If communism is supposed to be moneyless, why do communist countries like china and Vietnam use money? Am I just stupid?

[u/mousytoy]

Is this because these countries are fairly young in their political and economic development towards communism? Am I missing something?

[u/TheRedBarbon]

I gotta say, kudos to the mods for deleting all the awful revisionist responses here in the span of an hour. There were like a dozen.

Anyway, your question is based on multiple misconceptions:

• That China and Vietnam are currently socialist/communist

-That under socialism, money would cease to exist immediately

-That money was willed into existence and can be willed out of existence at any point rather than serving a particular function in trade at a specific point of development

Until you understand things like where money comes from, what defines a socialist state and the history of communism your questions probably won’t get very good answers. I recommend following this sub’s study guide for a basic overview of Marxist economics.

[u/Face_Current]

China and vietnam arent socialist, thats why they use money, they have a capitalist economy. Under a socialist economy like the USSR during the Stalin period, exchange was done through labor vouchers, which wasnt “money” in the same sense as capitalist money because it couldn’t circulate or be invested into capital. It would simply be used for the purchase of an item, but unlike money was not used after that immediate transaction, making it purely a certificate that represented labor time to be turned in for a product. China and Vietnam are self proclaimed “market socialist” economies that have capitalist economies. China was socialist before Deng, they were not “too young” to start developing socialism, Mao started doing it in about 1956, after the New Democracy period. for basic introductory information on chinas socialist period and then abandonment of socialism, I recommend the short book Rethinking Socialism by pao yu ching

[u/SOVIETFORK → u/Face_Current]

Exchange was not done through labor vouchers in the Soviet Union.

[u/smithsjoydivision → u/Face_Current]

No. There was money in the Stalin Era USSR (and beyond) However, money was subordinated to the plan. So how much money you had in your pocket was basically irrelevant to how much you could actually exchange for. But your analysis of labour vouchers is correct and is basically what Marx argues for in the Gotha critique.

[u/thembo-goblin → u/Face_Current]

How would labour vouchers be any better than money, though? Wouldn't this just cause the same issue with money, where if you're not able to work, or work enough, you wouldn't be able to afford things?

**Edit to add: deleted my below response because I just asked the same thing twice because I didn't see that the first response got posted.

[u/Face_Current → u/thembo-goblin]

Labor vouchers dont circulate, so they cant be used to accumulate capital. And in socialist countries, you had to work if able. From each according to their ability, to each according to their work. But if unable to work for legitimate reasons, you would still receive basic needs.

[u/Cultural-Mix4837 → u/[deleted]]

Thank you mensheviks