For a Moneyless World

[robbo203]

Here's one that looks interesting

http://money-free.ning.com/

[scarletghoul]

Pol Pot would be so proud :crying:

[robbo203]

Pol Pot would be so proud :crying:


A typical uninformed bourgeois response to the idea of a communist society.

Pol Pots regime did not introduce a moneyless communist society. Though money was not completely abolished Cambodia essentially reverted to a barter exchange economy which has nothing to do with free access communism. Labour was brutally coerced not the free associated labour of a communist society. And of course it retained a class system with a brutal ruling class that exercised absolute control over the labour process and resource allocation.

You should do a little research before spouting off such nonsense

[Revy]

Abolition of money, and the prices and wages that go along with it, should be part of the basis of socialism.

Arguments for the retaining of this most ridiculous system of distribution and exchange usually rest on some misanthropic trash about humans being the uncivilized greedy hordes who will deplete resources if everything was made free.

If socialism will create a more abundant amount of resources, then certainly we won't need such extreme caution. The idea of hoarding goods only seems palpably tempting because of the society we live in.

I think that money would just be more control in the form of a bureaucracy. There has to be someone to manage the prices and wages, to manage all that economic activity, to make sure everyone has jobs to pay them so they can buy the stuff on the "market".

To each according to his ability, to each according to his need. NOT "let the workers starve if they can't pay".

[robbo203]

Abolition of money, and the prices and wages that go along with it, should be part of the basis of socialism.

Arguments for the retaining of this most ridiculous system of distribution and exchange usually rest on some misanthropic trash about humans being the uncivilized greedy hordes who will deplete resources if everything was made free.

If socialism will create a more abundant amount of resources, then certainly we won't need such extreme caution. The idea of hoarding goods only seems palpably tempting because of the society we live in.

I think that money would just be more control in the form of a bureaucracy. There has to be someone to manage the prices and wages, to manage all that economic activity, to make sure everyone has jobs to pay them so they can buy the stuff on the "market".

To each according to his ability, to each according to his need. NOT "let the workers starve if they can't pay".


How very true!

[scarletghoul]

A typical uninformed bourgeois response to the idea of a communist society.

Pol Pots regime did not introduce a moneyless communist society. Though money was not completely abolished Cambodia essentially reverted to a barter exchange economy which has nothing to do with free access communism. Labour was brutally coerced not the free associated labour of a communist society. And of course it retained a class system with a brutal ruling class that exercised absolute control over the labour process and resource allocation.

Do you really think that Kampuchea would have been able to establish a completely free classless society based on free associated labour ? Do you think that any society in the world then or now is at a stage when such a society can be established with a gift economy instead of money or anything like it ? If you do, then that's some pretty crazy idealism.

Until class differances are abolished, and our means of production are developed sufficiently (as they certainly weren't in Kampuchea...) it is impossible to create a completely free society from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. A degree of central coordination and, yes, coercion, is necessary.

The Khmer Rouge tried abolishing money. You're correct that they replaced it with a system of barter. But you are idiotic, incorrect, and ultra-idealist in your criticism of this. You seem to think they 'didn't go far enough', which is just crazy. You would have been considered ultra-leftist even in the Khmer Rouge administration.

If they had not only abolished money but also refused a barter system and instead tried to establish a functioning gift economy of super perfect communism, then I can assure you that millions more people would have died from starvation and disease and the name of Pol Pot would be even further blackened to the core because of it.

In other words your position is idealist and completely unpracticle.

[scarletghoul]

Abolition of money, and the prices and wages that go along with it, should be part of the basis of socialism.

Arguments for the retaining of this most ridiculous system of distribution and exchange usually rest on some misanthropic trash about humans being the uncivilized greedy hordes who will deplete resources if everything was made free.
I've not heard any communist ever use that argument. I don't like it when people in leftist debates use the "straw man" straw man, but that there is a straw man.

In fact socialist countries have tended to keep the money system out of necessity. Until the whole world, or at least the majority of the means of production, are collectively worker controlled then there will have to be some medium of exchange wont there. Stalin wrote a good defense of the USSR's keeping commodity production in his Economic Problems.

And again, Pol Pot has clearly shown us why the abolition of money can not work in a single country. In 1978 the CPK realised how wrong they had been and decided to try and establish a money system again. (By that time the regime was fucked though so they never got the chance to)



If socialism will create a more abundant amount of resources, then certainly we won't need such extreme caution. The idea of hoarding goods only seems palpably tempting because of the society we live in.Enough with the straw man already. No one's arguing that human nature shit.


I think that money would just be more control in the form of a bureaucracy. There has to be someone to manage the prices and wages, to manage all that economic activity, to make sure everyone has jobs to pay them so they can buy the stuff on the "market".You can't just establish perfect society straight away man. Don't you think it would have been done if it were possible? Why do you think Lenin and the rest didn't just abolish money and establish perfect communism straight away? Why do you think they built a state and stuff? Was it because they were just evil and enjoyed ruining everything ? Or was it because the building of a socialist state with a money system was necessary according to the material conditions ?


To each according to his ability, to each according to his need. NOT "let the workers starve if they can't pay".Except, "To each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was never supposed to be 'the basis of socialism'. It is the end result, the ideal to which our struggle (the first socialist stage of society being but a chapter of that struggle) is directed. It's impossible and idealist to attempt that straight away, especially in a minority part of the world (and history has shown that socialism can only be established one country at a time). It makes no sense. Read more Marx.

Socialism in one country, yes; classless communist gift economy in one country, no.

[comradshaw]

Abolition of money, and the prices and wages that go along with it, should be part of the basis of socialism.

Yes-one would hope all revolutionary leftists, Marxian or anarchist, are striving for this goal, ie, communism.

Though whenever I bring up the idea to some people, they seem a bit dumbfounded; this sometimes involves leftists. Some market anarchists (no, this doesn't necessarily mean "anarcho"-capitalist cranks) support the idea of interest free banks, and applying the labor theory of value (LTV), in turn giving rise to, essentially, a system of market socialism that only used money for a convenient way to exchange things. This is the only logical argument I've heard for the existence of money from a radical left perspective, though I still reject it because of the inequalities that money would surely still give rise to. As an anarcho-communist, I feel as though the only consistent economy is a gift economy.

[robbo203]

Do you really think that Kampuchea would have been able to establish a completely free classless society based on free associated labour ? Do you think that any society in the world then or now is at a stage when such a society can be established with a gift economy instead of money or anything like it ? If you do, then that's some pretty crazy idealism..

One problem with your little theory is that I dont think what you seem to think I think. Of course communism cannot be introduced right now. You trying to teach me to suck eggs or something? Communism as I know full well can only come about when 1) there is an adequately developed technological infrustructure to produce enough to satisfy peoples needs and 2) when there is a mass communist consciousness among working people at large - i.e. a significant majority wanting communism and understanding what it entails. The first precondition has long been met but the second we are still a long way off from meeting.



Until class differances are abolished, and our means of production are developed sufficiently (as they certainly weren't in Kampuchea...) it is impossible to create a completely free society from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. A degree of central coordination and, yes, coercion, is necessary...

Thats fine if you are a member of the ruling class and want to justify the exercise of coercion that keeps you in power. I dont see it as my job as a revolutionary socialist to apologise on hehalf of our rulers for their use of force. You evidently do.



The Khmer Rouge tried abolishing money. You're correct that they replaced it with a system of barter. But you are idiotic, incorrect, and ultra-idealist in your criticism of this. You seem to think they 'didn't go far enough', which is just crazy. You would have been considered ultra-leftist even in the Khmer Rouge administration..

Whhaaaatt!!! I dont think the Khmer Rouge went "far enough"? Have you lost your marbles or something? Ive been vehemently criticising the Khmer rouge for what they did - their brutal authoritarian coercive methods and for what there were - an oppressive ruling class. And you say I dont think they went far enough. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



If they had not only abolished money but also refused a barter system and instead tried to establish a functioning gift economy of super perfect communism, then I can assure you that millions more people would have died from starvation and disease and the name of Pol Pot would be even further blackened to the core because of it.

In other words your position is idealist and completely unpracticle.

If hypothetically a genuine communist society had been established that would imply several things. It would imply that the great majority had obviously wanted this and understood what it meant. It would imply that elsewhere across the globe, communism would be on the cards if not already established since it is inconceivable that the movement for communism could grow in one part of the world and not another. It would imply that there were no more monstrosites like the Khmer Rouge to con and oppress people in the name of communism and sully the good name of communism

But then perhaps in your breathless enthusiasm to persistently portray my perspective as "idealist" - a term which I suspect you dont quite grasp - all this evidently hasnt occured to you, has it?

[Dimentio]

Gift economics is basically crap, but labour vouchers or energy accounting are alternatives to monetary systems.

[LeninistKing]

Hey my friend, would a money-less economic system be in the socialist-stage or in the communist-anarcho stage? and how would we get the goods and services that we need for our life? would we use some form of debit or credit-card as money? or would we be totally free to get food and the things we need? And how about the greedy thieves and criminals? Wouldn't in that system be people who will take advantage of that totally communist, state-less, libertarian money-less system? i mean wouldnt you think that people would go to car-dealers and grab 10 cars or something like that, leading to a deficit of cars in the communist society?

.




A typical uninformed bourgeois response to the idea of a communist society.

Pol Pots regime did not introduce a moneyless communist society. Though money was not completely abolished Cambodia essentially reverted to a barter exchange economy which has nothing to do with free access communism. Labour was brutally coerced not the free associated labour of a communist society. And of course it retained a class system with a brutal ruling class that exercised absolute control over the labour process and resource allocation.

You should do a little research before spouting off such nonsense

[LeninistKing]

i am ready for a communism gift-economy system coz i am not a thief. but people have to evolve from their thief-stage toward an honesty-stage and I think that for that we need transhumanism and biological-evolution in http://www.hedweb.com



One problem with your little theory is that I dont think what you seem to think I think. Of course communism cannot be introduced right now. You trying to teach me to suck eggs or something? Communism as I know full well can only come about when 1) there is an adequately developed technological infrustructure to produce enough to satisfy peoples needs and 2) when there is a mass communist consciousness among working people at large - i.e. a significant majority wanting communism and understanding what it entails. The first precondition has long been met but the second we are still a long way off from meeting.



Thats fine if you are a member of the ruling class and want to justify the exercise of coercion that keeps you in power. I dont see it as my job as a revolutionary socialist to apologise on hehalf of our rulers for their use of force. You evidently do.



Whhaaaatt!!! I dont think the Khmer Rouge went "far enough"? Have you lost your marbles or something? Ive been vehemently criticising the Khmer rouge for what they did - their brutal authoritarian coercive methods and for what there were - an oppressive ruling class. And you say I dont think they went far enough. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



If hypothetically a genuine communist society had been established that would imply several things. It would imply that the great majority had obviously wanted this and understood what it meant. It would imply that elsewhere across the globe, communism would be on the cards if not already established since it is inconceivable that the movement for communism could grow in one part of the world and not another. It would imply that there were no more monstrosites like the Khmer Rouge to con and oppress people in the name of communism and sully the good name of communism

But then perhaps in your breathless enthusiasm to persistently portray my perspective as "idealist" - a term which I suspect you dont quite grasp - all this evidently hasnt occured to you, has it?

[LeninistKing]

Hey robbo: you are real smart and optimist. You know i heard that communism is the Kingdom of God on earth. In fact the first Christians were communists. I think that for that system we need a real change of behaviour in people from their ego-stage toward an altruist-stage. because people today have too many deep rooted psychological, psychiatric, pessimism, mental problems. Humans are too barbaric and too selfish. I think that Subcomandante Marcos said something weird he said that after 2012, there won't be any political-systems anymore. I dont really understand what he meant by that

.


One problem with your little theory is that I dont think what you seem to think I think. Of course communism cannot be introduced right now. You trying to teach me to suck eggs or something? Communism as I know full well can only come about when 1) there is an adequately developed technological infrustructure to produce enough to satisfy peoples needs and 2) when there is a mass communist consciousness among working people at large - i.e. a significant majority wanting communism and understanding what it entails. The first precondition has long been met but the second we are still a long way off from meeting.



Thats fine if you are a member of the ruling class and want to justify the exercise of coercion that keeps you in power. I dont see it as my job as a revolutionary socialist to apologise on hehalf of our rulers for their use of force. You evidently do.



Whhaaaatt!!! I dont think the Khmer Rouge went "far enough"? Have you lost your marbles or something? Ive been vehemently criticising the Khmer rouge for what they did - their brutal authoritarian coercive methods and for what there were - an oppressive ruling class. And you say I dont think they went far enough. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



If hypothetically a genuine communist society had been established that would imply several things. It would imply that the great majority had obviously wanted this and understood what it meant. It would imply that elsewhere across the globe, communism would be on the cards if not already established since it is inconceivable that the movement for communism could grow in one part of the world and not another. It would imply that there were no more monstrosites like the Khmer Rouge to con and oppress people in the name of communism and sully the good name of communism

But then perhaps in your breathless enthusiasm to persistently portray my perspective as "idealist" - a term which I suspect you dont quite grasp - all this evidently hasnt occured to you, has it?