Some would argue that Marx himself was the first to articulate it: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195/marx_critique.htm Joe R. Golowka
Thanks Joe for this interesting and provocative piece. I find myself broadly in agreement with it, as my view has long been that Leninism is a doctrine that is mostly constructed out of the weakest parts of Marx's own work and quite oblivious to the implications of his truly revolutionary moments. However I must say that I am not convinced at all by the following important passage:
"True enough, these certificates are not money since they are not intended to circulate -and exchange is supposed to be confined to relationships between the communally owned warehouses (or whatever one calls them) and the individual. Yet, even if we assume this to be so, this would still not prevent Marx's "first phase of communist society" from being a form of capitalism. The fact is, though, that even these restrictions on the process of exchange could in reality be nothing more than pious hopes. Exchange between individuals would still be bound to occur and, whatever the intention behind the labour certificates, they would be bound to circulate too"
I don't understand why these 'labour certificates' would tend to enter into exchange the way that money does. My understanding is that they would be non-exchangeable in their very nature and certainly non-accumulative. Think of it perhaps in a more modern way: a computer simply notes that so and so has completed so much labour and therefore 'deserves' to receive so much of the social product. In what way could this be transferable to another person? I don't get it. Secondly the conclusion that the author arrives at, that this will be a form of capitalism also seems wrong, since the characteristic of capital par excellence is its ability to accummulate. This may seem like a purely technical point, but I hope someone will comment on it, because to me this gets to the heart of the question of the 'lower stage of communism'.
Regards Tahir