Civil War in France/ Critique of Gotha Programme extracts- I'm confused!

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

'The Commune was to be a working and not a Parliamentary body,executive and legislative at the same time'

What is meant by a 'working' body? Do our currently elected MP's not 'work'?

As I understand it, a legislative body is one which proposes and votes on legislation and the executive forcibly implements it, is this correct?

'[The worker] recieves a certificate from society that he/she has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour; and wig this certificate he draws from the social stock of the means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost'

Presumably this certificate takes the form of labour vouchers?

If so, imagine this example, a worker walks into a shop with 8 hours worth of labor vouchers, what might this buy him/her? I just don't see how you could put an individual time value on a banana for example.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Come on folks, surely I'm not the only one that reads Marx!

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Somebody please talk to me!!!

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Surely this is more interesting than the endless Stalin-Trotsky debates!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

'The Commune was to be a working and not a Parliamentary body,executive and legislative at the same time'

What is meant by a 'working' body? Do our currently elected MP's not 'work'?
It means exactly what it says, legislative (passing laws) and executive (responsible for carrying them out) at the same time.

[The Jay]

'The Commune was to be a working and not a Parliamentary body,executive and legislative at the same time'

What is meant by a 'working' body? Do our currently elected MP's not 'work'?

As I understand it, a legislative body is one which proposes and votes on legislation and the executive forcibly implements it, is this correct?

'[The worker] recieves a certificate from society that he/she has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour; and wig this certificate he draws from the social stock of the means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost'

Presumably this certificate takes the form of labour vouchers?

If so, imagine this example, a worker walks into a shop with 8 hours worth of labor vouchers, what might this buy him/her? I just don't see how you could put an individual time value on a banana for example.

This is more interesting than sectarian flame wars. Thanks for the topic!

You are correct in your question about how legislative and executive branches work in parliamentary democracy. In my limited knowledge, what was referred to as a 'working body' that was both the executive and legislative authority is either a worker's council or a community council, take the soviets for example. (I lean more towards community councils but that's just me.)

It does seem to indicate labor vouchers. I don't know how that would work either to be honest but I can guess that those vouchers would be used for 'luxuries' and not necessities. Again, that is just a guess.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Thanks for the responses! If anyone knows of a text where Marx more clearly explains distribution in a socialist society please could you direct me to it, thanks.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

I'll bump this one last time to see if I can get anyone else interested...

[Dave B]

Well actually Karl didn’t like the idea of labour vouchers either but just sort went along with the idea as it seemed to be a popular intermediary idea at the time with the working class eg;

Eg starting after the underline at;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm


Big fans of the idea were the Deleonist American SLP and they do have a sophisticated worked out mechanism for it.

Its not my SPGB game though, but we have had in the past long and lively debates with them on our forum.


Engels talked around the subject a bit in Anti-duhring in the section on;

Socialism- production/distribution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm

[u.s.red]

I'll bump this one last time to see if I can get anyone else interested...

Every now and then a raging flame war breaks out on this site about how commodities (i.e., bananas) will be distributed in a communist society. One side says there will just be a big warehouse full of bananas which comrades will be able to walk into and take the bananas they need (from each, etc.)

I think Marx began to discuss this in The Critique of the Gotha Program. He predicted a transition from capitalism to an early stage of communism (socialism?) In this early stage people will still be "paid" for the value of their work. Those who are stronger, smarter, etc. will be paid more per hour than the less smart, less strong. They will be paid in labor "vouchers," or, as I think, in federal reserve notes/vouchers. A deduction will be made for those who need health care, schools, food, etc. Marx believed that certain characteristics of capitalism such as prices, money, and labor value measured in money, will be retained in the early stages of communism.

Thus, to answer your question, a banana will be priced at $.50, just like now.
There will be banana scientists, agronomists, plantation managers and workers who drive banana picking equipment. They will be paid based on the value of their labor (some make $10 per hour, some $20, etc.) Society will progressively tax everybody to make sure society is run as fairly as possible. The banana plantation, equipment, science equipment, etc., will be owned by society. Society will also set the price of bananas just like United Fruit and WalMart do now, except the profit from the price will go to society. The price is ultimately determined by the amount of labor needed to produce the banana; the price can now be calculated down to the tenth of a cent by computers.

After this early stage of socialism has been reached, capitalism will be replaced by fully developed communism. How that is going to work I don't think anybody knows. This is the only sane way to make early communism work, unless you want to try Stalinism, which worked pretty well for producing gigantic industries and armies for defeating Hitler, putting astronauts into space, etc.

[Rooster]

Every now and then a raging flame war breaks out on this site about how commodities (i.e., bananas) will be distributed in a communist society. One side says there will just be a big warehouse full of bananas which comrades will be able to walk into and take the bananas they need (from each, etc.)

I think Marx began to discuss this in The Critique of the Gotha Program. He predicted a transition from capitalism to an early stage of communism (socialism?) In this early stage people will still be "paid" for the value of their work. Those who are stronger, smarter, etc. will be paid more per hour than the less smart, less strong. They will be paid in labor "vouchers," or, as I think, in federal reserve notes/vouchers. A deduction will be made for those who need health care, schools, food, etc. Marx believed that certain characteristics of capitalism such as prices, money, and labor value measured in money, will be retained in the early stages of communism.

