What replaced money in a Socialist/ Communist society? What process determines value?

[Finn]

In the title, I have a rudimentary idea but most of my knowledge is critique of capitalism and not knowledge of communism, I understand collectivisation and distribution of good according to ability and need but not money and what determines value of a commodity (i.e. what replaces the free market?)
Thanks.

[Freeloader]

What process determines value ?

Well this can be understood first by the phrase "they know the price but not its value!".
Money is an abstract measure of value, it does not determine value. For example consider all the "labour" that contributes to potatoes in market, its value doesn't come from money but from "necessary labour time".

I find the best way to grasp money is to realise that many things have been money, salt, shells precious metals, cattle. The quality that they all shared as monies was that they acted as a universal commodity. You measure the "the worth" of 40 chairs to 100 cattle, this is a trade. But when you compare all things in terms of how many cattle, then cattle is acting as money.

Money again is not = to free market capitalism or something special to it as im sure you are aware it has existed through out slavery, feudalism and all forms of capitalism.
Money may exist in forms in a socialist society , in as much as a socialist society is a first stage towards a communist society.

Its worth reading 1st chapter of capital and value price and profit

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, the point of socialism is that goods are produced for human need, not to be exchanged; they are not commodities, and as such they have no value. For the same reason nothing needs to replace money; simply, the real material relations that money was an expression of have disappeared. In socialism, accounting will be strictly in material terms: the predicted demand for gianduiotti is X tonnes, factory Y in the Z district can produce W tonnes of gianduiotti while using U tonnes of hazelnuts, V tonnes of sugar and so on.

(This also means that there is no universal equivalent: in socialism, we can't bring two kinds of goods into a relation such that X quantity of one good is equal to Y quantity of the other good, while today the money you spend for a bag of gianduiotti will also buy you a pack of cigarettes, for example.)

[Aslan]

predicted demand for gianduiotti is X tonnes, factory Y in the Z district can produce W tonnes of gianduiotti while using U tonnes of hazelnuts, V tonnes of sugar and so on.

We'll be using the metric system in socialism as well. None of that archaic bullshit.. :rolleyes:

[tuwix]

In the title, I have a rudimentary idea but most of my knowledge is critique of capitalism and not knowledge of communism, I understand collectivisation and distribution of good according to ability and need but not money and what determines value of a commodity (i.e. what replaces the free market?)
Thanks.


Free market is impossible by its own definitions. There will be never circumstances where all trade will be allowed without any limits and interventions. But market will always exist even when money will disappear form economy as incidental barter.

But monetary system will be possible to fall when there is such abundance of commodities that at least 90% of physical jobs is done by machines. The rest could be replaced by volunteers. In such circumstances money become obsolete.

[sanpal]

Money may exist in forms in a socialist society , in as much as a socialist society is a first stage towards a communist society.



Perfect first part of message but last part causes some questions:
1) Is there any form of "socialist" money?
2) "... a socialist society is a first stage towards a communist society ..." or a communist society has a first stage?

[Freeloader]

1) Is there any form of "socialist" money?


Essentially I would say no, forms of money that may linger or creep up in a socialist society would be the residue left from bourgeois relations.

This could be expected in terms of no sudden sharp break with every aspect of bourgoise relations post revolution. (in the extreme the day after the revolution people wont be burning money).

The thing to remember is that the emergence or continued existence of monetary relations is a reflection of continued or deformed bourgeois practices. Which is why ill-thought utopian ideas of abolishing money etc are backwards. Instead we replace the relations and practices and money becomes redundant.



2) "... a socialist society is a first stage towards a communist society ..." or a communist society has a first stage?

This has long been my understanding of the marxist definition of socialism and communism. That is socialism is the first stage of a communist society.

This is discussed to some extent in the classic State and Revolution by Lenin.


Without building utopias, Marx defined more fully what can be defined now regarding this future, namely, the differences between the lower and higher phases (levels, stages) of communist society.


But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

Lenin quoting marx:

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] 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 comes."

This last quote helps answer the first question re. socialist money, that is money or monetary relations would be apart of that birthmark from the old capitalist society. There are many reasons that such money-relations may remain such as the remaining temporary existence of "middle class" petty bourgeois types. Or the uneven development internationally of communism. For example it may be necessary for an advanced socialist society to deal monetarily with bourgeois nations or less developed socialist nations.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Essentially I would say no, forms of money that may linger or creep up in a socialist society would be the residue left from bourgeois relations.

This could be expected in terms of no sudden sharp break with every aspect of bourgoise relations post revolution. (in the extreme the day after the revolution people wont be burning money).

The day after the proletariat has smashed the bourgeois state in one region of the world, or the day after the global victory of the revolution? If the first then yes, obviously people will still use money. For that and other reasons, the geographically-limited revolutionary area will not be socialist, but a transitional society. If the latter, then as soon as the planned production of the proletarian semi-state has been extended to the entire globe, money ceases to have any meaning. Might as well burn it.


This has long been my understanding of the marxist definition of socialism and communism. That is socialism is the first stage of a communist society.

This is discussed to some extent in the classic State and Revolution by Lenin.

No, this is not the Marxist understanding of socialism and communism. This is a tendentious use, originating in the Second International (so that the Kautskys and the Cunows could see signs of "socialism" in the German Junker state), which Lenin merely noted. As you are aware if you read the work in its entirety, he never insisted on the distinction, and never used it. Later Bolshevik texts used "socialism" and "communism" as synonyms, or "communism" exclusively, as Lenin disliked the term "socialism", associating it with the Second International.

