The Value of Currency

[RedStarOverChina]

What does money worth? Absolutely nothing. It is used only to MEASAURE the value of items, as a Greek philosopher once said. But by itself, money is worth practically nothing. This is why the "value" of currency falls when there are less products availiable.

So employing money is just to help measure the value of property, to speed up the process of exchanging goods, thus encouraging trade. (under the assumption that it's possible to "own" properties.)

Now, this is where I require the assitance of experts. What is the primary goal behind our call for abolition of currency?

This is always been a gap in my knowledge, since the beginning part of Das Kapital described the possitive aspects of currency which i stated above.

[ComradeRed]

Surplus-value depends on money, without money the labor would get its just amounts. So basically, to end exploitation.

[refuse_resist]

Very true. Currency is what causes the heirarchy of rich and poor. As long as there are people with lots of money there will always be those who are not receiving their fair share.

[NovelGentry]

Marx distinguished between money and something to represent value in that money can be circulated. Money allows you, as a person with a lot of money, to acquire, under capitalism, someone elses good by exchanging them the money for the equivalent value of those goods. However, money also allows you to place a labor, and an arbitrary value to be supposedly "agreed upon" by both parties, for which someone else could work for -- this kind of circulation is what allows capitalism to form in the first place. Wealth alone is not capital, however, it can be converted to capital when you apply labor.

For example, if you own a hammer and some boards, the hammer and boards are indeed wealth, when you apply the labor of a man who can build something out of them, you have capital. Exerting the use value of the product in return for the exchange value you pay, you have profit.

Money is an abstraction that is not needed if production itself is socialized. Money itself, as something that expresses value allows for the differentiation between use and exchange value, what we aim to do is end this exploitation, and thus a new form of representative value can be used. More appropriately with modern technology can be handled to ensure that such relations of capital no longer exist.

The following quote supplied by the original poster is something interesting in itself.


But by itself, money is worth practically nothing. This is why the "value" of currency falls when there are less products availiable.

The value of money IS that it represents something elses value. Because of this, money has three values. It's representative value (i.e. 1 dollar, 5 dollars). It's use value (The actual cost of money, i.e. 1 dollar costs a fraction of a penny to produce. And of course it's existence value (Whether or not it is necessary, whether or not it's purpose is of value).

The fluctuation of product availability effects all of these under capitalism, depending on the product in question, but above all, if there was no such thing as a "product." That is nothing to buy, as is the case under communism, money has absolutely 0 existence value.

As you can see though, money itself is more complex than what is necessary. For a system where use value and exchange value essentially disappear and indeed value is not subjective, money loses two of these values. It loses first it's representative value. Certainly, Under a system where the value of these products is determined through labor power, you need only a record of a person's labor power to determine what he has earned from his production, and thus what amount of consumption they should be allowed (an aspect of socialism). When this occurs and money loses it's representative value, you inherently lose it's existence value, as that is the point of it's existence.

[RedStarOverChina]

Thanx comrade, for ur time. I learned alot. Lenin once said that, "as long as capitalist powers exist, everything is sale, not only land, but also love and one's dignity." (not the exact quote.)

I think by capitalist powers he meant investments. Is it possible to eliminate investments without eliminating currency?

[BeAGoodCommieNow]

Surplus-value depends on money, without money the labor would get its just amounts. So basically, to end exploitation.

You've got it backwards - money is used to represent the surplus value. Surplus value is what you add when you take raw materials and convert them into finished goods. You would always have surplus value regardless if there was currency to represent it.

But money is used for another thing too - efficient transactions. If you think you can do away with currency, please go ahead. But then, are you proposing that people go back to the barter system instead? Suppose I was a farmer that grows wheat and you manufacture jeans. First we have to come to an agreement about the value of each product in relation to each other. And what about the thousands of other products I may need to buy - I have to setup a trade agreement with everyone who produces some sort of goods that I may need. Imagine the headache to do this - I wouldn't have any time for farming. Next, since I am only able to harvest once a year, how do you propose that I barter for your jeans that I may need months after I harvest? Shall I bring you a bushel of wheat that is so old it has spoiled?

You're not being realistic.





Currency is what causes the heirarchy of rich and poor. As long as there are people with lots of money there will always be those who are not receiving their fair share.

Once again, here's someone mixing up the concept of wealth and the concept of money. Let's suppose you own a 10 million dollar home, but you haven't got a penny to your name otherwise. Are you better off than someone who lives in a 100,000 dollar home but has 200,000 dollars in the bank?





For example, if you own a hammer and some boards, the hammer and boards are indeed wealth

They are wealth only if I want the boards and only if I want you to operate the hammer. Otherwise, both are useless junk to me.

[ComradeRed]

You've got it backwards - money is used to represent the surplus value. Surplus value is what you add when you take raw materials and convert them into finished goods. Well, when you take raw commodities(i.e. constant capital) and add variable capital into the equation you get, say, 10 commodities produced in 10 hours. The value of each commodity is 1 hours' labor. The value however is not given to labor since labor itself is a commodity. Like all commodities, labor-power's value is determined by the amount of labor needed to reproduce it. This, however, must always be less than the value of the commodities, measured in labor-hours.

So in essence what I am trying to say is: How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.


You would always have surplus value regardless if there was currency to represent it. If there were classes, that would be true. The bourgeois live off the surplus value, i.e. surplus labor (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch18.htm), of the workers. If there were no classes, that would be as true as bourgeois media. :lol:



But money is used for another thing too - efficient transactions. If you think you can do away with currency, please go ahead. But then, are you proposing that people go back to the barter system instead? It is not a choice of "either barter or capitalism", it is a choice between a classless or a class society.


You're not being realistic. You're not being a communist.

[Iepilei]

The notion of currency also ensures that everyone is doing their fair trade.

I believe that hard-currency should be completely abolished, but we should not be closed to the idea of electronic currency.

[BeAGoodCommieNow]

Well, when you take raw commodities(i.e. constant capital) and add variable capital into the equation you get, say, 10 commodities produced in 10 hours. The value of each commodity is 1 hours' labor. The value however is not given to labor since labor itself is a commodity.

OK, now you're really oversimplified this. Labor doesn't receive the full markup because manufacturing a product is not merely adding the value of labour into the equation. Someone has to pay for the electricity that powers the machines, the maintenance and depreciation of the machines themselves, for the work that the engineer who designed the product has put in (often having to throw away various other designs that failed), for the planning of how the company runs and making sure that as one project finishes, another one is waiting to get started, and lastly, the reward for the risk that an enterpreneur takes in starting an enterprise.



that would be as true as bourgeois media

And I thought the media was leftist...



It is not a choice of "either barter or capitalism", it is a choice between a classless or a class society.

Whether society has classes or not doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I produce wheat and you produce jeans and somehow the goods we each produce must eventually be consumed by the other. If there is no common denominator upon which the value of the goods we produce can be based, then you necessarily must have a barter system. Aboriginals all over the world recognized this and used beads, shells or whatever was appropriate in their society as currency. Or would you say that primitive people all over the world practice capitalism because they found it convenient to use currency?



You're not being a communist.

Ooooops. Ya got me!

[ComradeRed]

OK, now you&#39;re really oversimplified this. Labor doesn&#39;t receive the full markup because manufacturing a product is not merely adding the value of labour into the equation. Someone has to pay for the electricity that powers the machines, the maintenance and depreciation of the machines themselves, for the work that the engineer who designed the product has put in (often having to throw away various other designs that failed), for the planning of how the company runs and making sure that as one project finishes, another one is waiting to get started, and lastly, the reward for the risk that an enterpreneur takes in starting an enterprise. <_< The quote (Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.) was from Marx.

His formula for price (Das Kapital, volume 3) also stacks onto the value of the constant capital (or the labor-time of the constant capital). The electricity et al. are qualified under "constant capital".

The "reward" for the "risks" the capitalist takes does not compare to the lives of the workers his factory takes. Where&#39;s the "rewards" for the worker?


And I thought the media was leftist... Yeah, a real organ of the people :rolleyes:


Whether society has classes or not doesn&#39;t have anything to do with the fact that I produce wheat and you produce jeans and somehow the goods we each produce must eventually be consumed by the other. If there is no common denominator upon which the value of the goods we produce can be based, then you necessarily must have a barter system. *cough cough*gifteconomy*cough* Hmm...what system could conceivably be used? Surely it must be one retaining money. Or it could be a classless one&#33;

We could be happy with money, or we could go crazy and reach for the stars&#33; You know, a full classless society instead of mere socialism. Then again, that&#39;s the communist perspective, and what do communists know about communism?


