Production for use.

[IWantToLearn]

Hi im new, i have a question regarding production for use.
As i understand production for use is when the products/goods are produced and distributed to satisfy needs.
My question is: production for use implies a moneyless market?, because if it uses money i guess it implies some kind of capital acumulation and people would have to produce goods to exchange for money because if they dont then they could not adquire goods to satisfy their needs, so in resume it would be production for profit.
Thanks and im waiting for your answers.

[reb]

It's more of a general saying, that's why when you get into trouble when you break it down. Communism is for the end of the commodity-form. A commodity is a thing that has both a use-value and an exchange-value. The existence of exchange-value leads to the the law of value in general. For a commodity to be sold it has to have a use, so every commodity is produced for use in some way. A capitalist though, doesn't care what the use-value is, they are more interested in the exchange-value.

The problem here is that the commodity-form can only exist when the means of production are held in private and the produce of those things are private. This leads to the rise of exchange-value between commodities and the whole structure of capitalist production with the corresponding law of value where production is regulated by socially necessary labor time. Because the means of production are held privately, and not communally, economy takes on an alienated form. It becomes an abstract thing with a life of it's own.

So to end the commodity-form, the means of production have to be held in common and the produce is also held in common. This ends production for exchange because how can you exchange with something that you already own? The money-form drops by the wayside, alienated labor ends as does capitalism. This is generally what is meant by "production for use".

[IWantToLearn]

This ends production for exchange because how can you exchange with something that you already own?"

Excuse me if i didnt understood but end production for exchange means that there is no money?.

[ckaihatsu]

Hi im new, i have a question regarding production for use.
As i understand production for use is when the products/goods are produced and distributed to satisfy needs.

My question is: production for use implies a moneyless market?,

Yes, essentially.

Money is a commodity itself, so its use necessarily implies a system of exchanges, which implies production for exchange values instead of for use values.

Here's one particular model, for the sake of illustration:


Rotation system of work roles




I happen to be *critical* of this -- a model of my own making -- though, because even though it's moneyless, in practice it would tend to be too *inflexible* and *restrictive* for the participants since they would be "stuck" both economically and politically in it, due to the economic aspects and political aspects being *fused together* as one and the same.

(In other words, if everyone in the work-role rotation basically approved of its 'politics' -- what it's producing -- they may *not necessarily* like its *economics*, meaning what they're getting from that production, in regards to their own personal needs. And, obversely, if a participant happened to like the work-role rotation *economically*, meaning what they're getting personally from the group's collective production, they may not also like it *politically*, in terms of that same output for the greater public good. Either way they'd basically be stuck having to "like" the output both on a societal level *and* on a personal level, due to its inherent inflexibility.)

because if it uses money i guess it implies some kind of capital acumulation and people would have to produce goods to exchange for money because if they dont then they could not adquire goods to satisfy their needs, so in resume it would be production for profit.

Yes.

Thanks and im waiting for your answers.

---

This ends production for exchange because how can you exchange with something that you already own?"

Excuse me if i didnt understood but end production for exchange means that there is no money?.

You're *misreading* reb here -- he's saying that production for the sake of exchange would be *ended* -- stopped. Yes, this *could* imply 'moneylessness', but as I've pointed out, this, too, can be problematic in its own way. (Ask me more about this if you like.)

[Niccolo]

Hello there

Production for use would signal the end of perpetual capital accumulation that marks capitalism. Therefore the law of value and law of accumulation no longer operate; rather a direct measure of utility to satisfy needs is used in place of money (and by extension capital).

The problem with capitalism is that often workers lack the necessary purchasing power to buy the capitalist's goods, and capital only invests in production when it is profitable. This leads to a whole host of inefficiencies.