Also, Marx talked about a possible initial phase of the communist/socialist society, as in, a brief period where rationing might be needed (obviously the productive forces have advanced quite a bit since Marx's time, putting this conclusion into doubt). Some people have used this to invent an entire "stage" out of whole cloth, as if socialism and communism are two separate societies.


This last quote helps answer the first question re. socialist money, that is money or monetary relations would be apart of that birthmark from the old capitalist society. There are many reasons that such money-relations may remain such as the remaining temporary existence of "middle class" petty bourgeois types. Or the uneven development internationally of communism. For example it may be necessary for an advanced socialist society to deal monetarily with bourgeois nations or less developed socialist nations.

If capitalism still exists in certain parts of the world, if the petite bourgeoisie remains, or if there are still national boundaries, then we're not talking about socialism. Socialism is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are employed according to a scientific plan to satisfy human need. Not an isolated state forced to trade on the global market.

[Luís Henrique]

In the title, I have a rudimentary idea but most of my knowledge is critique of capitalism and not knowledge of communism, I understand collectivisation and distribution of good according to ability and need but not money and what determines value of a commodity (i.e. what replaces the free market?)
Thanks.

Value isn't determined, it is created. By abstract labour. It is the average social labour embodied in each commodity.

Value in turn determinates prices; we only know value empirically through its manifestation in prices. But this is not a conscious, deliberate process: the individual capitalist sums up his costs, then adds a mark-up to reach the profits he intends (considering, of course, the fact that his competitors might take his clients if he overprices). The result is going to be close to the value, but the individual capitalist is oblivious to this.

In a non-commodity-oriented society, value doesn't exist. The amount of abstract labour embodied in each product doesn't matter, and isn't taken into account by any of the "economic" agents. There is only technical calculation of the amounts of individual products needed, regardless of the amount of social labour embodied in them. Conversely, the amounts of labour put into each product aren't value because they aren't used to calculate the proportions, the distribution, or the relations between products.

Consequently, the correspondent decision on whether to produce this or that particular product isn't dictated by value, but (other than technical considerations; if you want to produce gianduiotti you will need to produce hazelnuts, sugar, etc.) merely by the will, or lack thereof, of direct producers to spend their time and energy in producing that particular product (this is also what drives innovation in a non-commodity-oriented society; if we want a given product but do not want to work so much to obtain it, then we will need to improve the production process).

Money and prices are only necessary as long as we produce value, ie, as long as we produce commodities. Conversely, they can only be abandoned when we stop producing commodities.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

We'll be using the metric system in socialism as well. None of that archaic bullshit.. :rolleyes:

Metric tonnes, of course, weighing 1,000 kilograms each.

Luís Henrique

[cyu]

value
is
completely
subjective
.
1 mans
treasure
is
another
mans $h.+
.
beauty
is n dA
eye
o dA b holder
.
eye suppose
if
any1
really
wants
2 fight
endless
battles
they'll
have 2
find
n alternate
universe
=D #114seed :laugh:
n this 1
if its not ashes
blood
and tears
blowing away
n dA wind
den its
just burning leaves
n torn up pokemon
cards

[sanpal]

Essentially I would say no, forms of money that may linger or creep up in a socialist society would be the residue left from bourgeois relations.

This could be expected in terms of no sudden sharp break with every aspect of bourgoise relations post revolution. (in the extreme the day after the revolution people wont be burning money).

The thing to remember is that the emergence or continued existence of monetary relations is a reflection of continued or deformed bourgeois practices. Which is why ill-thought utopian ideas of abolishing money etc are backwards. Instead we replace the relations and practices and money becomes redundant.


Well, there is no special "socialistic" money, OK. So we agree that socialism (under socialism I mean the Proletarian Socialism after Proletarian Revolution i.e the DotP) is practicing the monetary system staying from bourgeois society, doesn't it? For a while of course, till a new economic system will be developed and introduced into practice which means the beginning of the first stage of communist society or in other words the start of communism.
Naturally this new economic system (moneyless planned economy) is unable to be spread at once through the whole society because of different classes, strata, etc. It will arise gradually as a commune, as a part of society under the protection of the proletarian power of the DotP and thanks to the successful competition it will force out and replace bourgeois sector of economy. The end of this replacement will mark the beginning of the high stage of communism. But during the low stage two parallel economies will exist.
As a resume: combination of two economic sectors (dialectically opposite each other) in one socialist society means the first stage of communism.

[sanpal]

Lenin quoting marx:
Quote:
"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] 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 comes."



In this quote Marx says about COMMUNIST society hance about moneyless communist economy and "...still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society ..." because of not free economy (the high stage of communism) but economy with distribution according to labour i.e. with labour sertificates (the lower stage of communism).

[Comrade #138672]

The free market is a primitive method of distributing products to consumers. It will be replaced by social planning.

By the way, the free market doesn't even exist in capitalism, because the free market is so laughably inefficient (right-wing liberals/libertarians are basically living in a fantasy world). Pretty much everything has been monopolized already and much of the production process is already planned.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]his is also what drives innovation in a non-commodity-oriented society; if we want a given product but do not want to work so much to obtain it, then we will need to improve the production process).


I'll add that, besides the *technological* process -- towards fully automated, labor-free, voice-request fulfillment -- we would also want to look to the *social-organizational* process, so that nothing that's readily available on the face of the earth goes untapped, if desired somewhere.

(Why should grapes dry and rot on the vine somewhere if people somewhere else are going without wine -- etc.)

Liberate Santa! (heh)


= D

[cyu]

People walk around with their cell phone cameras taking in the surroundings. Other people browse through pictures / scents filtered by color, shape, distance, whatever - swipe left for someone they're interested in - swipe right for useless bourgeois frivolity ;)