It's certainly understandable and appreciable that there's a concern about a vanguard "staying too long" in a specialized position of coordinating the revolution against the capitalists, but I maintain that once the capitalist enemy is overthrown and scattered the general proletariat population will be freed up to refocus their energies in self-determined ways, at their localities.

Consider how much of our political attention is taken up with keeping tabs on the atrocities created by the bourgeoisie, *at the international level* -- with this "political overhead" removed there would only be the self-activity of the workers wherever they're at. Even a class-war-victorious vanguard would not be able to surreptitiously "command" enough political capital to become an elitist, privileged layer of its own, against the masses, if the revolution was truly worldwide and won full control over the assets and resources that we see today (or better). Simply put, a post-revolution vanguard in a classless society would be absolutely *extraneous* and any claims to power could easily go unheeded by the world's then-self-liberated population.

[robbo203]

Perhaps a transitional period from a wage-labor society to a society w/out wage labor? If there is to be an immediate switchover between wage labor and non wage labor society, how do you propose wage labor be suddenly abolished? Is wage labor to be replaced with production and distribution according to need immediately? Certainly this would cause many problems in the economic sphere of society.

On the other hand, if you do acknowledge that a period of transition (which I refer to as socialism, just so we don't confused with terms here) must take place before the whole of society can transcend class relations and establish communist classlessness and "moneylessness", then what kind of economy should be implemented?

I think it doesnt make sense at all to talk of a transition between a money-based economy of wage labour and a moneyless wageless communist society. Either you have money or you dont. Its one or the other., there is no third option. To say there is is a bit like saying you are a "little bit" preganant.

In this sense the switchover to communism can only be immediate. What you are switching from insofar as it retains wage labour can only be capitalism, whatever label you attach to it, since wage labour necessarily implies capital and vice versa.

Instead of looking for a mythical transition "between capitalism and communism," (and yes I know Marx used the expression in the context of the dictatorshipo of the proletariat but I think he was seriously in error on this point) it would be far more productive to talk of a transition within capitalism itself . This would occur prior to the revolution that would immediately bring capitalism to an end.

That is much more logically coherent way of looking at this whole matter

[mykittyhasaboner]

I think it doesnt make sense at all to talk of a transition between a money-based economy of wage labour and a moneyless wageless communist society. Either you have money or you dont. Its one or the other., there is no third option. To say there is is a bit like saying you are a "little bit" preganant.

I don't think the analogy is accurate. It makes perfect sense to talk of a transition period between capitalism and communism, because communism cannot appear instantly after workers take power and begin organizing and running society according to their interests and in the interests of abolishing classes all together. I don't understand why this is hard to grasp, because it's erroneous to think that post-scarcity economics based on need can be implemented, even within a short time after workers have taken power. Such an economy can only be implemented when the entire world has abolished capitalism, and as we have already discussed before this will not happen simultaneously, ergo, there must lie a period of transition between the defeat of capitalist rule and the achievement of communism.


In this sense the switchover to communism can only be immediate. What you are switching from insofar as it retains wage labour can only be capitalism, whatever label you attach to it, since wage labour necessarily implies capital and vice versa.

Who said anything about wage-labor? I define wage labor as exploitation of laborers who have nothing else to sell but their labor--which appears on the capitalist market to be bought and sold, in order for the capitalist to profit from this labor and compensating the worker with a wage that is less than the value produced. Just because laborers receive monetary compensation for their work, does not inherently imply that exploitation or any kind of buying or selling of labor is going on. Wage labor must be abolished when workers take power, repress counter revolution and take the reins of their economy. This doesn't mean they immediately turn to labor vouchers or gift economy, because in a lot of cases it has been impractical to do so and probably will be in the future.


Instead of looking for a mythical transition "between capitalism and communism," (and yes I know Marx used the expression in the context of the dictatorshipo of the proletariat but I think he was seriously in error on this point) it would be far more productive to talk of a transition within capitalism itself . This would occur prior to the revolution that would immediately bring capitalism to an end.

You can't have the workers in power dictate the operations of the economy in order to one day, when capitalism is dead and gone, abolish class distinction and be able to implement communist gift economies--before the revolution in which workers empower themselves.


That is much more logically coherent way of looking at this whole matter
Well obviously that's a matter of perspective.

[robbo203]

I don't think the analogy is accurate. It makes perfect sense to talk of a transition period between capitalism and communism, because communism cannot appear instantly after workers take power and begin organizing and running society according to their interests and in the interests of abolishing classes all together. I don't understand why this is hard to grasp, because it's erroneous to think that post-scarcity economics based on need can be implemented, even within a short time after workers have taken power. Such an economy can only be implemented when the entire world has abolished capitalism, and as we have already discussed before this will not happen simultaneously, ergo, there must lie a period of transition between the defeat of capitalist rule and the achievement of communism..

But this is precisely my point - it doesnt make any sense at all to talk of a transition between capitalism and communism. There is nothing between capitalism and communism. There cannot possibly be anyore than you can be a little bit pregnant. If youve got a money system , wage labour and so on even though the working class might have captured political power you STILL have capitalism. You STILL have a capitalist class if you have a working class working for wages or salaries. And that logically means you STILL have to carry out a genuine communist revolution to institute a moneyless wageless communist commonwealth. This is the point you are constantly missing




Who said anything about wage-labor? I define wage labor as exploitation of laborers who have nothing else to sell but their labor--which appears on the capitalist market to be bought and sold, in order for the capitalist to profit from this labor and compensating the worker with a wage that is less than the value produced. Just because laborers receive monetary compensation for their work, does not inherently imply that exploitation or any kind of buying or selling of labor is going on. Wage labor must be abolished when workers take power, repress counter revolution and take the reins of their economy. This doesn't mean they immediately turn to labor vouchers or gift economy, because in a lot of cases it has been impractical to do so and probably will be in the future. .

No this is quite wrong and, if I might say so , completely at variance with the marxian analysis of wage labour. If you have wage labour that necessarily implies the sale of labour power in the form of a commodity on what is called a labour market. Every sale entails a buyer and therefore the sale of labour power in exchange for wages implies a buyer of said labour power - a capitalist , employer, owner or whatever you would like to call such a person. As Marx said, wage labour presupposes capital and capital wage labour. Now it is true that wage labour existed before capitalism as ZeroNowhere pointed out but the distinguishing feature of capitalism is generalised wage labour whereby the majority of the population depends on a wage or salary for their means of living for the reason that they are divorced from the means of production i.e. own little or no capital




You can't have the workers in power dictate the operations of the economy in order to one day, when capitalism is dead and gone, abolish class distinction and be able to implement communist gift economies--before the revolution in which workers empower themselves.

.


Who said anything about the workers dictating the "operation of the economy" before the revolution happened? One of the insights of Marx is that no one actually dictates the operation of the capitalist economy anyway - not even the capitalists - since the economy operates according to laws that derive from the very nature of the system itself. Im talking about grassroots initiatives that transcend the capitalist economy not seek to operate it, that dispense with wage labour and monetary exchanges as far as this is possible. Like I said, if you are going to talk about a "transition" then it would be much more help to see this as a transition within capitalism. We are in this transition right now!

[Sendo]

It is doubtful that money will be removed immediate at the time of revolution, or even soon after. Without some system of distribution and infrastructure to carry it out, we will have to keep the old until we can make a socialist and then communist system a possibility.

PRetty much my feelings as well. Which is why I think it is very good to study economic theory of capitalism and socialism. The transition period will need finance ministers after all. I get a bit peeved when people write off the value of economics just because they want jump to the idealist end stage. I hate the economics of a corporate businesses, and "autistic" economics in a vacuum, but the effect of trade plans, import/export/, externalities, inflation, investment, etc are all things we (collectively) have to deal with now and in the transition (I doubt there will be a simultaneous world revolution making borders or national currencies redundant. Look at ALBA, they are united strongly but even they won't have an EU-style currency).

