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.
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.