What is it that makes a CIVILISED human turn a COMMUNIST ?

  1. Prakash RnP profile image78
    Prakash RnPposted 4 weeks ago

    As I see it, it happens to be the awareness of the fact that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity. After you've awakened to this very fact, you can have no other option, if you're a civilised human, and if you must make a choice between capitalism and communism, than to stand for communism. By ' worth ', I mean the use-value ( i.e. usefulness ) of a commodity, not its exchange-value. A  commodity has got some use-value along with some exchange-value. The use-value and exchange-value are so different that  a sensible human oughtn't to confuse the one with the other. The basic distinction between them is, as we communists view it, the fact that while the use-value of a  commodity remains unchanged, its exchange-value may change very often. And changes in its exchange-value are governed by lifeless, blind market forces ( i.e. laws of supply and demand ), not by its use-value, i.e. worth. Another point of great significance in this regard is the fact that it's the use-value ( i.e. usefulness or worth ) of a  commodity that happens to interest the buyer-consumer most while it's the exchange-value that the seller considers the most important stuff in the world. The reason is obvious. While the sellers are motivated to exchange their  commodities for money, the buyers consumers are concerned with the usefulness of  commodities they're prepared to part with their money for.
    What I view as of uttermost importance in this regard is the logical conclusion that follows from the fact that money cannot measure the use-value ( i.e. worth ) of a  commodity, namely that it's not the qualitative distinctions ( i.e. distinctions based on quality or worth ) between humans that happens to justify the inequality in society, i.e. the social division into the rich and the poor, the outcome of the concentration of wealth at one pole accompanied by mass pauperism at the other. The fact that one per cent possess as much wealth as the remaining 99 per cent together do or the fact that there exist as few as 80 guys known as the super-rich owning as much wealth as the 3,5 billion-strong crowd of the poor together own doesn't owe its origin to the fact that the 1 per cent or the super-rich 80 are superior, in terms of quality, humans to all the rest, right ? I'm not aware of a sensible logic, a substantial argument, that justifies your turning a blind eye to all these points and taking an anti-communist stance if you're civilised through and through, OK ?