Tranisiton periods will be needed: for spreading revolution, organizing workers, making even development, rebuilding the state infrastructure, etc

[robbo203]

PRetty much my feelings as well. Which is why I think it is very good to study economic theory of capitalism and socialism. The transition period will need finance ministers after all. I get a bit peeved when people write off the value of economics just because they want jump to the idealist end stage. I hate the economics of a corporate businesses, and "autistic" economics in a vacuum, but the effect of trade plans, import/export/, externalities, inflation, investment, etc are all things we (collectively) have to deal with now and in the transition (I doubt there will be a simultaneous world revolution making borders or national currencies redundant. Look at ALBA, they are united strongly but even they won't have an EU-style currency).

Tranisiton periods will be needed: for spreading revolution, organizing workers, making even development, rebuilding the state infrastructure, etc

But I raise the same point that Ive made many times before which has never been answered. Your transition period is not a transition between capitalism and communism since it is logically impossible to have a temporal transition between a money-based capitalist economy and moneyless socialist economy. Think about for a moment and you will see why. Its so obvious. The transition you are talking is a transition WITHIN capitalism not BEYOND capitalism.

At some point you are still going to have to have a revolution - if you seriously want socialism - that brings about a moneyless socialist society and the outcome of such a revolution can only be the immediate abolition of capitalism and its money system. Otherwise you havent actually had a socialist revolution yet, only an alteration in the administration of capitalism which serves no other purpose than to prolong capitalism

[btpound]

I understand what you are saying robbo. But socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism. It will share aspects of the two. No revolution, no violent overturning of any system, will build a production model for you. The point of revolution, is to put power in the hands of those who can begin the process toward communism from capitalism. The first step of this, the very first step, will be state capitalism. There is no avoiding this. You cannot just abolish money, abolish the state, abolish the capitalist mode of production, and just delare communism. It will be a painstaking, rigorous process, that will require first the nationalization of all industry and production, then the slow transition towards a socialist model. There will be things you can do on day one, but only those things which you have created the productive forces to provide, such as housing, food, and healthcare. But if the modes of socialist production were to exist while we had capitalism, then we wouldn't have capitalism. While there are specific critearia that distinguish capitalism from socialism, there is no specific thing you can point to and say "there! Socialism". Socialism is a process. It is a transition from one form of production to another. If you have another suggestion of how we can achieve socialism without nationalizing the capitlaist mode of production and slowly dismantaling it, I would genuinely like to hear it.

[robbo203]

I understand what you are saying robbo. But socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism. It will share aspects of the two. No revolution, no violent overturning of any system, will build a production model for you. The point of revolution, is to put power in the hands of those who can begin the process toward communism from capitalism. The first step of this, the very first step, will be state capitalism. There is no avoiding this. You cannot just abolish money, abolish the state, abolish the capitalist mode of production, and just delare communism. It will be a painstaking, rigorous process, that will require first the nationalization of all industry and production, then the slow transition towards a socialist model. There will be things you can do on day one, but only those things which you have created the productive forces to provide, such as housing, food, and healthcare. But if the modes of socialist production were to exist while we had capitalism, then we wouldn't have capitalism. While there are specific critearia that distinguish capitalism from socialism, there is no specific thing you can point to and say "there! Socialism". Socialism is a process. It is a transition from one form of production to another. If you have another suggestion of how we can achieve socialism without nationalizing the capitlaist mode of production and slowly dismantaling it, I would genuinely like to hear it.

With respect, you say you have understood what I have said but you havent. You try to get round the point by bringing up the idea of socialism as a transition between capitalism and communism. Well ,we are not going to agree on this because you subscribe to a lenininist conception of socialism as distinct from communism whereas I subscribe to a marxian definition of socialism as synonymous with or interchangeable with communism (see my post in the politics section on the Russian Revolution)

However rather than engage in a sterile and pointless debate about the meaning of words , let me get to the heart of the argumnent you are advancing. Whatever you call this transition, what I think we can both agree on is that it is not communism. I would say becuase it retains money and wages that your "transition" is simply a modification of capitalism, not a transcendance of capitalism. That means you still have to carry out a communist revolution - you can hardly deny this can you since you would surely agree that communism entails the absence of money and wages.

