Money: can it really dissapear.

[A.R.Amistad]

Marx talks about the withering away of money in very much the same way as the withering away of the state. I believe the state, defined as the system of force used to maintain a certain class' rule, can whither away once social classes have disappeared, but I don't know if I agree with Marx on the idea of money withering away. I can see bourgeois money being scrapped in favor of proletarian money, and proletarian money being converted into communist money, but I still think that conceptually money will still exist. A traditional definition of money that I came across is "anything customarily used as a medium of exchange, a unit of accounting and a store of value." Surely we can do away with money as of now, which is based on nothing more than the wealth of the ruling class, but wouldn't the concept of money exist as long as we eat food, go to a movie, go to the dentist, build a boat, etc. etc. under socialism and then communism? In what sense can money disappear?

[Devrim]

...but I still think that conceptually money will still exist. A traditional definition of money that I came across is "anything customarily used as a medium of exchange, a unit of accounting and a store of value." Surely we can do away with money as of now, which is based on nothing more than the wealth of the ruling class, but wouldn't the concept of money exist as long as we eat food, go to a movie, go to the dentist, build a boat, etc. etc. under socialism and then communism? In what sense can money disappear?

Communist theory is based on the suppression of exchange and the law of value and the free distribution of goods, as Marx put it rather simply in the Critique of the Gotha Program "to each according to his needs"*.

Devrim

*actually he ripped it off Louis Blanc.

[Paul Cockshott]

Communist theory is based on the suppression of exchange and the law of value and the free distribution of goods, as Marx put it rather simply in the Critique of the Gotha Program "to each according to his needs"*.

Devrim

*actually he ripped it off Louis Blanc.

Marx saw the abolition of money coming well before that. Both in CGP and in Capital he foresees a system of non-transferable labour credits replacing money.

[A.R.Amistad]

Marx saw the abolition of money coming well before that. Both in CGP and in Capital he foresees a system of non-transferable labour credits replacing money

But according to the traditional definition, aren't non-transferable labor credits still a form of money?

[ZeroNowhere]

No, they do not circulate. When one gives them in for goods, they cease to exist. Else we should retain exchange-value, and hence generalized commodity production, which is a nicer way of saying capitalism.

Edit:

*actually he ripped it off Louis Blanc.Given that the vast majority of that paragraph was dedicated to setting down the conditions under which it would be possible, I'm not sure it was really much of a ripoff so much as an enumeration of the necessary conditions for a society following a suggested mode of distribution.

[A.R.Amistad]

Ah, ok, I see. So money would lose its circulation value. But certain things would still have value though.

[ZeroNowhere]

Nothing would have value.


Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.

In actual fact, the concept “value” presupposes “exchanges” of the products. Where labour is communal, the relations of men in their social production do not manifest themselves as “values” of “things”.-Marx.

Its role as means of circulation, and as universal equivalent commodity, are parts of what defines money as such. Money cannot exist without commodity production. Labour credits are, as Marx put it, "no more 'money' than a theatre ticket is."

[cska]

No, they do not circulate. When one gives them in for goods, they cease to exist. Else we should retain exchange-value, and hence generalized commodity production, which is a nicer way of saying capitalism.

Edit: Given that the vast majority of that paragraph was dedicated to setting down the conditions under which it would be possible, I'm not sure it was really much of a ripoff so much as an enumeration of the necessary conditions for a society following a suggested mode of distribution.

Yes they do circulate. When one gives them in for goods, an equal amount of labour credits is given out to those responsible for creating the goods. Just because their value is tied to amount of labour rather than the gold standard or banks' wishes doesn't mean it isn't money. It is still a medium of exchange. You are exchanging labour value.



Its role as means of circulation, and as universal equivalent commodity, are parts of what defines money as such. Money cannot exist without commodity production. Labour credits are, as Marx put it, "no more 'money' than a theatre ticket is."

I think Marx is defining money in his own way here, not the way most economists would describe it. The difference between the labor ticket and a theatre ticket is that a theatre ticket is only (usually) exchanged for a seat during a movie, where as labor tickets are exchanged for everything you need.

Here I am talking about labor tickets being money. If we went under the rule, "From each according to ability. To each according to need," then we will have gotten rid of money.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The goal of communism is the free and equal distribution and access to goods. Money and trade is insignificant by this point.