Why should be abolish private property?

[Jacob Cliff]

I know about exploitation and stuff but why go so far to completely destroy capitalism? Wouldn't workers still be exploited under communism and socialism, but this time by society? Would exploitation just be transferred to where un paid surplus value is taken by the public?

[Tim Cornelis]

Didn't you already ask that question before?

[Creative Destruction]

I know about exploitation and stuff but why go so far to completely destroy capitalism? Wouldn't workers still be exploited under communism and socialism, but this time by society? Would exploitation just be transferred to where un paid surplus value is taken by the public?

No.

[Comrade #138672]

Because capitalism is rooted in private property. You cannot destroy capitalism without abolishing private property.

And no, workers would cease to exist as workers and can therefore no longer be exploited as such. Besides, in a world of abundance, there is no need for exploitation.

[Jacob Cliff]

So what happens to the surplus labor workers perform? How do they benefit? Why would a worker work to create surplus product?

[Creative Destruction]

So what happens to the surplus labor workers perform? How do they benefit? Why would a worker work to create surplus product?

There simply is no "surplus value" to be had. There's no value, period, other than use-value. Assuming we're talking about the "lower phase of communism," workers get back a proportion of their full labor, after deductions have been made for social projects and administration. There's no profit being generated so there can't be any profit that is extracted.

[Comrade #138672]

So what happens to the surplus labor workers perform?At first, it will be distributed according to need. Later production will be almost entirely automatic.


How do they benefit? Why would a worker work to create surplus product?To be able to live good and secure lives.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Repeating the claim that workers would be exploited in communism doesn't make it correct.

[Jacob Cliff]

From my understanding, exploitation is the unpaid surplus labor by the working class. Does communism abolish this by aboliting "pay"? My question could be worded this way: in the same way that capitalists appropriate the products of labor would this only be replaced by societal appropriation?

[Creative Destruction]

From my understanding, exploitation is the unpaid surplus labor by the working class. Does communism abolish this by aboliting "pay"?

Yes, in a way. I'm pretty sure you've started a thread before about remuneration under communism. You should go reference the conversations that have already been had.


My question could be worded this way: in the same way that capitalists appropriate the products of labor would this only be replaced by societal appropriation?

"Appropriation" implies undue taking of something. Within communism, in the lower phase, there are "deductions" made to the "pay" that people get. These deductions are for democratically decided social projects. It's an agreement among everyone that we're going to get something done and there needs to be an x-amount of communal credits dedicated toward the project. This is no the same as appropriation, much less appropriation via the extraction of surplus labor under a capitalist system.

I understand this is the "Learning" forum, but these questions you're asking have been asked before, and I'm pretty sure you're the one who has asked them. It gets a little wearing on the nerves when you keep asking the same or similar questions when we've already answered them.

[Comrade #138672]

My question could be worded this way: in the same way that capitalists appropriate the products of labor would this only be replaced by societal appropriation?No. It is fundamentally different. There is no "appropriation", since society is self-managed. Appropriation necessitates the existence of classes, which contradicts communism, i.e., a classless society.

[Comrade #138672]

I have been browsing through the last two pages of the learning section and MarxianSocialist seems to have started ~50% of the threads so far. I do not think it is bad to ask questions, but:

1. Make sure your question is relevant and is not overly trivial. Trivial questions have likely been answered already on this forum.
2. Make sure that you elaborate your question. What is it that you need to know? What kind of answer do you seek? You see, overly generic questions can be interpreted in many ways and so it can be hard to answer those questions.
3. Re-evaluate your question to see whether you have not already asked the same question using a slightly different formulation.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

First, I am going to assume that you are asking this honestly. The problem is that you're misunderstanding Marxism - and the way in which you misunderstand it is fairly widespread. The problem is twofold: you treat categories like surplus value as trans-historical, and you think the point of Marx's criticism of capitalism is in the fact of exploitation.

The description of value found in Capital, and other works by Marx, is a description of capitalism. Marx does not claim to have discovered some kind of timeless category, like those ridiculous Austrian "economists" with their praxeology voodoo. He is describing how capitalism (and to a lesser extent simple commodity production) works. Value is part of this description - it describes how commodities are exchanged on the market. In socialism, there is no commodity production, no market, and no exchange. So value does not exist in socialism.

Second, Marxism is not a moral criticism of exploitation. Exploitation is, again, a description of how profit is generated in capitalist enterprise. There is no exploitation in a slave economy that does not produce for the market, for example. Marxists oppose capitalism, not because it is immoral (whatever that means), but because it holds back the development of the productive forces and there is no longer any need for the producers to have access to only a small amount of the social product. The productive forces have outgrown capitalism, and so it must go, because the only alternative is the destruction of the productive forces and the fall of civilisation into barbarism.

As I said, these misunderstandings are quite widespread. What is even more problematic is that they often combine into a form of vicious market producerism, represented on this forum most capably by fabian and Sotionov, who was also fabian, which denounces all forms of social cooperation as "theft", people who are unable to work as "parasites" etc. A "socialism" for self-important angry middle-aged men.

Now, as I said, all of this assumes you were being honest with your question. As several people have already noted, you seem to post these fairly basic questions then go away, and many of them look what people generally call concern trolling.

[Jacob Cliff]

Doesn't help when the actual response is half readable due to arguments with other peoples interpretations of Marx, which seems to happen on every thread asking about a major issue.

[#FF0000]

Doesn't help when the actual response is half readable due to arguments with other peoples interpretations of Marx, which seems to happen on every thread asking about a major issue.

that didn't happen in this thread.

have you tried reading Marx for yourself?

[Creative Destruction]

Doesn't help when the actual response is half readable due to arguments with other peoples interpretations of Marx, which seems to happen on every thread asking about a major issue.

This is just an unfortunate by-product of a large group of people reading texts that are sometimes ambiguous or people not reading the texts closely enough. You'll have to get over it if you're going to learn anything or if you want to contribute to the conversation. Read Marx, see what he is saying and come back with questions that you can form on a textual basis. This model that you're using -- of asking multiple questions, sometimes the same questions, and then leaving the thread to not actually participate in the conversation -- obviously isn't working.