>>2479575 Wrong.Socialist commodities differ from other historical commodities. They possess three characteristics: (l) They are based on a public ownership system of the means of production and are primarily an expression of the exchange relations between the worker and the peasant. (2)In contrast to the unorganized and unplanned capitalist commodity production, a great majority of socialist commodities are produced in a planned manner under the guidance of state planning. (3)Compared with the capitalist society, the scope of commodities is greatly reduced in the socialist society. Labor power is no longer a commodity. Land, mineral resources, and other natural resources are no longer commodities either. The means of production circulating within the socialist state ownership system have also undergone significant changes and have lost certain properties of commodities.
To negate the commodity aspects of socialist direct social products and to attempt to abolish commodity production prematurely is obviously erroneous. Ch’en Po-ta, a renegade and Trotskyite, clamored for the abolition of commodity production and exchange during the period of the rapid development of China’s rural people’s commune movement in a vain attempt to lead revolution and construction astray. Chairman Mao saw through this conspiracy in time and engaged him in a resolute struggle. In the resolutions of the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party personally convened and chaired by Chairman Mao, this was pointed out: “This way of thinking which attempts to prematurely abolish commodity production and exchange, prematurely negate the constructive role of commodities, value, money, and price is detrimental to developing socialist construction and is therefore in correct.” (4) Socialist commodity production must not only be retained, but must also be developed to consolidate the economic link between China’s industry and agriculture and between urban and rural areas in order to promote the development of socialist construction.
Under capitalism, the purpose of commodity production by the capitalist is to exploit the surplus value of the worker. Through the production and sale of commodities, the capitalist gets back the value of the means of production expended in the production process. At the same time, the new value created by the labor of the worker not only compensates for the variable capital used by the capitalist to purchase labor power, but also creates a surplus. This surplus is the surplus value extracted by the capitalist. Marx called this value-formation process in capitalist production the value augmenting process. This category of the value-augmenting process reflects the exploitative relations between capital and hired labor.
In the socialist production process, the labor of the laborer, as concrete labor, transfers and preserves the value of the means of production expended in the production process. As abstract labor, it creates new value. Should this new value created by the producer belong totally to the producer himself? No. To realize socialist expanded reproduction and to satisfy the various common needs of the laborers, society must control various social funds. These social funds can only come from the new value created by the producer. If the newly created value belongs entirely to the producer himself, then the socialist economy will not be able to carry on expanded reproduction. It can only maintain simple reproduction. The common needs of the laborers cannot be satisfied either. Therefore, in the socialist society, the new value created by the producer must be divided into two parts. One part is at the disposal of the producer himself. It constitutes the labor remuneration fund for the producer and is used to satisfy personal livelihood needs of the producer. Another part is at the disposal of society. It constitutes various social funds, namely, social net income, and is used to further develop socialist production and satisfy the various common needs of the whole laboring people. Consequently, as a producer, a part of the new value created by him has to be deducted for the disposal of society as social funds. As a member of the laboring people, he is fully entitled to enjoy, with the other laboring people, the welfare brought about by the social funds. Therefore, the distribution of the new value created by the producer into the labor remuneration fund and the social fund under the socialist system is fundamentally different from the distribution of the new value created by the worker into wages and surplus value under the capitalist system. Under the capitalist system, labor is a commodity and is subject to the law of value. Wage means the price of labor power. No matter how large the newly created value is, the part that belongs to the worker himself is only equal to the value of those means of livelihood necessary for the reproduction of labor power. The rest, namely, the surplus value, is not only possessed by the capitalist, but is used as a means to increase the exploitation of the worker. Under the socialist system, labor power is no longer a commodity. The laborer is no longer exploited. All of the value created by the producer is at the service of the laboring class. The distribution of the labor remuneration fund of the producer and the social fund is regulated by an overall consideration of common and individual interests and the long-term and short-term interests of the laboring people.
>>2479498 You are a fascist. In China, renegades like Lin Piao also strove to peddle phony communism. They proclaimed that communism was “public propertyism,” that “‘property’ is the word to be stressed on the banner,” and that communism was to make “everyone rich.” The renegade clique never talked about eliminating the landlord and the bourgeoisie; all they cared about were the words “public” and “property.” What class’s “public” was it? What class’s “property” was it? It is obvious. Their so-called “public” was what Confucius and his kind advocated: “When the great Tao prevails in the world, a public spirit will rule all under Heaven.” Hence, it was the slave owner’s “public,” the landlord’s “public,” and the bourgeoisie’s “public”! The so-called “property” was the slave owner’s “property,” the landlord’s “property,” and the bourgeoisie’s “property.” Getting rich could only mean that this handful from the exploiting classes would become millionaires. Had the renegades succeeded in carrying out their conspiracies, the proletariat and the broad masses of laborers would have once again lost all the means of production and would once again have been reduced to slaves in the abyss of hardship and suffering.