Which brings me to the central point - how can you get rid of money and wages except "instantaneously". Unless you are advocating a gradual withdrawal of notes and coins in circulation until there is nothing circulating at all which is of course a batty idea. The money system has to go in one instance and its abolition has to be a coordinated process. That is what a communist revolution must entail the immeditate abolition of money

Regarding the need for a transition , it would say the only logical and coherent way in which you can talk of this is as a transtion WITHIN capitalism. State capitalism which you mention is an example of this but I would say state capitalism is not a useful model at all for an intra-capitalist transitional stage

I realise Marx and Engels thought differnently. The Engels quote in Socialism Utopian and Scientific is illustrative of the way they thought

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution (ibid. 71)

What Engels was saying here is state ownership has nothing to do with socialism but it provides the "tecnical conditions" that are conducive to socialism. By this he meant that it faciliated large scale production and the hothouse development of the productive forces within capitalism and thus brings the possibility of socialism nearer.

Even if Engels was correct on this score I think such an argument is now completely redundant. The global technological potential for a communist or socialist society has been around for decades. And besides the concentration of capital within capitalism itself has rendered the need for the state to facilitate this, somewhat redundant. There is no real reason for advocating state capitalism as a transitional form from the standpoiint of acieving a genuine communist society. Quite the contrary.

Far more promising than state capitalism ever was as a transitional form within capitalism are those kinds of grassroots intiatives that seek to transcend the commodity relationship - LETS, freecycle projects, mutual aid schemes , intentional communities and the like. These at least give workers a taste of, and open minds to, the possiblity of a non-monetary alternative to capitalism. State capitalism does not.

If you seriuously are interested in the idea of a transition towards communism I suggest you relinquish this outdated adherence to the principle of state capitalism and look elsewhere for a much more promising alternative

[ckaihatsu]

Which brings me to the central point - how can you get rid of money and wages except "instantaneously". Unless you are advocating a gradual withdrawal of notes and coins in circulation until there is nothing circulating at all which is of course a batty idea. The money system has to go in one instance and its abolition has to be a coordinated process. That is what a communist revolution *must* entail the immeditate abolition of money


Robbo, I think you're getting too hung-up on the *mechanism*, or tool, of the currency system itself and are forgetting that, regardless of implementation, it has undeniable *political* underpinnings and meanings.

As a tool of the bourgeoisie, current, conventional currency should be seen as being fractional shares of ownership in the world's amassed private property -- and possibly partial ownership in the means of mass production, at larger scales. But for the working class each dollar bill is an explicit reminder that we're being forced to play by someone else's rules, and not by our own. Whatever daily hum-drum utility we may get from the use of capitalist currency is virtually synonymous with the black market, politically speaking, since it's entirely on the fringes of what the use of capital means to the capitalists themselves.





Which brings me to the central point - how can you get rid of money and wages except "instantaneously".


Let's counterpose the current *political meaning* of currency to that which would develop at the hands of a(n increasingly) victorious working class revolutionary movement.

In using the *exact same* pool of existing currency notes the working class could *immediately* change the *political meaning* and *usage* of that circulation system. Too much of it dammed up on banks' balance sheets, and in hedge funds and private equity funds? The proletariat's revolutionary mass control of the formerly bourgeois state would be the deciding factor -- it would have the mass support to *dictate* the freeing up of blocked funds so as to provide liquidity for immediate re-employment and wages.

Too many white-collar hacks ossifying the financial / political superstructure? The entire strata of those "job" positions could be collapsed, thus changing the actual *organs* of the economy altogether, in favor of job positions in the social services that fulfill working class (human) needs.





Far more promising than state capitalism ever was as a transitional form within capitalism are those kinds of grassroots intiatives that seek to transcend the commodity relationship - LETS, freecycle projects, mutual aid schemes , intentional communities and the like. These at least give workers a taste of, and open minds to, the possiblity of a non-monetary alternative to capitalism. State capitalism does not.


There's *nothing wrong* with grassroots initiatives -- except to the extent that they may detract from or interfere with a combined, collective revolutionary political offensive against the forces of capital. But -- once international working class self-rule has been accomplished the rest would be purely *internal* politics, as to whether initiatives should be *large-scale* or *small-scale*.