Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
 16 Mar 2012, 08:32
Firstly, I'd just like to apologise because I have no links or reference's to this which I know is very bad practice and if not true it would be no biggy if this thread was deleted.
I have heard that the Soviet Union had plans to do away with a monetary system but I don't understand, under a Socialist economy, why this would be necessary. Surly money is simply a way to exchange with each other the labor hours each person has worked (minus the obvious surplus value which would be reinvested into the means of production and maybe distributed amongst social programs to benefit society as a whole). Obviously under Communism all remnants of money and the like would be a thing of the past but, as we all know, Socialism is the transitionary phase. Was it an attempt to stem corruption? 16 Mar 2012, 15:02
Im not sure about concrete plans, but abolishing money might have laid more obstacles for capitalist restoration.
However, it'd have needed to be replaced with some other system of measurement or rationing presumably, since the union didn't overproduce enough to provide everything for everybody. Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job 
Soviet cogitations: 2157
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17 Ideology: Other Forum Commissar 17 Mar 2012, 03:53
Like all revolutionaries they probably became more down to earth after being faced with running a government.
Happiness is in your ability to love others. - Leo Tolstoy
Soviet cogitations: 4340
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Forum Commissar 17 Mar 2012, 03:57
Does anybody have any info on this? Without more details, we will all be speculating here.
My speculation is that money is not simply a means of exchange, but also the expression of value, something which should be overcome under socialism. How this is to be done is something different, since we would have to go to the root of things (equation of abstract labor). Abolishing money like that seems kind of misguided, because whatever you replace it with will act exactly like money unless you address this. It's like the bartering currencies that sprang up in Argentina during the crisis. A lot of lefties were pretty excited and sang praises as how they were moving beyond capitalism. But really, they were simply fulfilling a social need (for circulation, when currency was scarce), these barter tokens began to behave just like money, and when money began to stabilize again and increase in demand, people moved back to it.  "It does not suffice to reject the error; we must overcome it, explain it and outgrow it." - Antonio Labriola Forum Rules 
Soviet cogitations: 3111
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Bureaucrat 17 Mar 2012, 04:25
Indeed, the bartering system in Argentina (and I've heard it's starting in Greece now) it's just a move not foward, but backwards. It was just a survival move into a pre-capitalist economy, as soon as things started to get going again, people started using and accumulating money again.
17 Mar 2012, 04:55
To get rid of money, you've pretty much gotta get rid of scarcity first... Or hand the same stuff to each and let'em barter till they get what they actually want , which is time-consuming and inefficient .
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
17 Mar 2012, 04:59
The only "leftist" country to abolish money was Democratic Kampuchea.
Money wasn't abolished even in Anarchist Barcelona of the 30s...
Soviet cogitations: 4340
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Forum Commissar 17 Mar 2012, 05:25
Scarcity is pretty old. Money as a dominant form, money as value, isn't that old.
I'm not convinced that money is the necessary form for dealing with scarcity. "It does not suffice to reject the error; we must overcome it, explain it and outgrow it." - Antonio Labriola Forum Rules 17 Mar 2012, 15:32
Money is kind of pointless because we aren't producing for exchange values, but use values. Money is useful in accumulating capital, but for the most part is useless in socialism, it would facilitate pointless exchanges between people trying to get things they should be able to get straight off the bat.
Still, I think there is one, albeit limited use for it. Since scarcity in socialism necessitates appropriating some surplus value to fund non-value producing but socially necessary programs like maintenence, disaster funds, retirement & maternal leave, and so on, it might be practical to use money for this.  30 Mar 2012, 23:09
Stalin really attempted to abolish money and replace them with barter for a short time. It did not work. I might be a hardcore Stalinist but I remain objective in defending the man. That was one of the mistakes he made. He took Marx very very literally.
Soviet cogitations: 372
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2010, 16:48 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol 31 Mar 2012, 05:05
I think that money does not represent any value at all, exchange or otherwise. Money was simply a way of dividing the wealth equally, being that no surplus value was retained by the state for profit, money had no value. See the currency of the DPRK and the Cuban Peso. It's an important aspect in a socialist economy it is the most efficient distribution system yet thought of. However the big difference is that socialist currency isn't Capital. In the future, we would probably buy stuff with e-money.
 In the Soviet Union you destroy free-market, In America free-market destroys you |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
[ Top ]
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.
