Got a question for the communists

[Tehon]

Who gets to eat lobster and beef tenderloin?
This doesnt have to be about food. It can be about anything that is "classy" or what have you. Because, you know, it calls for no currency..
I am truly stumped :/

The communist society presupposes the ability of cooperative society to produce commodities in sufficient numbers to supply the population.

Currency is not to be abolished in communist society. Value is an important aspect of Marx's writings and being able to trade things of equal value would require currency of some form.

I thought money was to be abolished in the transition

How did you form that thought?

Marx was certainly critical of the form money takes in a capitalist society. See here;
The Power of Money, Marx, 1844

But how will commodities be exchanged in society without a currency representative of the value contained in the production of the commodities?

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Engels wrote that.
That kind explains all your questions. I seem to remember Marc talking about labor vouchers or something? Can't remember exactly but that was to serve as a sort of fiat currency. It has no currency value.

Why wouldn't a labor voucher act as a form of currency? With the voucher you would be able to extract from society the products you desire, in proportion to the value you added to society.

 

[Toro]

Who gets to eat lobster and beef tenderloin?

Me.

Next question.

 

[Tehon]

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Engels wrote that.

I believe he is referring to money in its commodity form.

The idea is that in a communist society all commodities (money included) will lose the character that they assume in a capitalist society.

 

[Borillar]

What makes you think there isn't any money in communist countries?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The idea is that in a communist society all commodities (money included) will lose the character that they assume in a capitalist society.

I don't see how that can logically work. The value of different types of labor will stand under any economic system. The goods or services produced by that labor will likewise maintain the same character.

Not many people can do the work of a nuclear physicist, genetic engineer, or other high-level hard science work. That labor will be of prime value in the goose-steppingest commie utopia. You can't change that character, no matter how miserable you make the people.

But, a communist utopia is a form of anarchy, which I believe cannot exist. The moment a dispute arises, anarchy is gone. That is also why I believe Marx had it backwards when he said that socialism is a good segway to communism. It is the reverse. Communism will convert to socialism almost immediately. But, that is a long discussion for another thread.

 

[Pete7469]

Who will they serve to the lobster to? There isnt enough lobster, or time to catch them for everyone to eat lobster, considering our population. So, who gets the lobster?

Lobster will be rationed to those who ration steak, to those who ration potatoes to those who ration rice to those who force the rest of the people to produce it all.

 

[Mac1958]

A lot of defence for communism but only a couple answers to the OP

This type of thread always brings out some pretty interesting responses.

Not clear advocacy necessarily, but not clear opposition, either.
.

 

[Tehon]

The idea is that in a communist society all commodities (money included) will lose the character that they assume in a capitalist society.

I don't see how that can logically work. The value of different types of labor will stand under any economic system. The goods or services produced by that labor will likewise maintain the same character.

Not many people can do the work of a nuclear physicist, genetic engineer, or other high-level hard science work. That labor will be of prime value in the goose-steppingest commie utopia. You can't change that character, no matter how miserable you make the people.

But, a communist utopia is a form of anarchy, which I believe cannot exist. The moment a dispute arises, anarchy is gone. That is also why I believe Marx had it backwards when he said that socialism is a good segway to communism. It is the reverse. Communism will convert to socialism almost immediately. But, that is a long discussion for another thread.

But you are unable to logically explain why?

You seem to think that people in those professions are there for the money. There are lots of professions that offer more money in our capitalist society. Why would they choose science if there ambition was to make the most money?

People who have the aptitude and the desire to work in the sciences will have the benefits of a cooperative society that offers the conditions that sustain life, unconditionally. It will become easier for them to attain the level of knowledge necessary to advance society through the sciences.

It works, logically.

 

[TNHarley]

Who gets to eat lobster and beef tenderloin?
This doesnt have to be about food. It can be about anything that is "classy" or what have you. Because, you know, it calls for no currency..
I am truly stumped :/

The communist society presupposes the ability of cooperative society to produce commodities in sufficient numbers to supply the population.

Currency is not to be abolished in communist society. Value is an important aspect of Marx's writings and being able to trade things of equal value would require currency of some form.

I thought money was to be abolished in the transition

How did you form that thought?

