Marxian Economic Theory

I know Marx didn't distinguish between the two but I take the Leninist stance, so to me they're two different things.

Firstly, not exactly "selling" (autistic children will be complaining), but getting paid, receiving reward, having his singing socially recognized.

Secondly, why he isn't? Why doesn't society recognize value of his songs? If they are not deemed socially necessary/useful, then he is not actually working. What right does he have to demand anything? [starts calling People's Militia to report attempt at non-labour income]

Where is this said? I mean, other than "Principles of Communism" by Engels (where it is not said in this specific form).

Trots constantly refer to this, but I've yet to see actual basis for this little dogma.

Under communism, a musician that nobody wants to listen to would not be paid to make music. He would get his income through other labour.

so why is it exactly that in developed economies people can less and less live off rent?, i'm reading the economic manuscripts of 1844, and marx says this quoting smith

more, so that eventually only the wealthiest people can live on rent. Hence the ever greater competition between landowners who do not lease their land to tenants. Ruin of some of these; further accumulation of large landed property.(this bit is marx)

i don't understand how the smith bit leads to what marx concludes, in what way does the difference between rent of land and interest rates lead to nobody buying land and only a few people being able to live off it

there is no "income" in communism

Pedantic point. People will still only get to take out as much equivalent snlt as they put in, after deductions for common funds.

funds?????

read the critique of the gotha program

>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

>Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

My emphasis

my emphasis