This is all wrong. He doesn't say anywhere that people will be paid. He says that labour is now a totality and each person would have to do their individual portion. But, people are not equal, some are strong or can work longer, some have families or people to look after, this means that what they can put in and take out has to be uneven because we haven't reached a stage yet where everyone can take out what they want. He also does not say that prices and money will be retained in the early stages of communism. Al you are doing is providing a thin veneer to cover your Stalinism by distorting Marx.


After this early stage of socialism has been reached, capitalism will be replaced by fully developed communism. How that is going to work I don't think anybody knows.

You don't know because you have it wrong. You're trying to say that this lower stage of communism is the same as the Stalinist socialism, the same as the DotP and that's wrong. It provides you with no real mechanism to move on to communism because it would inevitably entail another revolution, a recognition that there was capitalist relations to production.


This is the only sane way to make early communism work, unless you want to try Stalinism, which worked pretty well for producing gigantic industries and armies for defeating Hitler, putting astronauts into space, etc.You've just described Stalinism.

[u.s.red]

You've just described Stalinism.

I said Stalinism was insane. This is what Marx said about unequal labor:

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement."

Labor performed will be exchanged, like a commodity, for labor. One person works 8 hrs in a day. Another works 10 hrs in a day, another works more intensely in one day. The first receives 8 hrs worth of labor, the second, 10 and the third 15 hrs worth of labor. If the average pay is $10 per hour, then the pay is 80, 100, and 150 dollars per day. Thus unequal pay for unequal work. If you don't like dollars, use labor notes: 80, 100 or 150.

The labor notes will be exchanged for commodities of equal value. 1/10th a labor note will buy you 10 cents worth of bananas. Better still, use computer entries on a debit card account: Karl worked 100 worth today, John worked 200 worth today (after taxes, of course.) John can exchange his labor for twice what Karl can.

This is what Marx meant when he talked about communism emerging from capitalism with the old birthmarks of capitalism:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."


The equal exchange of equal commodities, including labor, is not going to suddenly vanish. This is why a heavily progressive tax system is required in socialism.

[u.s.red]

If so, imagine this example, a worker walks into a shop with 8 hours worth of labor vouchers, what might this buy him/her? I just don't see how you could put an individual time value on a banana for example.

Modern economists and accountants actually do put that kind of time value on individual commodities. Walmart, for instance, probably knows within a few seconds how much labor went into getting a banana on the shelf. It measures this time, or cost, by money. Which is why Walmart loves cheap labor so much. So, a worker goes into a shop with 8 hrs or 480 minutes of labor vouchers. (Better if it were all on a debit card.) A vast computer system, say, an IPod phone, then calculates the time value of banana at .480 minutes of labor vouchers. Worker buys the banana with her debit card, gives it to her kid and they go to the free health clinic for their checkup.

An equal exchange of commodities still takes place, the worker's labor for the labor contained in one banana. According to Marx this commodity exchange is still necessary in the initial stages of socialism.

[Rooster]

I said Stalinism was insane. This is what Marx said about unequal labor:

I'm not having a discussion about this, I'm telling you that you've basically just described Stalinism.


"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement."

Yeah fine, but it goes on to say:

"This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."


Labor performed will be exchanged, like a commodity, for labor. One person works 8 hrs in a day. Another works 10 hrs in a day, another works more intensely in one day. The first receives 8 hrs worth of labor, the second, 10 and the third 15 hrs worth of labor. If the average pay is $10 per hour, then the pay is 80, 100, and 150 dollars per day. Thus unequal pay for unequal work. If you don't like dollars, use labor notes: 80, 100 or 150.

The labor notes will be exchanged for commodities of equal value. 1/10th a labor note will buy you 10 cents worth of bananas. Better still, use computer entries on a debit card account: Karl worked 100 worth today, John worked 200 worth today (after taxes, of course.) John can exchange his labor for twice what Karl can.

He says nothing about labour notes being exchanged for commodities at all either. You're still talking about money and I have no idea why. All that Marx said was that the labourer would get a certificate saying that he did his work. It doesn't denote a quantity of it's own, it's not transferable and it's not currency nor a commodity. Which can be seen below.


This is what Marx meant when he talked about communism emerging from capitalism with the old birthmarks of capitalism:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

And you're still missing out the rest of that

And it previously said:

"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. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another."


Read what it says. The certificate is not money. It does not denote currency. The producers do not exchange their products.



The equal exchange of equal commodities, including labor, is not going to suddenly vanish. This is why a heavily progressive tax system is required in socialism.

I have no idea what definition of socialism you are using or how you are coming to these conclusions when it even states, clear as day that

"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. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning"

[u.s.red]

Ok. Suppose the social total of a day's labor is 100 hrs. You have say, 10 workers. Because of unequal strength, mental ability, etc. the workers share the 100 hrs as: workers 1-3, 15 hrs, workers 4-6, 60 hrs, and workers 8-10, 25. Use your own progressive taxation system.

Thus, one worker trades his 5 labor vouchers for 5 labor voucher's worth from the community store, another exchanges his 20 for 20 labor vouchers worth, etc.

Whether you call it labor vouchers, dollars, euros, pounds, or plastic buddhas doesnt matter. It is still exchangeable labor value.

Only when value no longer is measured or even thought of in terms of labor can the system of exchange of commodities be replaced.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Just read through the distribution section of anti-duhring on the recommendation of comrade Dave B, it truly is an enlightening text in terms of the wages system, commodities, value etc and sets forward labour vouchers as a form of distribution in the lower stage of communism but ultimately asserts that the law of value must be overcome to achieve communism. I love Engels :cool: