>
> Again I ask: "what's wrong with producing commodities?"
>
> *****************
>
> Nothing, if you want to accept the conditions for the (re)generation of
> private property, classes and the State. The history of the 19th Century
> utopian movements Owen, Amana colony... and the 20th Century experiments
> e.g. kibbutz, various Stalinist and Social Democratic set-ups, demonstrate
> this quite conclusively, as far as I'm concerned.
Seriously, just no. "Regeneration" of private property:? There was plenty of private property in all the things you cite. "Commodities" didn't do a damn thing.
And while we're at it, can we stop defining things into a commodity? A commodity is just a product for trade. That's it. A commodity is "an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind" (Marx, Capital 125) and is then exchanged for something else".
And because we all produce a narrower range of goods and services than those we want, we have to trade or do something very akin to trading. That's just a fact, undeniable and there is no record of human society without trade. Nor is trade inherently evil, nor does it result in oppression of workers. There was plenty of trade under Primitive Communism.
What you are assuming is that trade inevitably leads to wage labor, but this is not a historically valid assumption.
> In a socialist society (a classless society), there is nobody to sell
> commodities to, because production is by and for the producers
> themselves--no separate class owns the social product of their labour.
> Social(ist), social ownership, social control of production, production by
> and for ourselves, for our use and need. Think of it this way: In a
> present day sense, why would Ford need to sell Ford doors to a Ford factory?
> Ford workers produce Ford doors for Ford cars which are owned by the
> shareholders of Ford. Fords are then sold to the market oustide of the
> factory. The Fords roll out of the factory to the showrooms, where they are
> sold for a profit which benefits the Ford shareholders.
Where do Ford workers get refrigerators, bananas and French Champagne? They can't make those things in the car plant, can they? And how many bananas, refrigerators and bottles of French champagne do they expect for building ten thousand cars? Just any number anybody feels like giving them? So they provide two cars for everybody at the vineyard and get one bottle of champagne in return, is that it? C'mon.
Even if you don't sell things, you have to trade them. To administer the fair distribution of goods and services you have to make them comparable. That means judging their relative value and coming up with a barter scheme. It's simply inevitable. You cannot administer distribution of goods fairly or even rationally unless you have some notion of comparable worth. As soon as you say "okay, so I'll give you five of these and you give me three of those" you have engaged in barter trade of commodities. It is simply impossibly to avoid.
>
> Once a commodity is purchased, it retains its use-value for the purchaser.
> Dad lends daughter the Ford for use and need. It's the family car. Why
> would we producers want to sell ourselves stuff we already own?
"Lend" - for how long? Does the daughter get the family car to go away for a week, a month, a year? Can Dad "lend" his daughter the family banana, or bottle of Champagne? No. Products are consumed in their use. So the daughter says "okay, I'll use the one case of Champagne the family will be rationed this year and, because none of you will get to drink it, I will give you a pint of strawberry jam and a bottle of vinegar."
You don't think her Brother is going to get a little irritated?
Fairness demands that we judge relative value. Fairness. That's all.
As socialism brings the family/clan ethic back to trade, of course trade starts to look different. People will not be as exacting about a squaring of accounts, but accounts will have to be squared. Otherwise, you get conflict.