Marx was certainly critical of the form money takes in a capitalist society. See here;
The Power of Money, Marx, 1844

But how will commodities be exchanged in society without a currency representative of the value contained in the production of the commodities?

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Engels wrote that.
That kind explains all your questions. I seem to remember Marc talking about labor vouchers or something? Can't remember exactly but that was to serve as a sort of fiat currency. It has no currency value.

Why wouldn't a labor voucher act as a form of currency? With the voucher you would be able to extract from society the products you desire, in proportion to the value you added to society.

It holds no monetary value. Just like most vouchers.

 

[Tehon]

The communist society presupposes the ability of cooperative society to produce commodities in sufficient numbers to supply the population.

Currency is not to be abolished in communist society. Value is an important aspect of Marx's writings and being able to trade things of equal value would require currency of some form.

I thought money was to be abolished in the transition

How did you form that thought?

Marx was certainly critical of the form money takes in a capitalist society. See here;
The Power of Money, Marx, 1844

But how will commodities be exchanged in society without a currency representative of the value contained in the production of the commodities?

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Engels wrote that.
That kind explains all your questions. I seem to remember Marc talking about labor vouchers or something? Can't remember exactly but that was to serve as a sort of fiat currency. It has no currency value.

Why wouldn't a labor voucher act as a form of currency? With the voucher you would be able to extract from society the products you desire, in proportion to the value you added to society.

It holds no monetary value. Just like most vouchers.

Perfect. That is the goal.

The labor voucher doesn't take the form of money, yet it still represents a unit of exchange used to appropriate products from the common stock, ie currency.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The labor voucher doesn't take the form of money, yet it still represents a unit of exchange used to appropriate products from the common stock, ie currency.

Who assigns the value?

Not all labor is equal in value. That's what I am trying to tell you. The cost of goods must equally be tied to the value of the labor required to obtain or produce those goods. Otherwise, it is not fair.

The dude who sweeps the floor is providing a service that can be performed by nearly every person, young or old. It is of little value compared to other forms of labor. The supply of floor sweepers is practically limitless. If all labor is equal in value, why would anybody bust ass in a hard or stressful job? You could just sweep the floors and live ghetto fabulous.


You cannot ignore those value discrepancies.

Why?

Because, by their nature, people are lazy, greedy, jealous, envious, etc. (7 deadly sins) and you cannot suppress human nature, no matter how hard you try.

Take everything back to the barter system and it becomes obvious that an economic system must be based on the natural value associated with goods and services, which is directly tied to supply and demand.

Capitalism
is the absolute best system, without question. If you want to tweak it here and there to prevent smart people from taking advantage of idiots, fine. I get it. But, capitalism must be the basis of a healthy economic system.

 

[BlindBoo]

Stop the revolution! I want my lobster and tenderloin!

 

[Tehon]

The labor voucher doesn't take the form of money, yet it still represents a unit of exchange used to appropriate products from the common stock, ie currency.

Who assigns the value?

Not all labor is equal in value. That's what I am trying to tell you. The cost of goods must equally be tied to the value of the labor required to obtain or produce those goods. Otherwise, it is not fair.

The dude who sweeps the floor is providing a service that can be performed by nearly every person, young or old. It is of little value compared to other forms of labor. The supply of floor sweepers is practically limitless. If all labor is equal in value, why would anybody bust ass in a hard or stressful job? You could just sweep the floors and live ghetto fabulous.


You cannot ignore those value discrepancies.

Why?

Because, by their nature, people are lazy, greedy, jealous, envious, etc. (7 deadly sins) and you cannot suppress human nature, no matter how hard you try.

Take everything back to the barter system and it becomes obvious that an economic system must be based on the natural value associated with goods and services, which is directly tied to supply and demand.

Capitalism
is the absolute best system, without question. If you want to tweak it here and there to prevent smart people from taking advantage of idiots, fine. I get it. But, capitalism must be the basis of a healthy economic system.

Value is the socially necessary time required to produce a commodity. The more labor that is required, the greater the value of the commodity. The value of the labor that each individual contributed to the production of the commodity would be based on the value of the commodity produced.

While I don't think I personally would find contentment in sweeping floors, who am I to discourage you if it is your thing. The world needs floor sweepers.