If you go by the definition of money : “The primary functions which distinguish money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.” (Wikipedia, but it’s a workable definition).
It’s a medium of exchange, because people can use them to buy things. It’s a unit of account, because it will be used as a metric for economic calculation (ie accounting). It’s a store of value too, because people don’t have to spend it at a particular time. And the “standard of deferred payment” part is also fulfilled, as it quantify the work-time debt society (or simply a company) owe to a worker.
I honestly fail to see what difference you are trying to make.
Meh, this distinction seems largely artificial to me. Modern fiat money is already created and destroyed through use of debt, and I hardly think that’s what communists think of. And a strict “non-transferability” would beg the question of why would the “productive forces” (companies, cooperatives, or whatever) try to do produce things if they can’t accumulate value based on consumers spending preferences (which is an issue which happened in the USSR).
Even worse : if vouchers don’t fulfill the roles people want, you’re still going to have a kind of informal money (gasoline, tobacco, seashells, etc… as said above), just with vouchers in parallel.
That being said, I never had much respect for Marx’ political theories, so I would totally understand if you wanted to drop the point.
In that case, that means that the only workable economic system for Marx is a centrally planned economy (which, from what I know, is not the position of the majority of communists). Otherwise, you’re going to have severe information transfer/cooperation issues at the system boundaries. Which is already historically what happened in the USSR and most strict application of central planning. And unless I’m mistaken, they still had money.
As for Marx… It’s more that I read a subset of Marx works, found too many issues within the theories themselves, and honestly don’t have unlimited time to see if he corrects it in some other works. And despite looking a bit for it in other forms (including discussion with some very left-leaning friends), I never found any answer I found really satisfactory.
And to be honest, I understand why you assume this is a propaganda issue : communist/socialist/anarchist theories are largely misrepresented in common discourse. That being said, don’t make the mistake of believing that all critics don’t know what they’re talking about. Or even that mainstream theories are immune to this type of misrepresentation (because they most certainly are not).
I don’t assume that all critics don’t know what they are talking about, but no offense, you did not in fact know the information required to understand Marx’s Labor Voucher system.
My bad, that may have sounded a bit agressive. I just mean that I know people on Lemmy tends to have very… polarized opinions of the political literacy of other people they disagree with, and I know that I’m not immune to that either. That’s more to show my position on this than to point out something you did specifically.
the USSR did in fact try to abolish “money,” but went about it poorly and it failed.
Yep, that exactly my point. Money is kind of central to a complex economy, and the USSR had issues even while still using it.
The USSR planned everything by hand, and still managed to develop rapidly and provide for their people
You may want to look at the opinion of someone like Paul Krugman on that. He makes some interesting parallels in the rapid industrialization of countries like South Korea or Japan and what happened in the USSR before, using the difference between intensive and extensive growth. For him, the gist of it is that authoritarian control of the economy can provide impressive extensive growth (put people to work, mechanize agriculture, provide basic education, infrastructure, etc…), but that once you reach a somewhat prosperous but intermediary state, you need to switch to intensive growth (creating more output value for less inputs) to get to the “next stage”, so to speak. He also argues that South Korea and Japan did this, while the USSR never managed and that’s why from the 60’s onward the economic prosperity of the USSR entered a long period of stagnation.
which aspects of Marx had issues? Do you have any actual examples I can look at?
I mostly disagree with the extreme reductionism of historical materialism, which affirm that the whole of history is the history of the possession of the means of production. That mean that while I understand that the bourgeoisie/proletariat dichotomy as a useful heuristic about social analysis, I don’t belive it is necessarily the most useful one in all cases. From there, the notion of the superiority of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” becomes very shaky, so the political theory of action all goes downhill from there. And globally, the whole problem of Economic Calculation make the whole theory of the working of communism I extremely difficult to solve (but to the credit of Marx, this problem would only emerge due to a better understand of market-based economics, half a century later).
deleted by creator
If you go by the definition of money : “The primary functions which distinguish money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.” (Wikipedia, but it’s a workable definition).
It’s a medium of exchange, because people can use them to buy things. It’s a unit of account, because it will be used as a metric for economic calculation (ie accounting). It’s a store of value too, because people don’t have to spend it at a particular time. And the “standard of deferred payment” part is also fulfilled, as it quantify the work-time debt society (or simply a company) owe to a worker.
I honestly fail to see what difference you are trying to make.
deleted by creator
Meh, this distinction seems largely artificial to me. Modern fiat money is already created and destroyed through use of debt, and I hardly think that’s what communists think of. And a strict “non-transferability” would beg the question of why would the “productive forces” (companies, cooperatives, or whatever) try to do produce things if they can’t accumulate value based on consumers spending preferences (which is an issue which happened in the USSR).
Even worse : if vouchers don’t fulfill the roles people want, you’re still going to have a kind of informal money (gasoline, tobacco, seashells, etc… as said above), just with vouchers in parallel.
That being said, I never had much respect for Marx’ political theories, so I would totally understand if you wanted to drop the point.
deleted by creator
In that case, that means that the only workable economic system for Marx is a centrally planned economy (which, from what I know, is not the position of the majority of communists). Otherwise, you’re going to have severe information transfer/cooperation issues at the system boundaries. Which is already historically what happened in the USSR and most strict application of central planning. And unless I’m mistaken, they still had money.
As for Marx… It’s more that I read a subset of Marx works, found too many issues within the theories themselves, and honestly don’t have unlimited time to see if he corrects it in some other works. And despite looking a bit for it in other forms (including discussion with some very left-leaning friends), I never found any answer I found really satisfactory.
And to be honest, I understand why you assume this is a propaganda issue : communist/socialist/anarchist theories are largely misrepresented in common discourse. That being said, don’t make the mistake of believing that all critics don’t know what they’re talking about. Or even that mainstream theories are immune to this type of misrepresentation (because they most certainly are not).
deleted by creator
My bad, that may have sounded a bit agressive. I just mean that I know people on Lemmy tends to have very… polarized opinions of the political literacy of other people they disagree with, and I know that I’m not immune to that either. That’s more to show my position on this than to point out something you did specifically.
Yep, that exactly my point. Money is kind of central to a complex economy, and the USSR had issues even while still using it.
You may want to look at the opinion of someone like Paul Krugman on that. He makes some interesting parallels in the rapid industrialization of countries like South Korea or Japan and what happened in the USSR before, using the difference between intensive and extensive growth. For him, the gist of it is that authoritarian control of the economy can provide impressive extensive growth (put people to work, mechanize agriculture, provide basic education, infrastructure, etc…), but that once you reach a somewhat prosperous but intermediary state, you need to switch to intensive growth (creating more output value for less inputs) to get to the “next stage”, so to speak. He also argues that South Korea and Japan did this, while the USSR never managed and that’s why from the 60’s onward the economic prosperity of the USSR entered a long period of stagnation.
I mostly disagree with the extreme reductionism of historical materialism, which affirm that the whole of history is the history of the possession of the means of production. That mean that while I understand that the bourgeoisie/proletariat dichotomy as a useful heuristic about social analysis, I don’t belive it is necessarily the most useful one in all cases. From there, the notion of the superiority of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” becomes very shaky, so the political theory of action all goes downhill from there. And globally, the whole problem of Economic Calculation make the whole theory of the working of communism I extremely difficult to solve (but to the credit of Marx, this problem would only emerge due to a better understand of market-based economics, half a century later).
deleted by creator