Abolition of Monetary System

[PoliticalNightmare]

I wanted to know more details of how the anarchist would replace the monetary system. Also, if it differs, what are the communist, socialist, marxist or other leftist alternatives.

[AK]

Anarchists seek to replace the monetary system with open-access resources. Many Marxists advocate labour-cheques/labour-credits.

The AFAQ is probably my favourite online resource now, here's the page detailing the structure and functioning of an anarchist economy: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html

[Invincible Summer]

Anarchists seek to replace the monetary system with open-access resources. Many Marxists advocate labour-cheques/labour-credits.

The AFAQ is probably my favourite online resource now, here's the page detailing the structure and functioning of an anarchist economy: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html

Funny, because wasn't it in the Spanish Civil War that the CNT/FAI issued labour credits?

Not trying to start a sectarian shitfest or anything, but I'm very certain that almost all Marxists advocate a moneyless gift economy as much as anarchists do.

[AK]

Funny, because wasn't it in the Spanish Civil War that the CNT/FAI issued labour credits?

Not trying to start a sectarian shitfest or anything, but I'm very certain that almost all Marxists advocate a moneyless gift economy as much as anarchists do.
Well the Marxists I've asked recommended labour credits.
As for the CNT-FAI, I'm not quite clued up on the matter.

[meow]

real communists advocate communism.

[Blake's Baby]

Funny, because wasn't it in the Spanish Civil War that the CNT/FAI issued labour credits?

Not trying to start a sectarian shitfest or anything, but I'm very certain that almost all Marxists advocate a moneyless gift economy as much as anarchists do.

You'd think wouldn't you? I discovered 2 months ago that there are very many people who call themselves 'Marxists' who think that after the revolution there will be wages and governments. Capitalism in other words. I think it has something to with 'Socialism has been acheived' ie 'socialism is the same as the USSR in the 1950s'.

Both Marxists (eg, Karl Marx, Max Hempel) and Anarchists have advocated labour-time vouchers; but only, as far as I'm aware, as a transitional measure.

I'm a Marxist; I believe that for a while there will be rationing, but frankly given the ability of capitalism to produce vast quantities of crap, plus the vastly under-utilised human and material resources at the disposal of a socialist society, we should fairly easily be able to produce what is necessary for us to survive and thrive once the messy business of cleaning up after the world revolution and civil war is out of the way.

[Dimentio]

Energy Accounting (http://www.eoslife.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84:energy-accounting&catid=23:economics&Itemid=95)

Here is an alternative idea for a future moneyless society which I myself happen to be a proponent for.

[Stephen Colbert]

Doesn't the existence of credits or different types of post-modern money continue to divide and perpetuate the very class structure that leftists seek to destroy?

[Adil3tr]

Doesn't the existence of credits or different types of post-modern money continue to divide and perpetuate the very class structure that leftists seek to destroy?

No because you couldn't inherit them, and it would be equal, or by work, not position

[Adil3tr]

I can't find a real difference between anarchism and legitimate marxism

[Tablo]

I can't find a real difference between anarchism and legitimate marxism
We are seriously like the same thing with a different means to achieve Communism. There are some other differences, but they don't really affect the overall picture.

Labor credits or whatever are fine for transition, but when we are post-scarcity I see no real use for them unless we feel like holding onto the relics of a market based economy. Communism has no currency. Communists are against wage slavery.

[Foldered]

Labor credits or whatever are fine for transition, but when we are post-scarcity I see no real use for them unless we feel like holding onto the relics of a market based economy. Communism has no currency. Communists are against wage slavery.
I agree. I honestly think that labour credits (if used indefinitely) would simply take the place of money as it exists today and not really restructure the system, even taking into consideration that it's "equal work for equal pay" and that you cannot inherit them.

[Adil3tr]

I don't believe in them, I was just madign a critical remark. I believe in the system of abundance. If there are more than enough TVs, then take one and go home. Just grab it and go. If you need or want it, its yours, there's enough to go around.

[Blake's Baby]

Doesn't the existence of credits or different types of post-modern money continue to divide and perpetuate the very class structure that leftists seek to destroy?

I'd say yes. I know other people have said no. I don't believe in labour-credits. I think while there's a situation of scarcity, there will be rationing. When we have world-wide production going again (and indeed improving) after the revolution, then I think rationing will end and we'll move to free-access.

I don't believe that 'work credits' or some such system won't turn into money, somehow.

[robbo203]

Anarchists seek to replace the monetary system with open-access resources. Many Marxists advocate labour-cheques/labour-credits.

