(2/2)
(5) I have no idea what you wrote in that last paragraph, but Marx was not against central planning - quite the opposite. Marx thought that centralised capitalist states would be more efficient and would consequently be more economically prepared to handle a socialist mode of production, as it meant that its productivity would be developed to such an extent that one can easily include social welfare and autonomous councils without fear of the democratisation of the factories and the supply chains causing problems in case of a disaster. It's more the nature of the revolution that he changed his mind on before and after the Paris Commune -- initially he supported a concept of a mass domination of the Proletariat (referred to as a Dictatorship in Blanqist terms) towards the Bourgeoisie because according to his analysis, the system under capitalism, even with welfare still is a situation where the Bourgeoisie control the state to enact their class interests as a Dictatorship (worker's parties, for example, when elected still have to submit to the demands of big business and capital circulation if they want to be elected, since as we've seen countless times before, the bourgeoisie can and will deploy terror when this happens (Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua, etc.) and even then, whilst within a bourgeois state apparatus, a worker's party is subject to its machinations and its structure if it is not going into politics with the explicit goal of dismantling capitalism since parliamentarianism under capitalism is a structure that in his view, is built up to support capitalism through the politico-legal apparatus and the alienation of political power to voting rather than striking and direct action).
(6) What is defined as value in Marxian terms is not simply the underside of currency, but the literal process of production itself. Labour power creates value through production - commodities contain a use value, which is directly created by labour. When it's sold off however, a commodity's value is defined in terms of its social value - it's exchange value to be precise, which is determined by the laws of the market in terms of what abstract worth it represents relative to other commodities (the classic example - 30 yards of linen = 1 coat, the former has little to no value to anyone but a skilled tailor, which is a primarily use value that is also mediated by its exchange (quality of the linen, speed of transportation, etc.), yet a coat has a defined and separate use value where it is measured up against other coats (its sturdiness, craftsmanship, dictates of fashion, warmth, etc.), yet on the market, 30 yards is worth as much as 1 coat, despite them being completely different - this is the fundamental grounds for exchange value, one can be exchanged for the other regardless of their use value, despite being different objects, but on the level of social exchange, they are worth the same -- they possess the same social value). The Marxian argument is that the worker creates the commodity using the tools they are provided by the capitalist, the owner of the factory, which they own through their access of capital. When a commodity is sold off, it's surplus value, that of the exchange value + the use value - the wage paid for the labour is always pocketed by the capitalist. This is not in terms of pure currency, since currency is tied to its own caprices and fluctuations, but in terms of the actual material value that is produced and exchanged. Everything else cannot be properly explained by me in these forum posts without becoming very arduous in itself, and something I'd advocate actually reading into. To that end, I recommend the Marx and Engels Reader by Robert Tucker. Rest assured that most questions regarding the circulation of capital, worker's co-ops, social democracy, etc. are addressed in the texts here.
(7) Marxism is not about 'asking people for things' neither. The maxim is 'From each according to his ability, to each according to their need'.
