Money and Barter

[Jeremiah Dyke]

I am branching out of my area of expertise, as I am a math teacher, but let me first pose a question. Is money in itself viewed as a vice or is it that money presupposes property and property is the vice? I am aware that I am probably lumping various revleft strands of thought with this question.
I ask this because, in my spare time, I have been working on a model of global barter. Whereas, individuals would still barter as if local, but have access to the globe.

[Rusty Shackleford]

my first answer would be that money is the vice. money is a development from exchanging commodities. its used like a mediator, the universal commodity to exchange for other commodities.

property is used to generate money so the person who controls the property can use the money to exchange for the commodities they want.

money is the vice because it is universal, it is omnipotent. the way things are now, money can get you almost anything(if you have it). money is not inherently exploitative but the conquest for more money leads to more purchasing of property to produce more to make more money. it is like a drug for the capitalist. it ends up being used in an exploitative way so the capitalist can make more money.

But, property and money are completely interconnected. be the property a commodity, or a piece of capital. the need for commodities necessitates money(we exchange labor-time for commodities. money is the simplest commodity to give a worker). money necessitates capital(to make money for personal gain, you need a way to make profit and to exploit), and capital necessitates commodities(to make any use of capital, you need to have something to produce).

too long; didnt read vvv

i guess id have to say that private property is the vice because it leads to exploitation and greed. money itself is nothing. but, money can be made exploitative when put into action through property. so... property.


disclaimer: i wrote this all at once and so if it seems incoherent ill rewrite it and come up with a clearer answer. if i can.

[The Idler]

The WSM/SPGB are notable for their critique of money (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=money+site%3Aworldsocialism.org).

[Jeremiah Dyke]

"i guess id have to say that private property is the vice because it leads to exploitation and greed. money itself is nothing. but, money can be made exploitative when put into action through property. so... property."

Thanks!
Would you say that this is the majority opinion in these forms?

[Jeremiah Dyke]

The WSM/SPGB are notable.

Thanks, I'm really just starting to dive into leftist thought so this helps. The problem i have is that since the majorty of my learning is in economics i get confused on meanings. It seems like certain words carry different meanings as you leave strands of thought. For example, while reading this from http worldsocialism.org/articles/why_we_dont_need they quote

"This follows from the very nature of socialism as a society geared to producing wealth directly to satisfy human needs. Wealth will be produced and distributed in its natural form of useful things, of objects that can serve to satisfy some human need or other. Not being produced for sale on a market, items of wealth will not acquire an exchange-value in addition to their use value."

It's confousing because i always opperated under the rubric that all value derived from use value.

[Robocloud]

I would say that a monetary economic system is worse than a barter system that only uses actual commodities. However, the concept of property inevitably produces greed.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I would rather discuss the details than post a huge thesis.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I would say that a monetary economic system is worse than a barter system that only uses actual commodities. However, the concept of property inevitably produces greed.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I would rather discuss the details than post a huge thesis.

money itself simplifies commodity exchange making bartering easier. but like i said, since money is then omnipotent in the realm of commodity exchange it can be put to bad use.

question: in a barter economy how would a worker be paid? and how would that worker be paid in a fair non exploitative way? the the worker produces chairs would the be paid in chairs to then barter the chairs for food and so on? in a socialist mode of production a worker would get paid justly and non-exploitatively. but what is the worker paid, and how does the worker acquire a place to sleep, food to eat, clothing to wear, and entertainment in a barter economy?

[vyborg]

Marx wrote marvelous page on the topic and you can find them easily on the net.
I also suggest you look at the debate that was going on in Russia in the period 1926-1935 about planning and the use of money, starting from the writings of Trotsky, Rakovskij, Bucharin and Preobrazenskij. All of them on the net too

[Robocloud]

question: in a barter economy how would a worker be paid? and how would that worker be paid in a fair non exploitative way? the the worker produces chairs would the be paid in chairs to then barter the chairs for food and so on? in a socialist mode of production a worker would get paid justly and non-exploitatively. but what is the worker paid, and how does the worker acquire a place to sleep, food to eat, clothing to wear, and entertainment in a barter economy?

Barter and subsistence were the the basis of economics for most of human history.

Currency was in use prior to the industrial revolution, but, up until that point, people had the means to sustain themselves on barter alone.

Unfortunately, money is now the medium in virtually all transactions. Rarely can anyone trade goods for goods, service for service, or service for goods. The system has made it so that this sort of commerce is impractical for various reasons.

Money becomes convenient in society when people do not frequently have anything tangible to trade for what they need.

A factory worker does not produce anything that they themselves own, so they either have to be paid with food, which is a perishable item and thus cannot be saved, or with money. Anything else, I.E. electrical wire, wouldn't be consistently valuable.

A socialist society could rely on rations, which are issued in relation to the volume of goods produced. Each ration is linked to a specific good or service. The quantity of a good produced directly correlates to public demand. However, some services, such as medical care, would not rely on a ration based system.

What sort of things could not be accounted for by issuing rations?

How could one ensure that workers in a large scale capitalist system could produce a valuable commodity to trade? Is it possible?

[Robocloud]

question: in a barter economy how would a worker be paid? and how would that worker be paid in a fair non exploitative way? the the worker produces chairs would the be paid in chairs to then barter the chairs for food and so on? in a socialist mode of production a worker would get paid justly and non-exploitatively. but what is the worker paid, and how does the worker acquire a place to sleep, food to eat, clothing to wear, and entertainment in a barter economy?

Barter and subsistence were the the basis of economics for most of human history.

Currency was in use prior to the industrial revolution, but, up until that point, people had the means to sustain themselves on barter alone.

Unfortunately, money is now the medium in virtually all transactions. Rarely can anyone trade goods for goods, service for service, or service for goods. The system has made it so that this sort of commerce is impractical for various reasons.

Money becomes convenient in society when people do not frequently have anything tangible to trade for what they need.

A factory worker does not produce anything that they themselves own, so they either have to be paid with food, which is a perishable item and thus cannot be saved, or with money. Anything else, I.E. electrical wire, wouldn't be consistently valuable.

A socialist society could rely on rations, which are issued in relation to the volume of goods produced. Each ration is linked to a specific good or service. The quantity of a good produced directly correlates to public demand. However, some services, such as medical care, would not rely on a ration based system.

[Jeremiah Dyke]

“Barter and subsistence were the basis of economics for most of human history.

Currency was in use prior to the industrial revolution, but, up until that point, people had the means to sustain themselves on barter alone.

Unfortunately, money is now the medium in virtually all transactions. Rarely can anyone trade goods for goods, service for service, or service for goods. The system has made it so that this sort of commerce is impractical for various reasons.”


Good info,

So would you say that money did not take on its root-vice until post-industrialization? Meaning, as long as people could maintain subsistence, the use of money was ok?

Indulge me in a question

Is the argument thus that money leads to exploitation, but not property? To barter would presuppose property the same way money would presuppose property right (given that you consider labor property)? And if it is, couldn't someone argue that money, at its root, is really just barter? Though true it serves as a medium of barter but it eliminates the need to find some one who wants what you have, but doesn’t have what you want.

I ask this because I envision a small, self sufficient, localized town operating under direct democracy. I envision an individual would be willing to accept a piece of rock in exchange for helping mow someone’s lawn if they could take that rock and trade it for a straw hat (assuming that the guy with the straw hat didn’t want someone to mow his lawn but instead wanted something else that that individual didn’t have)

I raise this question only to see if there is anything ethically wrong with this? I mean, was anyone exploited?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Indulge me in a question

Is the argument thus that money leads to exploitation, but not property? To barter would presuppose property the same way money would presuppose property right (given that you consider labor property)? And if it is, couldn't someone argue that money, at its root, is really just barter? Though true it serves as a medium of barter but it eliminates the need to find some one who wants what you have, but doesn’t have what you want.

I ask this because I envision a small, self sufficient, localized town operating under direct democracy. I envision an individual would be willing to accept a piece of rock in exchange for helping mow someone’s lawn if they could take that rock and trade it for a straw hat (assuming that the guy with the straw hat didn’t want someone to mow his lawn but instead wanted something else that that individual didn’t have)

I raise this question only to see if there is anything ethically wrong with this? I mean, was anyone exploited?

well, barter is just trading commodities, and money simplifies it. so its still like barter but its not the commodities that are being put up against each other, its the money commodity being put up against the commodity a person wants to buy or sell.

Also what do you mean by property. like productive property like a machine or non productive property like a home or a couch?

and there has been exploitation before the industrial revolution. The serf was exploited, the slave was exploited, the banker exploited assistants.

the serfs economy was also a barter economy(correct me if im wrong) yet they still worked for a lord who worked for a king.

[Jeremiah Dyke]

well, barter is just trading commodities, and money simplifies it. so its still like barter but its not the commodities that are being put up against each other, its the money commodity being put up against the commodity a person wants to buy or sell.

Also what do you mean by property. like productive property like a machine or non productive property like a home or a couch?

and there has been exploitation before the industrial revolution. The serf was exploited, the slave was exploited, the banker exploited assistants.

the serfs economy was also a barter economy(correct me if im wrong) yet they still worked for a lord who worked for a king.

When I refer to property I mean anything to which you have a claim to ownership. For example, if you domesticate a wild horse then he is your property. You feed him; take care of him, etc. Ditto to a piece of ground that you toil and raise potatoes. You labored for the potatoes and thus may choose to eat them, trade those to someone else (say for corn), store them, or give them away for charity.

I can see nothing exploitive about this process, though, as I said before, my knowledge of leftist literature is limited and thus why I’m here with questions.

The only problem I see with what I outlined above is how and whom decides what becomes your property. Meaning, how is it decided that you may indeed toil the land for potatoes

[cyu]

Is money in itself viewed as a vice or is it that money presupposes property and property is the vice?


I see money as a one-time convenience, that has turned into a source of foolishness. Even Adam Smith pointed out the foolishness in his Wealth of Nations. A nation isn't truly wealthy if it has a lot of money - money is just a medium of exchange - its value is dependent on others. If others ever decide not to accept that medium of exchange anymore, then its value disappears.

Thus to focus your economy (or personal finances) on gathering money is foolishness, since it puts your economic security on a very shaky foundation. As Smith says in Wealth of Nations, an economy's true wealth is measured by how much that economy can produce for the people in that society.

As for barter, it may be useful, it may not. If we're designing an economy that has a goal of providing economic security for everyone, even barter would have to fall by the wayside, since barter itself presupposes that people can only get stuff by trading away other stuff - this flies in the face of being able to provide for everyone, since obviously not everyone can provide for themselves, from the young, to the old, to the disabled, injured, or temporarily sick.

I'm not particularly opposed to money that is backed by real goods, but even then, I see that more as something used during a transition period toward an economy that can truly provide for everyone - a point at which even "equality" is no longer measured by having everyone with the same pay, but rather a scenario in which people stop caring about even trying to measure whether someone is getting "more" or not - a point at which consumerism itself withers away, and is replaced by a different kind of motivation - the motivation to do stuff that's both fun and beneficial to others.

See also Equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/title/equal%20pay%20for%20unequal%20work).

[robbo203]

money itself simplifies commodity exchange making bartering easier. but like i said, since money is then omnipotent in the realm of commodity exchange it can be put to bad use.

question: in a barter economy how would a worker be paid? and how would that worker be paid in a fair non exploitative way? the the worker produces chairs would the be paid in chairs to then barter the chairs for food and so on? in a socialist mode of production a worker would get paid justly and non-exploitatively. but what is the worker paid, and how does the worker acquire a place to sleep, food to eat, clothing to wear, and entertainment in a barter economy?

The answer is that in a "socialist mode of production" the worker is not paid. In fact the very notion of a working class falls away - we are living in a classless society then. Everyone has commonownership of the means of production which precludes all forms of exchange -whether involving the use of money or barter. Individuals directly take what they need from the common stores without any payment whatsoever and freely contribute to the production of these things

[Rusty Shackleford]

The answer is that in a "socialist mode of production" the worker is not paid. In fact the very notion of a working class falls away - we are living in a classless society then. Everyone has commonownership of the means of production which precludes all forms of exchange -whether involving the use of money or barter. Individuals directly take what they need from the common stores without any payment whatsoever and freely contribute to the production of these things
isnt that communism? or am i mixing "socialist mode of production" with a mode of production in a socialist society that has not yet *achieved* communism

[robbo203]

isnt that communism? or am i mixing "socialist mode of production" with a mode of production in a socialist society that has not yet *achieved* communism

Well, in the Marxian tradition, at least, "communism" and "socialism" meant more or less the same thing - they were synonyms.

[Robocloud]

Good info,

So would you say that money did not take on its root-vice until post-industrialization? Meaning, as long as people could maintain subsistence, the use of money was ok?

Indulge me in a question

Is the argument thus that money leads to exploitation, but not property? To barter would presuppose property the same way money would presuppose property right (given that you consider labor property)? And if it is, couldn't someone argue that money, at its root, is really just barter? Though true it serves as a medium of barter but it eliminates the need to find some one who wants what you have, but doesn’t have what you want.

I ask this because I envision a small, self sufficient, localized town operating under direct democracy. I envision an individual would be willing to accept a piece of rock in exchange for helping mow someone’s lawn if they could take that rock and trade it for a straw hat (assuming that the guy with the straw hat didn’t want someone to mow his lawn but instead wanted something else that that individual didn’t have)

I raise this question only to see if there is anything ethically wrong with this? I mean, was anyone exploited?


I believe that I noted that the concept of property inevitably produces greed.

greed is unethical. Therefore, the notion of personal property must be abandoned before a society can be considered totally ethical. (I doubt that this will ever happen.)

As long as greed exists there will be exploitation. The issue is more about practicality than ethics. In a barter economy, a person could only have as much property as she/he could store. This would prevent anyone from accumulating a mountain of wealth, and commodities are tangible goods which are not subject to inflation. Forex trading is also an issue with currency. Barter would be more stable, but there are numerous faults to be addressed.

Because subsistence is no longer practical for most, currency is essential (even if it is not preferable). This will only change if we become an entirely mutualistic society.