The AFAQ is probably my favourite online resource now, here's the page detailing the structure and functioning of an anarchist economy: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html


Alpha


Some Marxists particularly of the De Leonist variety, advocate labour vouchers; others dont. Amongst the latter is the very othodox Marxian World Socialism Movement which has an interesting discussion on labour vouchers on their website here:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/labour_vouchers.php

Ultimately, this whole business about labour vouchers is bound up with the question of whether or not we shall need to institute some form of rationing in a communist society. I think there is a case for saying that some goods may need to be rationed for some time but I am not convinced that labour vouchers is the best system of rationing on offer.

[Kotze]

Labour vouchers. If I have to choose from the different definitions in the World Socialism Movement article...
1. How are labour vouchers apportioned? b. The number of labour vouchers paid per hour depends upon the difficulty...By difficulty I have in mind how exhausting it is and other health risks, not whether it requires a specific education. Learning skills relevant for jobs should be not only free, you should be paid during the training.
2. Temporary or Permanent? b. Labour vouchers will be permanent. These advocates say that society needs some method to restrict access to goods, and/or that without them there is no way to determine what items should be produced in what quantity when there are conflicting desires for goods.I consider myself very open-minded, but I am a materialist, so I cannot respect anybody who doubts that there are some physical restraints on the universe. The line argued in the article (and by some users here) is starry-eyed idealism, much more than the writings of Robert Owen or Saint-Simon.
3. What about those who do not or cannot work? c. Enough labour vouchers should be given out to those determined (by someone or some group) to be needy, or justifiably unable to work, to ensure that they can afford basic necessities (and perhaps more).Unlike the situation today, it will be trivial to discern between those unwilling and those unable to work, because there will be jobs for everyone who wants one.
4. What about non-traditional work, or work not paid today? (housework, art, etc.) a. Pay for housework, art etc. on an hourly basis like any other work. (possibly including difficulty factors, etc.)
5. Can labour vouchers circulate? a. No. Here is a funny argument from the article:
It is obvious that if everyone decided that they needed everything, free access could not work. If people want socialism to work, they must decide that they will not work to destroy it.NO SHIT. MAYBE PEOPLE WILL WANT TO KEEP SOCIETY FUNCTIONING BY USING SOME RATIONING SYSTEM??? I am mortified by the level of reasoning here.

[robbo203]

. I consider myself very open-minded, but I am a materialist, so I cannot respect anybody who doubts that there are some physical restraints on the universe. The line argued in the article (and by some users here) is starry-eyed idealism, much more than the writings of Robert Owen or Saint-Simon. .

Do I take it then that this is a criticism of the concept of communist free access? If so, on what grounds do you suppose that the advocates of free access are thinking in terms of a universe without "physical restaint"? Abundance upon which free access is predicated is a function of both supply and demand and it is quite conceivable to imagine a communist world of abundance where supply is limited but so too is demand meaning there is enough for everyone (which is what abundance means) - unless of course you have fallen hook line and sinker for that hoary old myth of bourgeois economics concerning our supposed "insatiable demand".

Free access is hardly starry eyed idealism but a well thought out and cogently argued concept backed up with loads of historical and anthropological evidence. You need to do your homework on the subject before mouthing off about it

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I don't believe in them, I was just madign a critical remark. I believe in the system of abundance. If there are more than enough TVs, then take one and go home. Just grab it and go. If you need or want it, its yours, there's enough to go around.
This makes perfect sense(and no I'm not being sarcastic).

[Kotze]

it is quite conceivable to imagine a communist world of abundance where supply is limited but so too is demand [meaning demand at a price of 0]For such a society to work it isn't enough that a vast majority of people behave in such a civilized manner that they take into account how much annoyance they cause for society when they consume specific things. A tiny minority of psychopathic people can easily wreak havoc. A system with labour vouchers can deal with that.
Free access is hardly starry eyed idealism but a well thought out and cogently argued concept backed up with loads of historical and anthropological evidence.I am sure one can find many examples from small communities around the world where everyone knows each other and a lot of things are not rationed by money. But that stuff is still rationed. The use doesn't happen anonymously and the community knows many ways to make clear what is considered excessive freeloading and they can make your life hell if you are a repeat offender. This solution doesn't scale.

[AK]

I can't find a real difference between anarchism and legitimate marxism
The class analysis is slightly different and anarchists wish to abolish all hierarchical social relationships.

[thatwhichisnt]

Money itself is not evil. It is just the means of exchange, which is needed in any "modern" country. Now, the ways of attaining it may be immoral, however there is no need to replace money as well.

In an anarchist society each town, or group of people, would each have their own medium of exchange. One town it may be gold and silver, the other butter, who knows. It will spontaneously come into existence.

