Crantag wrote:An interesting conversation. Excuse me for nitpicking.
Thank you for your interest.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said this, in the Communist Manifesto.
Maybe, but I first saw this statement Stalin..
It is impossible to consider the production of commodities, as something self-contained, independent of surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed under the slave system and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed under feudalism, and served him, despite the fact that it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production did not lead to capitalism.
The question is, why can't the production of commodities to serve for a certain period of our socialist society without capitalism, if you bear in mind that commodity production has no we have such an unlimited and comprehensive distribution under the capitalist conditions that they have put in strict limits thanks to such decisive economic conditions as social ownership of the means of production, the elimination of the wage system, the elimination of the system of exploitation?
They say that once established in our country, the dominance of public ownership of the means of production and the system of wage labor and exploitation eliminated, the existence of commodity production has lost all meaning, which would consequently eliminate the production of commodities.
This is also incorrect. Currently, there are two basic forms of socialist production: the state is a national, and collective, not as whole people. In state enterprises the means of production and the products of production are national property. In collective enterprises, although the means of production (land, machines) and owned by the state, however, the products production is the property of separate collective farms, since the labor in the collective farms, like seeds, your own, and the earth, which is transferred to the collective farms in perpetuity, farms dispose of virtually as their own property, despite the fact that they can't sell, buy, lease, or mortgage.
This circumstance leads to the fact that the government can only dispose of the products of state enterprises, while collective production, as their own property, dispose of only collective. But the collective did not want to alienate their products except in the form of goods in exchange for which they want to receive the goods they need. Other economic ties with the town except commodity than exchange through purchase and sale, at present the collective farms will not accept. Therefore, commodity production and trade we are at present the same need for what they were, say, thirty years ago, when Lenin declared the need for the full reversal of turnover.
Of course, when instead of two basic production sectors, the state and the collective, will be one comprehensive productive sector with the right to dispose of all consumer products in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy" will disappear, as an unnecessary element in the national economy. But until then, until there remain two basic production sectors, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in the system of our national economy. How happens the creation of a single combined sector, whether by simple absorption of the collective-farm sector by the public sector, which is unlikely (because it would be perceived as the expropriation of the collective farms), or through the organization of a single national body (with representation from geopromyshlenniki and collective farms) with the right of first account of consumer products in the country, and over time – distribution of production in the order of, say, the exchange of products, is a special question that requires separate discussion. Link Economic problems of socialism in the USSR
V.I. Lenin is who said this, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
I certainly don't doubt though Stalin could have repeated these tenets.
They say that Lenin's thesis that imperialism inevitably generates war must be regarded as obsolete, since I grew up in now the powerful national forces in defending the world against a new world war. This is incorrect.
The modern peace movement aims to raise the masses to the struggle for the preservation of peace and for preventing a new world war. Therefore, it does not aim to overthrow capitalism, it is limited to the democratic goals of the struggle for the preservation of peace. In this respect, the modern movement for the preservation for the preservation of peace is different from the movement during the first world war for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war as it was the last movement went farther and pursued socialist aims.
It is possible that under certain circumstances, the fight for peace will develop here and there in the struggle for socialism, but it will not be the modern peace movement and the movement for the overthrow of capitalism.
It is likely that the modern peace movement, as a movement for preserving peace, if successful, will lead to the prevention of this war, to the time it is deferred, temporarily save this world, to the resignation of militant government and replace it with another government that is prepared temporarily to keep the peace. It is a good thing. Even very well. But it's still not enough to destroy the inevitability of wars in General between the capitalist countries. Not enough because with all the success of the movement in defense of world imperialism, still remains, remains in force, therefore, remains in force as the inevitability of wars.
To eliminate the inevitability of wars is necessary to destroy imperialism. Link