Do you support dropping the U.S dollar as world reserve currency for new currency?

[Bankotsu]

There is growing momentum for the idea of dropping the U.S dollar as world reserve currency and replacing it with a new system.

The current dollar system is also one of the pillars of the U.S unipolar world, if the system is reformed, the world will be a more multipolar world.

Do you support dropping the U.S dollar as world reserve currency for new currency?




UN wants new global currency to replace dollar

The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world's monetary system since the Second World War.

By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor 07 Sep 2009

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.

It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world's reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion.

In essence, the report calls for a new Bretton Woods-style system of managed international exchange rates, meaning central banks would be forced to intervene and either support or push down their currencies depending on how the rest of the world economy is behaving.

The proposals would also imply that surplus nations such as China and Germany should stimulate their economies further in order to cut their own imbalances, rather than, as in the present system, deficit nations such as the UK and US having to take the main burden of readjustment.

"Replacing the dollar with an artificial currency would solve some of the problems related to the potential of countries running large deficits and would help stability," said Detlef Kotte, one of the report's authors. "But you will also need a system of managed exchange rates. Countries should keep real exchange rates [adjusted for inflation] stable. Central banks would have to intervene and if not they would have to be told to do so by a multilateral institution such as the International Monetary Fund."

The proposals, included in UNCTAD's annual Trade and Development Report , amount to the most radical suggestions for redesigning the global monetary system.

Although many economists have pointed out that the economic crisis owed more to the malfunctioning of the post-Bretton Woods system, until now no major institution, including the G20 , has come up with an alternative.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/6152204/UN-wants-new-global-currency-to-replace-dollar.html
U.S. has plundered world wealth with dollar: China paper

Fri Oct 24, 2008

BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has plundered global wealth by exploiting the dollar's dominance, and the world urgently needs other currencies to take its place, a leading Chinese state newspaper said on Friday.

The front-page commentary in the overseas edition of the People's Daily said that Asian and European countries should banish the U.S. dollar from their direct trade relations for a start, relying only on their own currencies.

A meeting between Asian and European leaders, starting on Friday in Beijing, presented the perfect opportunity to begin building a new international financial order, the newspaper said.
The People's Daily is the official newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party. The Chinese-language overseas edition is a small circulation offshoot of the main paper.

Its pronouncements do not necessarily directly voice leadership views. But the commentary, as well as recent comments, amount to a growing chorus of Chinese disdain for Washington's economic policies and global financial dominance in the wake of the credit crisis (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/creditcrisis).

"The grim reality has led people, amidst the panic, to realize that the United States has used the U.S. dollar's hegemony to plunder the world's wealth," said the commentator, Shi Jianxun, a professor at Shanghai's Tongji University.

Shi, who has before been strident in his criticism of the U.S., said other countries had lost vast amounts of wealth because of the financial crisis, while Washington's sole concern had been protecting its own interests.

"The U.S. dollar is losing people's confidence. The world, acting democratically and lawfully through a global financial organization, urgently needs to change the international monetary system based on U.S. global economic leadership and U.S. dollar dominance," he wrote.

Shi suggested that all trade between Europe and Asia should be settled in euros, pounds, yen and yuan, though he did not explain how the Chinese currency could play such a role since it is not convertible on the capital account.

A two-day Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) of 27 EU member states and 16 Asian countries was set to open on Friday. Though few analysts expect much in the way of concrete agreements, Shi said it could prove momentous.

"How can Europe and Asia grasp each other's hands and together confront the once-in-a-century global financial crisis sparked by the U.S.; how can they construct a new equitable and safe international financial order?" he said.

"The world is waiting for this Asian-European meeting to achieve big results in financial cooperation."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49N1XX20081024


Super Imperialism The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
http://www.michael-hudson.com/books/super_imperialism_II.html

The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences.
http://www.marxsite.com/Global%20Gamble2.htm

How the IMF Props Up the Bankrupt Dollar System
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar_system.htm

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man

[cyu]

Yes - I don't see how any internationalist would think one country's ruling regime should have domination over the world economic system.

Personally, I think currency should be recentered around the actual producers (ie. the so-called working class) thus dispelling the illusion that real workers somehow still need the finance industry in order to have a functioning economy. Like some Austrian "economists", I support the right of people to issue their own money, but unlike Austrian "economists" I don't believe it is gold-based currency that will win out in the end, but rather money based on the stuff that the working class actually produces.

Say at the end of a season, a farmer finds that he has harvested 500 bushels of grain (or maybe a group of oil workers find that they have 500 barrels of oil). Then the farmer issues one paper note for each bushel (or the oil workers issue one paper note for each barrel), and then takes that note to spend in the local economy.

As long as the other members of the community know they can redeem the paper note for a bushel of wheat or barrel of oil at any time, then the paper note has value, and can be used as currency. When someone finally redeems the paper note for the grain / oil, then the note is destroyed.

If you feel paper backed only by barrels of oil or bushels of grain is not stable enough, then it's not hard to back it with a more diversified basket of goods. It would be similar to investing in various index funds - some baskets of goods may try to mimic the consumer price index - other baskets may be more focused on the energy sector or the construction materials sector.

[KC]

Yes - I don't see how any internationalist would think one country's ruling regime should have domination over the world economic system.

It doesn't; the trade of the US dollar was based primarily on economic domination, but trade in US dollars does not imply economic domination, it was simply an effect of past domination. The entire reason that this issue is coming up is because of the declining influence in the global economy that the US exerts.

I think a much more productive question (as opposed to asking us how we think capitalism should be managed, which is what the OP's question basically asked) would be will the US dollar be replaced by some other currency in the foreseeable future?

The answer to that question is incredibly difficult to gauge, as it depends entirely on how the US economy develops over the coming years. The most reasonable answer, I think, though, is no, or at least not for a long time. It is incredibly difficult to transfer the entire world market that is based on the US dollar over to another currency. Also, and most importantly, because of the fact that the entire global capitalist system is profoundly dependent upon the American economy, it is entirely appropriate for US currency to dominate.

[Bankotsu]

Also, and most importantly, because of the fact that the entire global capitalist system is profoundly dependent upon the American economy, it is entirely appropriate for US currency to dominate.


