FWIW in the section of the GCP to which you refer, Marx says, "Within the cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products here appear _as the value of these products_, as a material quantiuty possessed directly by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no loger exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labor." CTucker, ME Reader 2d ed, at 529.
^^^^ CB: It's not clear that this is the _transitional_ stage. It may be full communism. The SU was not communism , but socialism, retaining some of the characteristics of capitalism, like to each according to work, not to each according to need.
What goes "to each" is based on the labor time put in by each. What goes to each is appropriately termed "value", since "value" in _Capital_ is labor time.
^^^^
OK, clear enough?
^^^^ CB: No. Read what you quote above in connection with the distinction in the same work that Marx makes between the different stages of communism.
There is a transitional phase which is a sort of hybrid of capitalism and communism.
^^^^^
This explains why I want to talk about capitalism. There is, according to Marx, no value in a post capitalsist society based on collective ownership where the producers do not exchange their products.
I find no reference in Marx to a "mixed" system, and certainly not in the CGP, where he talks about the first state of communsim involving remuneration according to labor. Labor, yes. Value, no.
^^^^^ CB: Value _is_ congealed labor time. There are plenty of references in Marx wherein he indicates that the first stage of communism retains some of the characteristics of capitalism, which I'm referring to here as a mixed system.
^^^^
-