[mikema63]

It's difficult to say what extra money would be used for, it would depend on how exactly the economy would be set up. There are dozens of little ideas on how to do that in a marxian way.

Again, this depends on the economy that is created. Under some conceptions money would just be a method of tracking consumption and would be assigned as ration coupons so you could buy anything with it. In most you could even have land as personal property (which is stricter than private property and is a separate discussion on how that works.) Whether or not you could buy lots of extra stuff with it depends as well, certainly you wouldn't be able to stockpile all of something and then leverage that into controlling people.

There theoretically isn't a problem with division of wealth, because class is about the power structure created by your relationship to the means of production. But again it would depend on the particular economy that gets created. If the level of wealth would allow, say, extra political power, then it would need to be curtailed.

All us Marxists are historically at each other with ice picks arguing what specifically we would do, I personally think the development will be organic and an america marxist system would look very different than a greek one, a russian one, etc.

[Decky]

Fair enough. What could they spend their extra money on?

If they wanted additional booze in execs of what the drink ration provides. That's what mine would be used for.

[Vera Politica]

That's precisely why Marx's economics is irrelevant: he looks for semi-metaphysical explanations for economic phenomena (class consciousness, labor-value, use-value, appropriation of surplus product, etc) that can hardly even be reasoned about or measured, when simpler modern models of supply, demand, competition, equilibrium, monopolistic competition, game theory, etc, are much more accurate and applicable.

I disagree with this, but it is a perceptive remark and I think Marxists should deal with. But, to be clear, concepts like class consciousness are certainly not metaphysical. This is a perfectly legitimate concept that could be employed in social scientific analyses (though there may disagreement about how exactly we would measure class consciousness). That being said, there does seem to be a sort of metaphysical slip in Marxian analysis. This concerns the concept value. For Marx, this is just the socially necessary labor time that is objectified in the object. But we must ask ourselves the following question: what social scientific work is this concept doing, exactly? For Marxists it is true that we can use all the modern tools of economics. But there are still lingering questions. For example, does the exchange value of an object approximate its actual value? So, in a word, the Marxist needs to find "bridge explanations". That is, she needs to explain how it is that exchange value relates to the real value of a thing. Does the price, in the long-term, approximate the real value of an object? If so, how would we know this? Without good explanations then it seems that the concept value is dangerously metaphysical. It needs to do the right sort of work. If not, you are right, there is a metaphysical component to Marxian economics. But this is something Marxists do not want and work to avoid. Just like any theory there are problems. So long as the theorist recognizes the problem and is honest about it then it is just like any research/theoretical program.

[mikema63]

I don't think the labor theory of value is particularly central to the main concepts though.

[Vera Politica]

I don't think the labor theory of value is particularly central to the main concepts though.

Mikema63,

Could you say more? Which main concepts do you have in mind? I also find myself thinking that LTV is absolutely central to Marxian economics but maybe I'm confused?

[mikema63]

Well, the fundamental observation of the theory is in my mind the fundamental conflict between owners of capital and the workers. Even under the current theories of value this would still exist, it would still drive accumulation of capital, and it will still drive structural problems with capitalism in the longs term. Regardless of what particular value system is true, it remains perfectly viable to produce and distribute goods by some other system you could cook up.

[Le Rouge]

The optimal solution is equal pay for equal work but with these conditions:

1. Equal pay for equal work of communal sustainability
2. What is called 'basic income' of communal sustainability
3. Equal participatory democracy

[mikema63]

Hell, you think communists are weird? Look up anarcho-primitivism.

[quetzalcoatl]

This has all the makings of a typical thread diversion.

I've got nothing in particular against used car salesmen, it was just a random example of a job in the private sector. The point remains that it is very difficult to match remuneration with task in a satisfactory manner when there is wide disagreement about how much completion of the task is worth to society and how that worth should be measured.

For now, we should let market forces determine remuneration, while providing a BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) to undergird the whole process. This would allow a family member to attend to dying person, without immediately falling victim to privation (in the previous example).

[Iron Ant]

What checks and balances to you propose to keep people like Lenin and Stalin from abusing the system and turn Communism into a tyranny?

And why is the collective more important than the individual?

[mikema63]

There is more than one person in a collective.

Working together will produce greater benefits for individuals than atomizing them and turning them on each other.

As for cheacks and balances, its not actually that hard to design a democratic system after youve broken the backs of the people who buy democratic systems.

[Dagoth Ur]

Individualism, meaning the full expression of one's self, is impossible while systems like the division of labor are still operational. You are subsumed into a social role fully to the degree of being known simply for what you do. Even if (or especially if) you choose to drop out of social participation you reduce any worth as an "individual" all together.

Inb4 you claim an individual defines themselves.

[annatar1914]

Hell, you think communists are weird? Look up anarcho-primitivism.

Or Anarcho-Primativist Communists, lol. This has been a good thread, with a good intellectual dynamic and informative opinions, thanks all.

[Truth To Power]

Who gets to decide which abilities are valued?

It would only be a fool or a lunatic or a communist -- but I repeat myself -- who would propose paying people for having abilities rather than for exercising them.

How is a given occupation valued? Who decides?

Why would an occupation be valued, rather than a specific contribution of labor in an occupation?

Any system which does is almost certain to be corrupt.

Power corrupts. Not liberty.

Equal pay regardless is a much easier system to enforce.

Oh, really?

Give equal access to snacks to half a dozen pre-schoolers, and see how easy it is to enforce equal consumption of those snacks. Now try to imagine doing it with money, and millions of adults.