Isn't the Marxist conception of this based on exchange of labor time? In other words, if you were willing to exchange what you made during your time painting with whatever someone else was doing during their time working, then this is the basis of the economy now, and can be a basis of a future economy. An example would be a farmer grows food and exchanges those commodities with someone who makes clothes. Both share the commodities made during their labor time with each other, it's basically an exchange of labor time.
-- Lance
******************************************************
My take on Marx is that he was advocating a society without commodity production/consumption, no buying and selling. That is, a socialist society's distribution would be based on how many socially necessary labour hours one put in. Production would be based on what needs the society wanted to fulfill. The qualification here is socially necessary. Members of the society would decide what is necessary to be produced and the time that it took to produce such and such a quantity of necessities would be pared down so that individuals would have the free-time on their own to create their art and engage in other activities which might be more individually than socially necessary.
Once I do my janitorial work, I go home and finish a painting. I don't need that painting but I need that sculpture you produced. We trade because we like each other's work.
That kind of socialism appeals to me.
Let free-time ring, Mike B)
===== ***************************************************************** "--why do you slack your fighting-fury now? It's hard for me, strong as I am, single-handed to breach the wall and cut a path to the ships--come, shoulder-to-shoulder! The more we've got, the better the work will go!"
One of Sarpedon's speeches in THE ILIAD--The Trojans storm the rampart http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com