Yesterday I posted the following post to Reddit /r/Capitlism vs Socialism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/6vf5m0/socialists_how_am_i_misinterpreting_karl_marx/
How am I misinterpreting Karl Marx? Marx Says Money is a tool to make capital exchanges easier, not the root of all evil.
Capital Volume I
by Karl Marx, Proof read by Dave Allinson (2015)
Chapter 6: The Buying and Selling of Labour-PowerThe change of value that occurs in the case of money intended to be converted into capital, cannot
take place in the money itself, since in its function of means of purchase and of payment, it does
no more than realise the price of the commodity it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value
petrified, never varying. 1 Just as little can it originate in the second act of circulation, the re-sale
of the commodity, which does no more than transform the article from its bodily form back again
into its money-form. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity bought by the first
act, M-C, but not in its value, for equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity is paid for at its
full value. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value,
as such, of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able to extract value from the
consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the
sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar
property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment
of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market
such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power.By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and
physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-
value of any description.But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a
commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself
implies no other relations of dependence than those which result from its own nature. On this
assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its
possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In
order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled
owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person. 2 He and the owner of money meet in the
market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, with this difference alone, that
one is buyer, the other seller; both, therefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of this
relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if
he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself
from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity. He must
constantly look upon his labour-power as his own property, his own commodity, and this he can
only do by placing it at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this
means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it. 3
The second essential condition to the owner of money finding labour-power in the market as a
commodity is this – that the labourer instead of being in the position to sell commodities in which
his labour is incorporated, must be obliged to offer for sale as a commodity that very labour-
power, which exists only in his living self.In order that a man may be able to sell commodities other than labour-power, he must of course
have the means of production, as raw material, implements, &c. No boots can be made without
leather. He requires also the means of subsistence. Nobody – not even “a musician of the future”
– can live upon future products, or upon use-values in an unfinished state; and ever since the first
moment of his appearance on the world’s stage, man always has been, and must still be a
consumer, both before and while he is producing. In a society where all products assume the form120
of commodities, these commodities must be sold after they have been produced, it is only after
their sale that they can serve in satisfying the requirements of their producer. The time necessary
for their sale is superadded to that necessary for their production.
For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the
market with the free labourer, free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his
labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for
sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power.I have to give to to Marx, he gets to the point almost as fast as Stefan Molynux. Marx quite clearly and I think reasonably accurately goes over what money is, but I don't understand what is what is so bad about it.
Here are the the best responses in my opinion.
/u/Bandwagonist
What's the point of this post? Nobody ever said Marx believed that money was the root of all evil.
Money is "bad" (whatever you mean by that) because it is an intrinsic aspect of generalized commodity production, which >communists seek to abolish.
/u/Socrapepe
This crisis will culminate in a social revolution where one class overthrows another.
Has that occured in Europe or US in the last 200 years?
if we want to survive, to sell our capabilities in exchange for money
Can one not live without money, just growing their own food?
like all other modes of production, will eventually enter a period of crisis caused by the growing antagonism
What if the crisis in capitalism is caused by the economic calculation problem; the interference in the supply of money and credit created by the central bank and fractional reserve lending system?
Who funds the capitalist class? Who does George Soros answer to? Who does the CNN CEO answer to? Is it the internationalist banking class, the modern day Court Jew; the Goldman Sachs and JP Morgans of the world?
Aren't modern communist groups funded by these same people?
/u/Lorck16
Its the second part of my reply to your comment. This is basically trolling because you just said a bunch of Marxist stuff without underlying support. The other comment is more serious.
like all other modes of production, will eventually enter a period of crisis caused by the growing antagonism between the forces and relations of production.
This is just Marxist idiocy without any factual basis.
This crisis will culminate in a social revolution where one class overthrows another.
[sarcasm]And then we will be all LARP in a shitty Stasi like police state dominate by Marxists.[sarcasm]
By the way, many social relations changed without a retarded revolution, Marx is, again, ridiculous and wrong as usual.
it would be because generalized commodity exchange leads to alienated labor
"Alienated labor" is just damn retarded. Specialized labor is necessary for production of commodities which allow a greater quality of life of people.
disallowing producers from having access to the means of their subsistence
/u/merryman1
I think this falls under the usual misconception of Marxism. Nothing about the ideology says Capitalism is bad or evil. Quite the opposite, Capitalism is a necessary step on the road of social development. It's more that we see that society is not a static construct and that we are not living in some kind of Fukuyama-style 'end of history'. New societies are made possible by new technologies and clinging to the capitalist ideology that rejects the social for the personal and private is only going to hold us back in the long run.
/u/mckenny37
think the main problem with money is highly concentrated it currently is. I'm not necessarily against money or markets being part of a Socialist Economy.