The End of Dollar Hegemony by Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

[9]

by Ron Paul
I suspect that Ron Paul, seeing as he is a Libertarian, doesn't have much to offer the revolutionary left by way of analysis. Something tells me he isn't exactly an advocate of philosophical materialism :D

[Tzadikim]

I neither support or oppose dropping it. I support the abolition of all forms of capitalist monetary currency.

[Bankotsu]

I neither support or oppose dropping it. I support the abolition of all forms of capitalist monetary currency.

You don't seem to have an active position on most current issues in world politics.

[Tzadikim]

You don't seem to have an active position on most current issues in world politics.

Because most current issues are the products of the capitalist class, and will be utterly meaningless in an international socialist society. I am utterly unconcerned with the petty and trivial bickering among the bourgeoisie of the various nations over what money to peg their own currencies to: in the end, all of their currencies are the end result of systematic, irrational, illogical, needless exploitation of the working class.

[Bankotsu]

Because most current issues are the products of the capitalist class, and will be utterly meaningless in an international socialist society. I am utterly unconcerned with the petty and trivial bickering among the bourgeoisie of the various nations over what money to peg their own currencies to: in the end, all of their currencies are the end result of systematic, irrational, illogical, needless exploitation of the working class.

You might risk getting out of touch with the public and lose public support if all your positions are passive.

[Tzadikim]

You might risk getting out of touch with the public and lose public support if all your positions are passive.

And you risk betraying the working class, although, with your apparent fondness for Ron Paul, I doubt that's much of a problem for you.

[Bankotsu]

And you risk betraying the working class, although, with your apparent fondness for Ron Paul, I doubt that's much of a problem for you.

What's up with Ron Paul and working class betrayal?

Ron Paul supports ending the U.S empire which I support as well.

Less aggressive imperialist wars.

[Tzadikim]

What's up with Ron Paul and working class betrayal?

Ron Paul supports ending the U.S empire which I support as well.

Less aggressive imperialist wars.

Protip: America is not the sole capitalist power in the world. And "aggressive imperialist wars" are merely a symptom of the global institution that is capitalism - and there are few American politicians more staunchly capitalist, more anti-labour, more anti-progress than Ron fucking Paul.

[Bankotsu]

Protip: America is not the sole capitalist power in the world. And "aggressive imperialist wars" are merely a symptom of the global institution that is capitalism - and there are few American politicians more staunchly capitalist, more anti-labour, more anti-progress than Ron fucking Paul.

Ron Paul wants to end the U.S empire and stop imperialist wars. That is a fact.

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Foreign_Policy.htm

[Tzadikim]

Ron Paul wants to end the U.S empire and stop imperialist wars. That is a fact.

I want to end capitalism, which as a corollary will end both the U.S. empire and imperialist wars. Ron Paul wants to pretend to end imperialist wars abroad in order to better facilitate the exploitation of the American worker through draconian anti-union legislation and the repeal of the few existing regulations still protecting him at home.

[Bankotsu]

Ron Paul wants to pretend to end imperialist wars abroad in order to better facilitate the exploitation of the American worker through draconian anti-union legislation and the repeal of the few existing regulations still protecting him at home.

I think Ron Paul is sincere about ending aggressive foreign wars. I don't think he has a hidden agenda.

He is however clearly not a left wing guy.

[Tzadikim]

I think Ron Paul is sincere about ending aggressive foreign wars. I don't think he has a hidden agenda.

He probably is. He's also sincere about busting unions (small gubbmint? no gubbmint's small enough to break unions through coercion and force!) and destroying the few gains the working class has made in this nation.

You, on the other hand, most certainly do have an agenda, and I expect I'll see you posting in OI relatively soon.

[Bankotsu]

You, on the other hand, most certainly do have an agenda

My agenda is quite open, end U.S hegemonic unipolar world, create multipolar world, end U.S imperialist economic and financial system, uplift developing states. And push for regional peace and unity.

[Tzadikim]

My agenda is quite open, end U.S hegemonic unipolar world, create multipolar world, end U.S imperialist economic and financial system, uplift developing states. And push for regional peace and unity.

And preserve international capitalism, right?

No thanks.

[Bankotsu]

And preserve international capitalism, right?


I am a reformist socialist along the likes of Chavez.

[Revy]

I am profoundly unconcerned about which currency is used for this purpose.

[cyu]

I think a much more productive question... would be will the US dollar be replaced by some other currency in the foreseeable future?
The answer to that question is incredibly difficult to gauge


That's talking like a passive observer, not a revolutionary. Observation is fine if it will lead to analysis that helps determine the best course of action. If all you do is observe and observe some more, it's basically surrendering to your opponents.

The question should not be will any capitalist medium of exchange be replaced, but how we can replace it. So again, I repost from the above:

Say at the end of a season, a farmer finds that he has harvested 500 bushels of grain (or maybe a group of oil workers find that they have 500 barrels of oil). Then the farmer issues one paper note for each bushel (or the oil workers issue one paper note for each barrel), and then takes that note to spend in the local economy.

As long as the other members of the community know they can redeem the paper note for a bushel of wheat or barrel of oil at any time, then the paper note has value, and can be used as currency. When someone finally redeems the paper note for the grain / oil, then the note is destroyed.

If you feel paper backed only by barrels of oil or bushels of grain is not stable enough, then it's not hard to back it with a more diversified basket of goods. It would be similar to investing in various index funds - some baskets of goods may try to mimic the consumer price index - other baskets may be more focused on the energy sector or the construction materials sector.

[Bankotsu]

If all you do is observe and observe some more, it's basically surrendering to your opponents.


Argeed.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes - I don't see how any internationalist would think one country's ruling regime should have domination over the world economic system.




Personally, I think currency should be recentered around the actual producers (ie. the so-called working class) thus dispelling the illusion that real workers somehow still need the finance industry in order to have a functioning economy. Like some Austrian "economists", I support the right of people to issue their own money, but unlike Austrian "economists" I don't believe it is gold-based currency that will win out in the end, but rather money based on the stuff that the working class actually produces.


cyu, I have to note that this is -- when you boil it down -- *still* a reformist measure. I think it may sound generally attractive because it happens to be an *economic*, and less of a conventionally *political*-oriented, demand -- (or ruse, depending on who it's coming from) -- that we might usually hear.

Certainly, as you're noting, we don't support *any* grand financial scheme of economic organization that is imposed from the top down, *however* I also have to go further here and note that *any quantified representation of value* -- meaning currency, money -- even if it is issued from a truly rank-and-file-controlled workers collective -- is still absolutely problematic from a working class position.





Say at the end of a season, a farmer finds that he has harvested 500 bushels of grain (or maybe a group of oil workers find that they have 500 barrels of oil). Then the farmer issues one paper note for each bushel (or the oil workers issue one paper note for each barrel), and then takes that note to spend in the local economy.

As long as the other members of the community know they can redeem the paper note for a bushel of wheat or barrel of oil at any time, then the paper note has value, and can be used as currency. When someone finally redeems the paper note for the grain / oil, then the note is destroyed.


In short, the use of quantified values is as superfluous to a communist economy as the 'god' or deities construction is to an explanation of existence. In both cases its use only begs the question -- if something that's worker-collective-produced is worth x paper notes of value (for x bushels of grain), then of what *consequence* is it that someone is willing to trade a portion of oil (in barrels) at a certain ratio to the bushels of grain? In other words, the 'trade' function would be meaningless -- either production is done and delivered, or it's not. When there are direct lines drawn from producer to consumer what need is there for swapping, much less the use of abstracted values?

I think this is a fairly common misstep around the revolutionary left -- the tricky part here is that as soon as we open up the door the slightest crack to allow *trade* in, all this other baggage comes swarming in. While "local trading" sounds down-home and personalized and libertarian and cool and everything, the problem is that the hydra-like dead ends only *multiply* from there, starting with this paper notes system of representation.

We wouldn't want a representative, or professionalized / abstracted, system of government if we could possibly help it -- that's why this is all about bringing forth rank-and-file workers collectives that can utilize *direct democracy*. So, by the same token we shouldn't be unguarded to another bourgeois time warp, this time the old-wine-in-new-bottles trap of a mercantilist-style system of economic valuations.





If you feel paper backed only by barrels of oil or bushels of grain is not stable enough, then it's not hard to back it with a more diversified basket of goods. It would be similar to investing in various index funds - some baskets of goods may try to mimic the consumer price index - other baskets may be more focused on the energy sector or the construction materials sector.


This would be absolutely *tragic* in practice, because, while not technically a commodity-producing economy -- (because of the workers' rule) -- it would still be orienting consumption as a *step further removed* from production, through the value mechanism. Why not eliminate the trade / "middleman" dance here and just cut to a system of material accounting that keeps track of 500 bushels of grain, and 500 barrels of oil, and just distributes them according to outstanding human need?

I won't attempt to speculate on how many eddies of chaotic, time-wasting complications might emerge from the inherent complexities of the value-exchanging system you're proposing. I'll admit it looks good as an economic *reform* because it's *less complicated* than a full-blown market / commodities system, but it's still possible that it could spawn meta-layers of economic activity that become increasingly removed from the producer function -- already you're talking about a basket-of-goods index -- see how the internal dynamics of this kind of system give rise to *secondary*, *emergent* layers of economic abstraction and activity? I think this kind of thing could just snowball uncontrollably until we're basically back at commodities and markets without meaning to do so.

From another direction, let me put our current, capitalism-arrived-at capacities for production on a continuum of scarcity / ease of use -- this continuum will go from abundance / easy use on one end over to scarce / specialized use on the opposite end.

If this is an agreeable construction then let me point out that, on one end, plain air is actually in boundless abundance for our purposes of breathing, and so it is mostly recordless and bookkeepingless in practice -- certainly it's not a commodity in any common sense. Now, slightly further down on the scale is food, also as vital to life as air is, and it is now abundant, yet it is commodified, and recorded and tracked as such. Near the *opposite* end we could place airplanes and plane flights -- not a vital necessity -- *not* abundant, so then perhaps this would be more appropriate for a conventional commodities-based market system of accounting, right? No. Even though it's a "scarce" resource the administration of high-end assets and resources can *also* be done directly, squeezing out the room where the market mechanism would typically want to set up shop.

So, in *all* cases the market mechanism is superfluous and should *not* be entertained as a possibility. We can record "500 airplanes" as easily -- or, decidedly *more* easily -- than as we can record -- or print and cut -- 500 paper notes for the same.

Will we realize any conferred benefits by *reverting* to bourgeois-originated methods of material accounting? Obviously not because the very act of *symbolizing* and *comparing apples to oranges* (literally -- heh) is a mistake and only leads right into *trade* and worse. These are *absolutely incompatible* with a system of material administration that is worker-run -- *especially* one that exists in a world of abundance. All that would be needed is the material bookkeeping for a collective workers' administration over distribution.

Interestingly I'll point out here -- if you don't mind -- that this adoption of retro-mercantilist rituals of respect for property -- like the abstraction of its representation (into value) -- is a mirror image of the perpetuation of *political* forms of oppression that the oppressed can't help but pick up and reproduce (to some degree) from *their* collective conditioned experience of oppression as *they* gain victories in their struggles and rise to newfound middling positions of prominence and influence within the capitalist system.


Chris




--



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[cyu]

when you boil it down -- *still* a reformist measure

This is merely one of many steps in the overthrow of capitalism. It is step 3 in the steps below:

1. If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

2. If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

3. If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.


When there are direct lines drawn from producer to consumer what need is there for swapping, much less the use of abstracted values?

What direct lines are you talking about? How does the need, as represented by a consumer, get communicated to a producer? Some consumers will want different things than other consumers - how will that be communicated?

Excerpt from Am I hurting anyone if I'm rich? (http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/Am+I+hurting+anyone+if+I%2527m+rich%253F)

In a market economy, each dollar you spend is a like a vote for what is valuable, and what should be produced. This works fine if everyone has relatively equal amounts of dollars to spend - you get something like economic democracy. However, if some people have lots more votes than everyone else, then the things they want get lots more votes. This draws resources (raw materials, equipment, labor, etc) away from producing things for the average person, and results in more production of luxury goods for the oppressive minority.


just cut to a system of material accounting

Can you explain this more and give details about how it works?


I think this kind of thing could just snowball uncontrollably until we're basically back at commodities and markets without meaning to do so.

I think as long as everyone remembers that paper notes are merely representations of wealth, and not wealth in themselves, then they'll be fine. If it ever reaches the point at which some people start accumulating large amounts of paper notes, hurting society in general, then the people who are actually doing the real work can simply do step #3 from above again, thus rendering the old paper notes worthless.

[ckaihatsu]

1. If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.


Yup -- looks good.





2. If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.


Sure -- why not -- this would clear out inventories without a lot of fuss and muss....





3. If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.


Now here is where I have differences -- *why*, for fuck's sake, do we *need* to use ^&%#@ legal tender??? *Why* do we have to ape the outmoded rituals of the possessing class that's just been upturned?

Let me put it this way -- what if [1] the inventories lasted fairly long, maybe about a year or so, without replenishment? (I'm just guessing here.) And [2] that replenishing the most vital supplies to the inventories, once depleted (or some time before so) could be done fairly easily and comprehensively on an ad hoc basis?

If everyone was politicized enough to *not* allow capitalist rule -- *or* the use of currency *at all* -- back in, then we could jump ahead to a kind of proto-communism by just doing the most critical work on an inter-voluntary, civil-esque basis. That could give us some time to figure out a firmer basis for workers' administration, so that we *wouldn't* have to constantly tend to the ad hoc logistics forever.

I don't think you're appreciating the problems that come with the use of an impersonal medium -- and abstracted value -- that is *any* legal tender, even that originating directly from workers' collectivized production. It really smacks of syndicalism and could easily usher in a landscape of feudal-like factory regimes. While I'll admit that its sheer productive prowess over capitalism could be an improvement and make more *stuff* available on a broad geographical scale, I wouldn't want society to *stay* there because of money- and localism-based complications that could set in over time, gradually pulling the situation backwards towards a re-establishment of private property relations.

If there's no plan to *further collectivize*, on a pan-factory scale, then the only other direction available would be *backwards*, a political reactionary tendency back towards parochialism and private claims -- even if on a now-workers-collectives basis.





What direct lines are you talking about? How does the need, as represented by a consumer, get communicated to a producer? Some consumers will want different things than other consumers - how will that be communicated?


Well, how is a phone book organized? Or how do we manage to get a consistent system of street names and numbering? How is electricity service restored after a fierce storm? Your question is merely asking about any number of public-sector accomplishments that humanity has to its name -- as revolutionaries we should be pushing this collectivization trajectory forward, to implement worker-collective-run administrations to organize *every* aspect of material society that is commonly public in consumption anyway, *away* from commodity production and private control.

Here we live in an age where anyone with access to a net connection can find a product on Amazon.com (or whatever) and have it shipped directly to their home -- WHAT ELSE IS THERE????

We *don't* need to go through a money mechanism to preserve this functionality -- hand it all over to the workers and tell (request) them to make thus-and-so via web orders. How's that? As long as we have material resources in surplus -- which we do -- there will be no material issues with this setup. And, even in the case of scarcer goods and services, like planes and plane rides, all we have to do is put the goods and resources on a first-come-first-served (or lottery) basis, under worker-collective authority.





I think as long as everyone remembers that paper notes are merely representations of wealth, and not wealth in themselves, then they'll be fine. If it ever reaches the point at which some people start accumulating large amounts of paper notes, hurting society in general, then the people who are actually doing the real work can simply do step #3 from above again, thus rendering the old paper notes worthless.


Now you sound downright bourgeois with this statement -- like Jefferson's "let's have a revolution whenever things get really bad" (I'm paraphrasing, of course). But a succession of *bourgeois* revolutions still leaves the working class fundamentally *dispossessed* -- as in Russia's transition from Stalinism to capitalism -- because all that's happening is that the currency is being re-branded. B.F.D.

[chegitz guevara]

Will dropping the dollar make the U.S. less powerful? No. Great Britain was the most powerful country in the world, and its currency wasn't a reserve currency. In fact, pegging the world's reserve currency to one country makes the world much more vulnerable.

If the U.S. were overthrown tomorrow, the world economic system would be in chaos, as all those ex-pat dollars would suddenly be worthless.

[the last donut of the night]

I put Unsure because although the world would be multipolar, it'd still be capitalist.

[Dimentio]

I'll support dropping all the currencies of the world in favour of Energy Accounting. ^^

[Orange Juche]

Because most current issues are the products of the capitalist class, and will be utterly meaningless in an international socialist society. I am utterly unconcerned with the petty and trivial bickering among the bourgeoisie of the various nations over what money to peg their own currencies to: in the end, all of their currencies are the end result of systematic, irrational, illogical, needless exploitation of the working class.

You sure are utterly.

[cyu]

It really smacks of syndicalism


Well, I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist, so I'm not really sure what kind of criticism this was meant to be =]


We *don't* need to go through a money mechanism to preserve this functionality -- hand it all over to the workers and tell (request) them to make thus-and-so via web orders. How's that?

Indeed I agree we don't need to do that. Actually, I'd be fine with a society without money, as long as it worked. Just like I may like eating nectarines, but I'd be happy with an orange or watermelon as well.

For example, resource allocation based on giving everyone, say, 100 votes as to what sectors of the economy they wanted to expand, would be fine to me as well.

If you really want to know what I'd prefer, I'd prefer something like the "shops" in Le Guin's The Dispossessed, where everyone just went to pick up stuff without paying. As far as resource allocation and production in such an economy, I'd like to see everyone giving their support to various different organizations - each organization produces media programs that attempts to convince their audiences to come work on whatever parts of the economy those organization's supporters vote for. Instead of advertising to make people greedier, these media organizations would instead be advertising jobs / activities.

...but if that kind of economy is a long way off, then oranges instead of nectarines are fine, even while I'm still working on nectarines...



Now you sound downright bourgeois with this statement -- like Jefferson's "let's have a revolution whenever things get really bad" (I'm paraphrasing, of course).


Any election is a "revolution" - if you didn't like the results of the previous election, then you can choose something else. Democracy is just one method of institutionalizing revolution. This doesn't mean it always works, of course - democratic systems sometimes get corrupted by those in power, whether by those with too much economic power or political power.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist, so I'm not really sure what kind of criticism this was meant to be =]


: )





Indeed I agree we don't need to do that. Actually, I'd be fine with a society without money, as long as it worked. Just like I may like eating nectarines, but I'd be happy with an orange or watermelon as well.

For example, resource allocation based on giving everyone, say, 100 votes as to what sectors of the economy they wanted to expand, would be fine to me as well.


Cool -- there certainly are *options*, or alternatives, available in implementing a worker-collective-run system of production and distribution.





If you really want to know what I'd prefer, I'd prefer something like the "shops" in Le Guin's The Dispossessed, where everyone just went to pick up stuff without paying.


That could very well be all that's needed. Each removal of an item would automatically be recorded by sensors and the shop's inventory database would be updated to reflect the change. Supply chains would also respond to the cumulative changes in inventory, dispatching deliveries of replenishments on a certain schedule....

The only thing that may have to be added to this is some kind of request form, so that shelf space can be reallocated at times for when consumers' tastes change.





As far as resource allocation and production in such an economy, I'd like to see everyone giving their support to various different organizations - each organization produces media programs that attempts to convince their audiences to come work on whatever parts of the economy those organization's supporters vote for. Instead of advertising to make people greedier, these media organizations would instead be advertising jobs / activities.


Sure, why not...(!)





...but if that kind of economy is a long way off, then oranges instead of nectarines are fine, even while I'm still working on nectarines...


Well, I think the *point* of being a revolutionary (of any stripe) is to *not* be as passive as this -- for, while you're settling for oranges, others who have not earned a cent are taking in profits in their sleep and eating nectarines while you're (we're) not.... The same goes for anything else, of course, and why should this worker-collective-run model be so far off? It certainly *will* be far off if we *let* it...!





Any election is a "revolution" - if you didn't like the results of the previous election, then you can choose something else. Democracy is just one method of institutionalizing revolution. This doesn't mean it always works, of course - democratic systems sometimes get corrupted by those in power, whether by those with too much economic power or political power.


Well I think you're being far too kind, for being an anarcho-syndicalist.... From what I can tell, bourgeois "democracy" *is* corruption -- it's *institutionalized corruption*.

[Bankotsu]

The U.S. dollar-based post WWII phantasmagorical world of never having to pay your debts is coming to a close, states financial journalist Max Keiser to RT.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/un-dollar-to-replace-us-dollar/

[fabilius]

I neither support or oppose dropping it. I support the abolition of all forms of capitalist monetary currency.

Excactly, who cares whether the new hegemony is dominated from EU, India or China.

Same capitalist system, different kings on the coins.

[Bankotsu]

Excactly, who cares whether the new hegemony is dominated from EU, India or China.

Same capitalist system, different kings on the coins.

New Multipolar world should be win win for all, not about hegemony of any state or group of states.

Should be as fair and balanced as possible for all.

Hegemony, dominance is NOT the objective.

Many here seem to dislike multipolar world, oppose BRIC etc thinking that after U.S influences weakens, it would just lead to an advantage to other powers like Russia, India, Brazil, that is why they oppose multipolar world.

That is not the right concept of a multipolar world at all.

It is about win win for all.

[cyu]

while you're settling for oranges, others who have not earned a cent are taking in profits in their sleep and eating nectarines while you're (we're) not


Well to stay with the fruit analogy, when I'm comparing nectarines, oranges, and watermelons, I'm basically comparing different types of leftist economies that I'd be OK with - sure I may have my favorite among them, but to me, they are all better than, say, eating rocks, dirt, and shit.

I am not saying that capitalism should be included among the group of nectarines, oranges, or watermelons, but rather that it be included among the group of rocks, dirt, and shit. Of course, there's a wide spectrum of things between fruit and shit: for example, what if every company were democratically run, but there was still a strong current in society that caused the employees of many companies to still vote for unequal pay in the company?

To me, that would be a situation that's better than capitalism, since at least the employees have control, but still, it would not be either a "nectarine, orange, or watermelon".


From what I can tell, bourgeois "democracy" *is* corruption -- it's *institutionalized corruption*.

Sure, I don't disagree. Capitalists use what they claim is "democracy" only as a means to placate the people they oppress - they would only accept "democracy" if it were already corrupted by capitalism: meaning a scenario in which politicians depend on the wealthy for campaign contributions, where the wealthy can fund many more "think tanks" than everyone else, where the wealthy can hire many more lobbyists and lawyers than anyone else, where the mass media is owned and controlled by the wealthy. Thus it isn't a real democracy at all. If it were the type of democracy in which ideas were judged solely by the merits of the ideas themselves, and not by the amount of money the idea's supporters have, then capitalists would not support that kind of democracy.

[ckaihatsu]

Well to stay with the fruit analogy, when I'm comparing nectarines, oranges, and watermelons, I'm basically comparing different types of leftist economies that I'd be OK with - sure I may have my favorite among them, but to me, they are all better than, say, eating rocks, dirt, and shit.


You've switched to a different analogy here -- first you were talking about what kinds of productive capacities you'd *settle* for. I noted that we, collectively, shouldn't *have* to settle, or compromise, on productivity towards consumer (consumption) requests, since we have the know-how to make an abundance of natural resources, and the industrial assets to transform them into finished goods.

Now you're talking about "different types of leftist economies" -- you should probably describe these and not just rely on analogies to types of fruit.





I am not saying that capitalism should be included among the group of nectarines, oranges, or watermelons, but rather that it be included among the group of rocks, dirt, and shit. Of course, there's a wide spectrum of things between fruit and shit: for example, what if every company were democratically run, but there was still a strong current in society that caused the employees of many companies to still vote for unequal pay in the company?

To me, that would be a situation that's better than capitalism, since at least the employees have control, but still, it would not be either a "nectarine, orange, or watermelon".


Okay, so at least you're still anti-capitalist, but I'm still concerned with your dependency on the commodity-value measure -- "pay". We could realistically anticipate a transitional period -- 'socialism', before 'communism' -- in which archaic economic instruments like wages *might* still be used within a consciously politically determined economic system of valuations as part of an offensive against the forces of capital -- this would essentially be a politically coordinated revolutionary leadership that could direct the best forms of labor, through monetary control, so as to be effective as a political body in overcoming bourgeois organization and strategies.

But in the long term we'd want to have an open, un-valuated economic system -- I've outlined this as "socialist supply & demand", at my blog entry -- this means a *material* accounting, but *not* a strictly economic (or politically motivated) one. It would be driven by human needs and, secondarily, consumer preferences.

In an un-valuated system all people would have a baseline, standard component of public support that they could comfortably live on, from cradle to grave, without doing a day's worth of work -- this is materially possible in our present day, but at most we only have the carcasses of past reforms from successful struggles against capitalism from generations ago.

Because of this baseline general political support for people's living needs there *could not* be any strictly *economic* disagreements, as we're so used to dealing with under capitalism -- this is because all labor would in effect be rendered absolutely *voluntary*. No one could possibly suffer the least bit of anxiety over their future livelihood or personal health because of work disagreements or work status. The worst that could happen to a worker is that their faction's policy position would lose out in the larger political process and would *not* be implemented. If this event happened to be so personally traumatic to the worker that they decided the work environment wasn't worth participating in anymore, then they certainly wouldn't have to. But they would not be taking on any *personal risk* by either working or not working.

By extension there could be no politics around compensation from work because compensation would be *separated* from the conventional worker's interests in self-service, or even self-aggrandizement. This is because, without the institution of private property the worker would have no intrinsic self-serving interests on an individual or family (private) scale. Consumption, even through the fiercest consumeristic motivations, would be necessarily limited to *personal* use -- anything that could not *actively*, *ongoing-ly* be utilized or consumed by an individual / family would automatically revert back to the "commons", for potential use by someone else, by some specified time-frame.

The entire work product would be collectivized, with *no* portion of it going right back to the worker, as we're used to seeing with wages -- *but*, by the same structure, *no* portion of the collectivized surplus of society's production could be *denied* to *any* worker, for any personal use, subject to politics.

Perhaps a decent analogy here would be akin to "club membership" or "a day at the amusement park" -- where your buy-in (through labor) gives you access to a large area of benefits, without nickel-and-diming everything -- extending this analogy to the whole economics of humanity would give us a result of communism.

[cyu]

Now you're talking about "different types of leftist economies" -- you should probably describe these and not just rely on analogies to types of fruit.

Agreed. I remember some past post here in which I made a list, but it's probably going to be too hard to dig up now, so I may be leaving some stuff out now, but anyway:

0. [This one I wouldn't actually "settle" for, but at least consider it better than capitalism.] From above: every company is democratically run, but there was still a strong current in society that caused the employees of many companies to still vote for unequal pay in the company. The fact that people still believe in unequal pay would be a belief I would be working against - similar to working against the belief that murder and rape should be tolerated.

These are the ones I would "settle" for:

1. Elaborated from above: Everyone gets 100 votes as to what sectors of the economy they wanted to expand. If one person wants 30% more going into marine agriculture and 70% going into starships, and another person wants 40% going into marine agriculture and 60% into democratic media, then adding all that up, you might get 35% going into marine agriculture, 35% into starships, and 30% into democratic media.

2. From http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work - Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary. They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices. However, instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

3. Some combination of 1 and 2 where a certain portion of economic allocation is determined by vote (#1) and another portion is determined by market socialism (#2) - depending on what the electorate wants, there may be different percentages of the economy determined by #1 or #2.

4. As you've said, If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to make you greedier, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing. As long as people see value in doing something, they are free to support advertising for that kind of activity. Sports, for example, are good for people's health, and, in cases like swimming, can save lives. However, if some other activity could not only provide exercise, but also help out other people at the same time (for example, building a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path), then I could easily see more people gravitating toward promoting that other activity.

[ckaihatsu]

0. [This one I wouldn't actually "settle" for, but at least consider it better than capitalism.] From above: every company is democratically run, but there was still a strong current in society that caused the employees of many companies to still vote for unequal pay in the company. The fact that people still believe in unequal pay would be a belief I would be working against - similar to working against the belief that murder and rape should be tolerated.


I have to reiterate that your premise, as described in this model, suffers from being too cut-off from a larger collection of worker-collectivized factories. There wouldn't *be* an issue of "unequal pay" if the larger economy was large and diverse enough to support *full communism*. (The reason being that people would not *have* to quibble over abstracted values, as with wages / pay -- they would simply go and order (or retrieve) what they needed and desired, from the productive surplus of the larger economy.)

I can only entertain commodity-value-based models like this one if it's a temporary *political* measure adopted by a revolutionary-minded workers' leadership (preferably from the bottom-up), as part of a campaign to control monetary policy, *away* from capitalist control, so as to overcome capitalism altogether. In such a scenario the situation you're describing could very well arise, but I would tend to think that it wouldn't -- the political atmosphere would be one of mobilizing to defeat the forces of capital, and that would be a very sharp, directed influence.





1. Elaborated from above: Everyone gets 100 votes as to what sectors of the economy they wanted to expand. If one person wants 30% more going into marine agriculture and 70% going into starships, and another person wants 40% going into marine agriculture and 60% into democratic media, then adding all that up, you might get 35% going into marine agriculture, 35% into starships, and 30% into democratic media.


Sure -- this is almost synonymous with what I've outlined in my own contributions.





2. From http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work - Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary. They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices. However, instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.


I like your #1 far better because it avoids the problems inherent to the abstracted value mechanism altogether. If you rely on a truly "hands-off" market mechanism -- like yours here, or the one in currently in operation under capitalism -- then the problem of duplication of effort and waste could easily form and run rampant.

In other words, with abstracted value comes prices, and prices bring about the profit motive. This, by itself, is not *necessarily* bad, as you're outlining -- the surplus from this mechanism *could* be plowed back into the manufacturing infrastructure, instead of being expropriated by the financial elite, as happens today.

*But* -- the problem here is that, in the process of the competition that would develop around pricing and profit motives there would be a *large* amount of waste, from incidental overproduction, to underutilized assets, because of the lack of any central coordinating / planning political body.

And, even *worse* than this *waste* would be the typical cartels and price-fixing collusion that readily develops in a market system. In other words, if the working class itself doesn't take *full authority* over the pricing mechanisms, on a *political* basis, then *other parties* will -- they may be merchants, or industrial managers, or some other layer, but it *won't* be the proletariat.





3. Some combination of 1 and 2 where a certain portion of economic allocation is determined by vote (#1) and another portion is determined by market socialism (#2) - depending on what the electorate wants, there may be different percentages of the economy determined by #1 or #2.


I'd be curious to know what the historical backdrop to all of this is -- has private property ownership been fully overthrown?

[bailey_187]

like i said before, i cant wait to see Mao's face on the world reserve currency (if the Yuan is adopted)

[ckaihatsu]

What we *really* need, as far as strictly monetary policy is concerned, is something akin to the 'Free Silver' movement of the 1800s...(!)

(Granted it would just be propagandistic, since such a reform would *never* be allowed.... *Real* reforms aren't *negotiated* with the ruling class -- they're *won* from revolutionary organizing, forcing the hand of capitalists, but falling short of actual revolution.)





Free Silver was an important political issue in the late 19th century and early 20th century United States about whether to have an inflationary monetary policy by "free coinage of silver"; its supporters were called silverites. It largely pitted the financial establishment of the Northeast, who were creditors and would be hurt by inflation, against the more rural areas of the country, who were debtors and would benefit from inflation: farmers in the Midwest, miners in the West, and Southerners still chafing against federal government control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Silver

[cyu]

There wouldn't *be* an issue of "unequal pay" if the larger economy was large and diverse enough to support *full communism*.

Well, I have little doubt that the world economy could easily allow everyone to live decent, enjoyable lives if resources were allocated properly, however, the issue here is that there may remain an undesirable cultural element that claims some people simply "deserve" more stuff based on such-and-such criteria, while others "deserve" less stuff based on some other criteria. Even when it's economically and technically possible to allow everyone to live enjoyable lives, cultural / psychological / political change may still need to occur to convince people to actually accept it.


the problem of duplication of effort and waste could easily form and run rampant... this *waste* would be the typical cartels and price-fixing collusion

Well, if there is no longer a profit motive (since everyone gets the same salary anyway), why would anyone bother with price-fixing? Indeed I agree duplication of effort is not a good thing, which is why I'd advocate competition only for products available, but cooperation for the people producing the products.

For example, say two different "teams" of people are working on new video technology (or different types of bread) - they may come up with different overall designs or bread flavors, but they can still share underlying knowledge like circuit boards or the best yeast to use. When their products are ready, then the people in the economy choose for themselves which they like more. If a product fails due to lack of interest, then just let it fail. However, the people who worked on the product don't suffer because they still belong to a cooperative system, rather than a competitive one. They could simply be redirected to new emerging product lines or product research.


I'd be curious to know what the historical backdrop to all of this is -- has private property ownership been fully overthrown?

From above: Employees have assumed democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless. People who would actually use commodities, land, or other resources have taken them from the places where they were just being held for speculation. If wealth was concentrated in paper money or gold, then people have stopped accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender.

[ckaihatsu]

Employees have assumed democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless. People who would actually use commodities, land, or other resources have taken them from the places where they were just being held for speculation. If wealth was concentrated in paper money or gold, then people have stopped accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender.


Okay, thanks.





Well, I have little doubt that the world economy could easily allow everyone to live decent, enjoyable lives if resources were allocated properly, however, the issue here is that there may remain an undesirable cultural element that claims some people simply "deserve" more stuff based on such-and-such criteria, while others "deserve" less stuff based on some other criteria. Even when it's economically and technically possible to allow everyone to live enjoyable lives, cultural / psychological / political change may still need to occur to convince people to actually accept it.


Right -- everything here is premised on the scenario you've outlined above, which is basically a *revolutionary* scenario. It would require a mass sentiment of anti-capitalism / anti-elitism.





Well, if there is no longer a profit motive (since everyone gets the same salary anyway), why would anyone bother with price-fixing? Indeed I agree duplication of effort is not a good thing, which is why I'd advocate competition only for products available, but cooperation for the people producing the products.


There can very well still be elitist-minded agents in play, even after a decisive revolution -- the question would be whether the overall mass public opinion would continue to be revolutionary or not. If enough workers of a certain section of the supply chain, say, end-user suppliers (today's retailers) were elitist-minded, they could very well operate effectively as a *political bloc*, or cartel, to coordinate distribution *away* from certain products and *towards* other products. (This would be outside of any pricing scheme, which I don't include in my models or scenarios anyway.)





For example, say two different "teams" of people are working on new video technology (or different types of bread) - they may come up with different overall designs or bread flavors, but they can still share underlying knowledge like circuit boards or the best yeast to use.


Okay, you're talking about research and development here. How about let's just say that the workers should be the ones to figure out how best to do the work that they do?





When their products are ready, then the people in the economy choose for themselves which they like more. If a product fails due to lack of interest, then just let it fail. However, the people who worked on the product don't suffer because they still belong to a cooperative system, rather than a competitive one. They could simply be redirected to new emerging product lines or product research.


My only objection to this *overall* construction is that it seems very marketing-driven, or top-down -- I would think that consumers should be the group of people determining, with their behavior, what supplies need to be replenished, and, with formal requests, what new products should be developed and produced.

[cyu]

If enough workers of a certain section of the supply chain, say, end-user suppliers (today's retailers) were elitist-minded, they could very well operate effectively as a *political bloc*, or cartel, to coordinate distribution *away* from certain products and *towards* other products. (This would be outside of any pricing scheme, which I don't include in my models or scenarios anyway.)


Maybe I'm just being dense, but can you give me an example of why they would want to do this? What could they hope to gain by pushing one product over another (assuming it's a society where everyone has the same salary)?


How about let's just say that the workers should be the ones to figure out how best to do the work that they do?

No disagreement there =]



I would think that consumers should be the group of people determining, with their behavior, what supplies need to be replenished, and, with formal requests, what new products should be developed and produced.


Sounds good to me - I'm not sure how you see that as a contradiction to what I described.

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe I'm just being dense, but can you give me an example of why they would want to do this? What could they hope to gain by pushing one product over another (assuming it's a society where everyone has the same salary)?


"Heritage", "tradition", "family-owned", "superior", etc. ...

(This would be the "membrane" between economics and politics -- liberated workers would *still* have to settle political issues among themselves, and I wouldn't predict an end to politics just because the environment happens to be post-capitalist -- hopefully there'd be *more* politics, but of a more varied, flat-level, *constructive* kind....)