Or would you say that primitive people all over the world practice capitalism because they found it convenient to use currency? Would you rather we go back in time to primitivism or forwards towards communism?

[BeAGoodCommieNow]

The "reward" for the "risks" the capitalist takes does not compare to the lives of the workers his factory takes. Where&#39;s the "rewards" for the worker?

In the wage. High-risk jobs pay more (such as high-steel walkers, etc.). And let&#39;s face it, in the civilized world these days, you&#39;re probably more likely to die in traffic on the way to work than on your job site - the 21st century laborer rarely put his life at risk.


Then again, that&#39;s the communist perspective, and what do communists know about communism?

That depends on which communist you ask - I have not seen any semblance of coherent thought in this forum. There are those who swear by Stalin, while others consider him a criminal. Some promote violence while others would prefer peaceful means. About the only thing I&#39;ve seen repeated regularly is that true communism has never been implemented. But, we are promised, one day, one day...

Instead of asking what communists know about communism, the real question (with respect to this thread) should be "What do communists know about economics?"


Would you rather we go back in time to primitivism or forwards(sic) towards communism?

It&#39;s like asking if I would rather have a kick in the pants or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[ComradeRed]

In the wage. High-risk jobs pay more (such as high-steel walkers, etc.). And let&#39;s face it, in the civilized world these days, you&#39;re probably more likely to die in traffic on the way to work than on your job site - the 21st century laborer rarely put his life at risk. And the sweat shops? Textilles are a dangerous place to work, yet they are paid pennies. But "let&#39;s face it", that sweat shop worker "will probably die on the way to work" because the 21st century worker won&#39;t put his or her life on the line.


That depends on which communist you ask - I have not seen any semblance of coherent thought in this forum. There are those who swear by Stalin, while others consider him a criminal. Some promote violence while others would prefer peaceful means. About the only thing I&#39;ve seen repeated regularly is that true communism has never been implemented. But, we are promised, one day, one day... Straw man, man. These are leftist ideologies, not "communisms".


Instead of asking what communists know about communism, the real question (with respect to this thread) should be "What do communists know about economics?" Well let me see, there was:
Maurice H. Dobb

Paul M. Sweezy

Ronald L. Meek

Francis Seton

Piero Sraffa

Andras Bródy

Charles Bettelheim

Donald J. Harris

Anwar Shaikh

Duncan K. Foley

Domenico M. Nuti

Suzanne de Brunhoff

Henri Denis

Gérard Dumenil

G. Dostaler

Thomas Bottomore

Alfredo Medio

Paul A. Baran

Ernest Mandel

Josef Steindl

John Roemer

Leif Johansen

John Elster

Steven Marglin

Shigeto Tsuru

Kozo Uno

Nubuo Okishio

Shinzaburo Koshimura

Makoto Itoh

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov

Rosa Luxemburg

Karl Marx & Frederich Engels

Rudolf Hilferding

And others...



Each have wrottem several tomes, with several exceptions, and thought up quite a few novel ideas.


It&#39;s like asking if I would rather have a kick in the pants or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Yet staying in capitalism, or worse moving backwards, would be like getting castrated.

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s not actually necessary to revert to barter on "the day after the revolution".

As a transition measure prior to the full abolition of money, we could use "labor time certificates" (a kind of quasi-currency).

People could be "paid" for the number of hours they work and goods could be "priced" according to the total number of hours required to produce them divided by the number of goods produced. (Note that the "price" of goods "in stock" on "the day after the revolution" would be very close to zero...only new production would be priced in labor-time.)

This would have, at once, the virtue of a drastic equalization of wages...a good psychological preparation for communist society.

It would be "crude"...but it ought to work well enough while we work out the details of switching over to an entirely moneyless economy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bolshevik butcher]

Money wasn&#39;t invented to cause exploitation, it was invented to make caital easier to carry, and more compact, i suppose after the revolution currency would be faised out, but not over night.

[Ele'ill]

In the absence of a &#39;currency for product&#39; type system, I would think &#39;product for product&#39; would take it&#39;s place, it would still put uneccisary idolistic (new word?) values on products. Barterism would take the place of currency for product.