[Zanthorus]

The class analysis is slightly different and anarchists wish to abolish all hierarchical social relationships.

I would add onto that that Marxists wish to abolish all inhuman modes of life instead.

[robbo203]

For such a society to work it isn't enough that a vast majority of people behave in such a civilized manner that they take into account how much annoyance they cause for society when they consume specific things. A tiny minority of psychopathic people can easily wreak havoc. A system with labour vouchers can deal with that. I am sure one can find many examples from small communities around the world where everyone knows each other and a lot of things are not rationed by money. But that stuff is still rationed. The use doesn't happen anonymously and the community knows many ways to make clear what is considered excessive freeloading and they can make your life hell if you are a repeat offender. This solution doesn't scale.


Lets run with this argument, shall we?, and see where it takes us. Communism is established. It can of course only be established once the majority understand and desire what it entails. That is to say, when they realise that with the right to enjoy free access to goods and services comes the responsibility of contributing to society. Without this mass consciousness and without the technological infrastructure to sustain a society in which we can produce enough for all, communism would be impossible. The very fact of its existence presupposes these preconditions have been met.

Into this hypothetical future communist society you introject a tiny minority of psychopaths who, according to you, can "easily wreak havoc". How so? It seems to me that the only explanation available to you is that these individuals will simply freeload to such an extent as to deplete the amount of goods and services available to others. But lets look at this more closely shall we?

Free access goes hand in hand with voluntary labour. You cant have one without the other. That means the link between effort and the remuneration of effort will be severed completely. We will no longer work because we get "paid". We will work because we need to and because we want to.

Because work is voluntary and freely willed this means there is no leverage that anyone can exercise over anyone else. Political power dissolves along with class society. So your tiny minority of psychopaths cannot commandeer the labour of others in a communist society for their own purposes. All they can possibly do - supposedly - is freeload and gorge themselves on the fruits of other people's efforts.

But why and to what end? Unlike present day society there would be no advantage whatsoever in accumulating vast wealth. Given unversal free access there is absolutely no status to be had through the mere possession of wealth. In fact the ONLY way one could acquire the esteem of one's fellows is through one's contribution to society not what one takes out of it. Even pyshcopaths may need to feel valued.

And again what would these pyschopathic freeloaders take to gratify their perverse needs? You can only live in one house at a time, for example, and there is no leverage they could apply to assert their ownership rights over several houses. Power depends on the consent of those over whom such power is exercised. Anyone who started asserting their ownership rights over multiple properties would simply be greeted with a sense of baffled amusement - perhaps even pity - and politely ignored. There is nothing whatsoever that our psychopath could do to prevent others continuing to use the various other properties over which he had asserted ownership rights apart from his own. He would be quietly left to dwell in his own property, alone and pitied by the community around him. And there is nothing quite so powerful as the force of public opinion, the shame of social exclusion . People have commited suicide because of it

What else can this pyshcopathic individual freeload upon? What other goods and services can he or she take without limit? Well, for a start the services depend on the consent of those providing the service. If I decide to appropriate a vast rambling multi-bedroomed Victorian mansion set in substantial grounds and exclude everyone else from it, how am I going to maintain it. The upkeep of even the gardens may require the services of a retinue of gardeners. Do you think they are going to be so obliging? I think not

Then there are things like consumer goods. OK so how many fridge freezers or DVD players can you cram into a house without this becoming utterly silly if not downright inconvenient. What about, say, food items? Well you can only eat so much. If you take much more than you need there is the risk of spoilage and the inconveninece of disposing of such spoiled food. There's an indian restuarant near me that offers a bargain deal - eat as much as you can for ten euros. And yes the punters eat a lot but even they reach a limit beyond which they would simply become violently sick. Even despite the scarcity mentality that capitalism inculcates in us and the sense of insecurioty that goes with it, we dont in practice go to such irrational lengths as to inconveninece ourselves by consuming far more than we need. Drinking water, for example, is freely available in abundance through public fountains in my local spa town. I dont notice my local psychopaths frenetically running around with containers from fountain to fountain driven by some vague thought of cornering the market in bottled water.

Communist abundance I suggest will kill the need for greed and for the irrational behaviour that goes with it. It cannot be empahsised enough that such behaviour is a product of the capitalist environment in which we live which insidiously promotes the assumption that our demands are unlimited. This assumption is functional within a capitalist society becuase it fits in with, and is condivice to, the expansionist logic of market competition.

