How to talk about abolishing money

[Invincible Summer]

I find that I get into a lot of debates (usually about things such as free education, health care) where people will say "Well, how will that be paid for? Making the rich pay way more isn't fair." or "Everyone will just be taxed more and we'll have no money to spend."

I usually have a hard time coming up with a good argument - I tend to just say "Well, the resources are there, just not the will."


What are some coherent arguments for the abolishment of money, or how services would work w/o money/taxes?

[which doctor]

I find that I get into a lot of debates (usually about things such as free education, health care) where people will say "Well, how will that be paid for? Making the rich pay way more isn't fair." or "Everyone will just be taxed more and we'll have no money to spend."

I usually have a hard time coming up with a good argument - I tend to just say "Well, the resources are there, just not the will."
I think a good retort to this is bringing up the subject of the portion of government spending defense departments get. I wonder how much of this is just frivolous, inefficient, wasteful spending and how much of it actually gets $ returns via the benefits of maintaining US hegemony.

You can't speak of abolishing money and how services would operate without the also talking about communism, because I don't see how any any other society could function without exchange value.

[FSL]

As the economy's ability to produce increases, the major economic problem, 'how to distribute finite resourses' (in capitalism they go to those that bid high enough, in other words pay the price of the product), isn't of importance. For example, socialist economies could cover their people's needs in healthcare whatever the demand so healthcare was free of charge. So was education etc. Basic foodstuff or housing had only a nominal price and as the production improved they'd move to being free too.
So money are abolished not in one day but as society manages to combat scarcity issues. After they're abolished, there is no such thing as taxes.



Now, simply looking at free healthcare in say socialism or even a capitalist state. Yes, it will be funded by the government budget. The government could be getting money from profit-making companies it controls or taxes, there is no other way. If someone argues that putting more taxes on the rich isn't fair, then let them say it. You can't really challenge someone's notion of "fair" (at leat not without going into a lengthy discussion over the nature of the present society and the class opression inside it -something a person at that point of conscience might have little interest in). The important thing would be to get across the point that no matter what he or you or anyone calls fair, funding free healthcare through progressive taxation would mean that anyone would be "paying" (in the form of taxes) an amount he can afford. So everyone would get medical coverage. It's up to the people, who are poor, who might be unemployed tomorrow, who might not be able to afford insurance etc, to decide whether they want to be "fair" to the rich or be able to receive medication when they need it.

[mikelepore]

free education, health care) where people will say "Well, how will that be paid for?

Be careful not to confuse two things. The answer to that question has nothing to do with abolishing money. It has to do with schools and hospitals in a socialist system no longer being separate financial entities that need an income sources to pay their own bills. They will get their resources by direct inventory transfer from the places where the equipment, fuel, furniture, etc. are produced. They won't have to buy them.

The argument about abolishing money is a separate subject -- mainly what do about consumer goods for individuals. Some socialists believe that individuals should have to earn money and buy goods; and some other socialists believe that goods should be distributed freely to individuals. But ALL of the people participating in that debate agree that the resouces for hospitals, etc. should come from direct allocation from industry, with no act of purchase.

Some words pulled out of Karl Marx, _Critique of the Gotha Programme_:

"..... the total social product .... From this must now be deducted: cover for replacement of the means of production used up ... expansion of production ... insurance funds to provide against accidents .... the general costs of administration not belonging to production .... the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services .... funds for those unable to work .... 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 ... 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."

In this proposal, Marx retains a form of currency, a "certificate" for performance of a "quantum of labor". However, the public services mentioned in the original post are part of the "deduction" or "common fund."

[ckaihatsu]

However, the public services mentioned in the original post are part of the "deduction" or "common fund.




[S]chools and hospitals in a socialist system no longer [have to be] separate financial entities that need an income sources to pay their own bills. They will get their resources by direct inventory transfer from the places where the equipment, fuel, furniture, etc. are produced. They won't have to buy them.





A baseline staple of basic living requirements can be provided as a mass public good, including a standard free public education through to some level -- now Internet-enhanced (!) -- at the discretion of the individual, regardless of societal concerns for labor-role requirements.

*However*, past the baseline public provision there can be a more sophisticated, flexible economy that can operate in more complex ways to cover all the rest of society's needs and desires. Societal needs / requests for certain job positions would have to include built-in provisions for directed, tracked transition programs of education, training, apprenticeship, employment, and compensation, particularly for any positions that are understaffed.





You can't speak of abolishing money and how services would operate without the also talking about communism, because I don't see how any any other society could function without exchange value.





The argument about abolishing money is a separate subject -- mainly what do about consumer goods for individuals. Some socialists believe that individuals should have to earn money and buy goods; and some other socialists believe that goods should be distributed freely to individuals. But ALL of the people participating in that debate agree that the resouces for hospitals, etc. should come from direct allocation from industry, with no act of purchase.





If we decisively *break* with the retail-consumer economic mentality we can see that *all* demand on the part of a population -- even for basic human needs -- can be directly recorded and passed along into a system of *political prioritization*. This means that *no* consumer consumption would be retail-based, in which the counterpart supply would be driven by some kind of a market-type *speculation*, putting goods and services out for public availability *before* the consumer has indicated an order.

If we simply accept that a comprehensive system of rational planning can be used in place of the market-speculative supply model then we can also extend this planning to the provision of labor roles as well.





Some words pulled out of Karl Marx, _Critique of the Gotha Programme_:

[...]

What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor ... 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."

In this proposal, Marx retains a form of currency, a "certificate" for performance of a "quantum of labor".





I agree that a post-capitalist economy should not try to pretend that all types of labor, regardless of requisite education and training, are the same in difficulty and value. This discussion came up recently at the thread 'A world without money':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1593350&postcount=73






A labor-time *multiplier* could be used, determined by mass exit-polling, or surveying, of people at those respective positions, to convert labor hours into labor-hour *credits*. More study for a position or greater occupational hazard would be reflected in the mass surveys and translated into relatively higher labor-hour *multipliers* for higher rates of labor credit compensation.

But this labor-credit-fueled, post-capitalist economy would *not* attempt to translate labor credits into the "purchase" of assets & resources, goods & services -- instead, these flows of labor credits for work completed would serve as a *labor-empowering*, *political* tool in organizing *active* labor to *empower* *other* workers into the continuously rolling provisioning of labor supply, forever into the future


So, in brief, all goods and services would have to be requested / demanded upfront, in a political capacity, and then fulfilled as such. This would cut out economics almost altogether -- what would be left would be an economy of labor credits, restricted to matters of work hours *only*. "Paying it forward", in the ethos of a gift economy, would be the only thing left to do since existing labor credits could only be applicable to the budgeting and fulfillment of future labor.


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


-- Tearing up more shit than a weightless astronaut on the toilet --



[8] communist economy diagram