Marx talks briefly about higher and lower stages, but even the lower stage should in his view include for example the almost immediat abolishment of money. The SU system on the other hand grew more monetary over time.
I don't think Marx ever named the stages socialism and communism though, thats seems to come from a Leninist interpretation of Marx.
I argue that Marx used the terms scientific socialism and communism for the same thing.
include for example the almost immediat abolishment of money
I'm pretty sure I've never seen something like that in Marx, and it's also pretty obviously very difficult. Money arises from trade and since there will still be trade at first, there will be money. Didn't say he named them socialism and communism, although these terms gained their meaning before Lenin (but after Marx).
He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.
Critique of the Gotha program.
He writes this about th ** lower** stage of communism, obviously the certificate is not money. And it makes sense, movement of goods is an economic neccessity in every form of economy, but only in an economy with private property goods will be produced as commodities for the markets and therefore neccessitate trade (=change of ownership).
But this says nothing about abolition of money, which is a different thing and generally a big no no when you still have to deal with imperialism and foreign trade.
Marx talks briefly about higher and lower stages, but even the lower stage should in his view include for example the almost immediat abolishment of money. The SU system on the other hand grew more monetary over time. I don't think Marx ever named the stages socialism and communism though, thats seems to come from a Leninist interpretation of Marx. I argue that Marx used the terms scientific socialism and communism for the same thing.
I'm pretty sure I've never seen something like that in Marx, and it's also pretty obviously very difficult. Money arises from trade and since there will still be trade at first, there will be money. Didn't say he named them socialism and communism, although these terms gained their meaning before Lenin (but after Marx).
Critique of the Gotha program.
He writes this about th ** lower** stage of communism, obviously the certificate is not money. And it makes sense, movement of goods is an economic neccessity in every form of economy, but only in an economy with private property goods will be produced as commodities for the markets and therefore neccessitate trade (=change of ownership).
But this says nothing about abolition of money, which is a different thing and generally a big no no when you still have to deal with imperialism and foreign trade.