(And, just for the record, *I* don't support any kind of flat-salary model....)

[willdw79]

I think that it is a fallacy to think that capitalist factions weakening other capitalis factions means we get anywhere. Maybe the new ones in your town will be fascists and kill you right away? It is too much of an unknown and decidedly unpredictable. It may turn out that weakening dollar helps our causes, but maybe it destroys our causes too, we don't know. I say, let the capitalists worry about trifles like this. I am more concerned with my relationship to the means of production than anything regarding currency backings.

[ckaihatsu]

I think that it is a fallacy to think that capitalist factions weakening other capitalis factions means we get anywhere. Maybe the new ones in your town will be fascists and kill you right away? It is too much of an unknown and decidedly unpredictable. It may turn out that weakening dollar helps our causes, but maybe it destroys our causes too, we don't know. I say, let the capitalists worry about trifles like this. I am more concerned with my relationship to the means of production than anything regarding currency backings.


What we have to keep in mind -- as others have pointed out -- is that as soon as we start discussing monetary policy we're immediately putting ourselves on the capitalists' turf. It's like discussing business while on an all-expenses-paid junket -- your perspective and neutrality are *not* going to survive intact.

We *could* talk endlessly about what kinds of economic reforms *might* be beneficial to the working class, indirectly, but as soon as we start to do that we've automatically forgotten two things: [1] that reforms beneficial to the working class *never* come about through negotiations with the bourgeoisie, and [2] that monetary measures -- even inflationary ones to "jump-start" business in the hopes of increasing job openings -- are *still* supply-side, and do not address workers' needs *at all*, for better wages and benefits (and job security). Monetary measures also do *not* *obligate* the ownership class to *create jobs* -- the funds may simply be used as fodder at any of the financial-markets casinos available.

[cyu]

"Heritage", "tradition", "family-owned", "superior", etc. ...


You mean like, "Hey, we want everyone to consume traditional forumula Guiness, because that's the way it was meant to be!" versus others who say, "Sorry, we want to see more New Guiness." or "Where is all the green tea?"

That just sounds like an allocation of resources problem to me. If people wanted to devote more resources to "New Guiness" or green tea, they can simply vote more resources to it.

...or if it were the market socialism model, those who wanted more "New Guiness" / green tea would buy more of it. The additional revenue from such sales would then be used as evidence that more production of "New Guiness" / green tea is necessary, and resources would be redirected appropriately.

However, one might argue, "What if all the beverage makers only supported traditional Guiness, thus there wouldn't even be 'New Guiness' available?" The thing is, the existing beverage makers don't have any intrinsic claim to the means of production. If other people thought beverage alternatives were important enough, then they'd lay claim to a proportional amount of the means of production to produce the beverages they prefer.



*I* don't support any kind of flat-salary model....


Just to clarify, do you mean you don't support it mainly because it implies having to use money, and you don't support money. Or do you mean you don't support it because you believe some people are "more equal" than others, and thus deserve more wealth?

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe I'm just being dense, but can you give me an example of why they would want to do this? What could they hope to gain by pushing one product over another (assuming it's a society where everyone has the same salary)?





"Heritage", "tradition", "family-owned", "superior", etc. ...





You mean like, "Hey, we want everyone to consume traditional forumula Guiness, because that's the way it was meant to be!" versus others who say, "Sorry, we want to see more New Guiness." or "Where is all the green tea?"


Yes, exactly -- basically political factionalism, but in an underhanded way, through cartel-like, unprofessional practices.





That just sounds like an allocation of resources problem to me. If people wanted to devote more resources to "New Guiness" or green tea, they can simply vote more resources to it.

...or if it were the market socialism model, those who wanted more "New Guiness" / green tea would buy more of it. The additional revenue from such sales would then be used as evidence that more production of "New Guiness" / green tea is necessary, and resources would be redirected appropriately.


Possibly, but if you wanted to pick up some "New Guiness" or green tea at your local dispensary and the workers there did everything they could to *hide* the supplies of each, then that would inconvenience you, the consumer.





However, one might argue, "What if all the beverage makers only supported traditional Guiness, thus there wouldn't even be 'New Guiness' available?" The thing is, the existing beverage makers don't have any intrinsic claim to the means of production. If other people thought beverage alternatives were important enough, then they'd lay claim to a proportional amount of the means of production to produce the beverages they prefer.


Right -- this would be different, a political issue over the use of the means of mass production. In this way it would be much more transparent and debatable.





(And, just for the record, *I* don't support any kind of flat-salary model....)





Just to clarify, do you mean you don't support it mainly because it implies having to use money, and you don't support money. Or do you mean you don't support it because you believe some people are "more equal" than others, and thus deserve more wealth?


Check out my blog entry -- I support a *mass prioritization* of *political issues*. The creation of work roles, the funding of work roles, and the staffing of work roles would *all* be matters of mass political issue prioritization. In this way *all* uses of abstracted value -- money -- would be rendered useless, in favor of labor credits based on labor-hours.

[cyu]

Right -- this would be different, a political issue over the use of the means of mass production. In this way it would be much more transparent and debatable.


I think we could apply the same idea to stores as well. There's also no inherent right for anybody to claim control of the "means of production" in the form of stores - if supporters of New Guiness or green tea thought it was important enough, they could simply show up in the stores (since all employment is voluntary anyway) or establish independent stores.



In this way *all* uses of abstracted value -- money -- would be rendered useless


The main reason I wanted to get this clarified was so that if anybody else reads your statement later, they wouldn't get the idea that you actually support differentiated wealth even in post-capitalist society =]

[ckaihatsu]

I think we could apply the same idea to stores as well. There's also no inherent right for anybody to claim control of the "means of production" in the form of stores - if supporters of New Guiness or green tea thought it was important enough, they could simply show up in the stores (since all employment is voluntary anyway) or establish independent stores.


Sure, absolutely -- it would be *direct democracy* in action.... Any unprofessional behavior in work roles could either be overpowered, brought up with the larger local work population, or made into a formal political issue within an overarching communist administration.





The main reason I wanted to get this clarified was so that if anybody else reads your statement later, they wouldn't get the idea that you actually support differentiated wealth even in post-capitalist society =]


Thanks -- that's kind -- 'ppreciate it...!

= )