One final thing, you concede that in small scale face to face communities freeloading is effectively prevented through interaction with others we know. You contend that this kind of arrangement cannot be "scaled up" and presumably could not operate in a global communist society. But aren't you making an unwarranted assumption here? That the existence of a global society precludes the existence of numerous small comunities within it. In fact, I would argue that a global communist society, if anything, would permit an unprecedented flourishing of the local community that capitalism has systematically undermined

[Kotze]

Unlike present day society there would be no advantage whatsoever in accumulating vast wealth. Given unversal free access there is absolutely no status to be had through the mere possession of wealth.In a society with a strong safety net there is less pressure on people to do so, but there is still some advantage. Utility. Housing is a good example for an argument against the claim that people have unlimited wants for every item, since they can only be in one place at a time, but unlimited wants for any item wasn't my claim. It is not true for all items that require a lot of labour to be produced that owning many of them is inconvenient. The amount of labour required to produce different types of food is not proportional to its calories. There are quite tiny things that require a lot of labour.
In fact the ONLY way one could acquire the esteem of one's fellows is through one's contribution to society not what one takes out of it. Even pyshcopaths may need to feel valued.A psychopath only cares about being valued if that has some direct consequences for him, like it does with labour vouchers.
One final thing, you concede that in small scale face to face communities freeloading is effectively prevented through interaction with others we know. You contend that this kind of arrangement cannot be scaled up and presumably could not operate in a global communist society.Yes. I was not only thinking about anonymity enabling vandalism, but also about division of labour when I wrote that. If there aren't many different types of goods and services, people can have some basic understanding how much work a thing entails, which is crucial when it comes to determine what reckless freeloading is if things don't come with price tags.

[ckaihatsu]

We are seriously like the same thing with a different means to achieve Communism. There are some other differences, but they don't really affect the overall picture.

Labor credits or whatever are fine for transition, but when we are post-scarcity I see no real use for them unless we feel like holding onto the relics of a market based economy. Communism has no currency. Communists are against wage slavery.





I agree. I honestly think that labour credits (if used indefinitely) would simply take the place of money as it exists today and not really restructure the system, even taking into consideration that it's "equal work for equal pay" and that you cannot inherit them.





I don't believe in them, I was just madign a critical remark. I believe in the system of abundance. If there are more than enough TVs, then take one and go home. Just grab it and go. If you need or want it, its yours, there's enough to go around.





I'd say yes. I know other people have said no. I don't believe in labour-credits. I think while there's a situation of scarcity, there will be rationing. When we have world-wide production going again (and indeed improving) after the revolution, then I think rationing will end and we'll move to free-access.

I don't believe that 'work credits' or some such system won't turn into money, somehow.


The thing I've found curious about combining socialism / communism and labor credits is that no one really attempted to reconcile the free-access aspect of (human-needs-based) demand under communism with the measurement / "rationing" aspect of labor-hour credits.

In other words, if everything is to be free then *why* would there have to be exchanges of credits for material goods and services -- ???!!!

It's out of this unresolved formulation that I discussed the idea here at RevLeft and then went ahead and created a model that *does* resolve these elements. The model is meant for a post-revolution, post-capitalist, post-socialist-transition phase, once the world's working class has sound control of the means of mass production. At that point there would be a well-grounded mass political decision-making apparatus in place that would collectively determine what is being demanded and how to supply liberated labor for its fulfillment.

Until that point, however, we would have to first figure out how to reclaim the surplus labor value, through revolutionary means, that is currently being expropriated by the capitalist ruling class.





(Managerial decisions are entirely about providing a return on capital investments, so any revenue not consumed by overhead and operational costs is a *surplus* outside of *both* capital and labor, and yet is *only* distributed to the bearers of *capital* -- shareholders.)


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://i47.tinypic.com/dzbdzq.jpg


I advocate a "global syndicalist currency" as a mass-labor-based vehicle for transparently quantitatively collecting and measuring surplus labor value that is directly reclaimed by workers themselves, thus liberating the work revenue as much as possible.


Syndicalism - Socialism - Communism Transition Diagram

http://i49.tinypic.com/5nq23t.jpg


Having a liberated-surplus-labor-value currency of their own will enable workers to rally behind its growth and strengthening, build up mass political networks, encourage mutual aid, and so on. At some point this global-syndicalist-currency-based mass proletarian movement could *displace* capitalist infrastructure altogether, ushering in the way for a "communist supply & demand" system that uses a political economy for determining mass demand, and circulating labor-hour credits *strictly* for the purpose of labor self-organizing and requisitioning, going forward.





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg




Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily




Determination of material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources may be created and sourced from projects and production runs

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination


A further explanation and sample scenario can be found here:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev