Section 4: The Transitional Period of the Socialist Distribution Model

There are three important relationships in Marxist economics, namely the relationship between money and capital, the relationship between value and price, and the relationship between labor and labor. As a result, it is inevitable that there will be deviations in the behavior made on the basis of their understanding, which is objectively determined; For example, in Marxist economics, the division of money and capital is based on the difference in its use, that is, the role it plays in the entire social and economic cycle, so as to divide it into the function of money or capital, but in fact this is difficult to achieve, and its theory does not give specific methods and feasible standards, and it is difficult to solidify it in an economic activity based on money, for example, a commodity may be 5 monetary units or 10 monetary units at any time, If you zoom in on the whole market, you will find that in its extreme case, all currencies can be its monetary function, and in the other extreme case, all currencies can also be its capital function, for example, if everyone in the world hoards all the commodities they need for a year, and does not buy and sell any commodities during the year, but only invests in money, then all the currencies in the world are their capital functions, that is, they can be listed as capital. Of course, such a situation is unlikely to happen in the real world, but it is logically possible; Therefore, it is unlikely that it is possible to accurately distinguish between capital and money at any time, so it is not necessarily the most appropriate approach to understand Marxist economics by dividing it into two parts completely independently; The same situation also appears in the elaboration of the relationship between value and price, Marxist economics has a clear definition of value, but there is no clear explanation of its specific criteria, that is to say, there is no clear feasible method for judging the precise value of a specific thing, and in its discourse, there are often situations where the value of things is compared with the market price, such as the imbalance between the wages of workers and the income ratio of capitalists to explain their underestimation of the value of labor. In fact, the value is approximately equal to the price in the market mechanism; There is also this problem in the relationship between labor and labor, for example, in Marxist economics, it is clearly pointed out that labor itself does not have value, and labor has value, but the elaboration of why labor itself does not have value is not very specific and perfect, and if the labor itself does not have value, it is easy to fall into a misunderstanding if it is not deeply understood, for example, from the perspective of our "Value System - Chinese Economics", any behavior will have a certain impact on it relative to the whole systemOf course, under certain conditions, we can completely omit it; For these reasons, the understanding of Marxist economics must be based on the grasp of its overall framework, and cannot be viewed in simplistic and isolated terms, such as the description of value generation in Marxist economics, if we understand it as effective labor, that is, the abstract human undifferentiated labor creates value, if we are based on the above, we cannot simply divide it according to the difference between workers and capitalists, because they have no natural correspondence, if we want to determine that capitalists do not have human undifferentiated labor, then it is necessary to demonstrate it sufficiently and necessary, and then conclude that the activities of capitalists do not belong to labor and therefore do not create value, but Marx's economics does not demonstrate it, so we cannot say whether it is right or wrong what Marx did not say, but it is wrong to understand it in a tendentious way; Artificially understanding capitalists as pure capital is even more wrong; Here we should explain that the examples in Marxist economics often involve specific survival relations between capitalists and workers and related distribution relations, which we can understand here as containing the logical relations in its theory, but not a one-to-one correspondence, so it cannot be simply understood that capitalists do not create value;

The understanding of Marxist economics at the overall level can be divided into two parts, one is an attempt to describe the intrinsic essence of capitalism, and the other is the creation of an ideal mechanism; The two parts may be equal to the theory itself, but the proportion of the length of the description and analysis shows that the former part is much more important than the latter. Moreover, the practical significance of the former part is far greater than that of the latter part; The theories and corresponding mechanisms expounded by Marx's economics are only in a transitional stage for a more perfect theory;

Like the theories expounded by Marxist economics, all economic theories derived from capitalism are also within the same historical framework, which are explained in three aspects:

First, Marxist economic theory and capitalist economic theory are based on the current "market mechanism" when quantifying value, that is, the price in the market mechanism is used to express value, the difference is only that the economic theory of capitalism believes that the two are the same, while Marxist economics makes it clear that the existence of value is significant, but unfortunately he does not give an independent way of measurement, and it is difficult to do this with his description of value;

Second, the ownership and distribution model established by Marxist economic theory and capitalist economic theory at the philosophical level are based on human subjectivity, and as for the distribution model of public ownership proposed by Marx's economic theory in the later period, it is also based on the deformation within the framework of the value of "taking people as the standard", and here it does not change its essence by whether it is the external model of "private ownership" of the minority or the "public ownership" of the majority (or even all people); This is backward compared to the value of "taking the system as a whole";

3. The stage of human development in which Marxist economic theory and capitalist economic theory are located is two parts at the same level, and the inevitable crisis in the operation of capitalism itself and the correction of it by Marxist economics are a complete description of this stage, which can be a large cycle or permeate countless small cycles in its whole; (See Addendum-3)