The Communist Manifesto

[Nucking_Futz51]

I recently adopted the Communist Manifesto from my local library and I came across something that sparked my attention. In one part, Marx refers to money becoming non-existent. I want you all to imagine what life would be like without money. Just think, you don't have to give the store clerk $6.99 for two gallons of milk. Or write out checks to pay off greedy capitalist CEO's. Feel free to list how your life would change without money.

[Savior]

Post-scarcity ftw. however youll find many different ways to get to communism on this site. The internet is an example of post-scarcity, moneyless. i could got to a torrent site and get anything i want to read, watch, or listen to for nothing. The record, movies, and anti-piracy companies are trying to introduce artificial scarcity by making us pay for them and trying to take down the torrrents.

[Savior]

Mind that you don't have to have post scarcity to have no money, just an abundance. Which The first world has, and the third world could get.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think Biggie Smalls said it best "Mo' money, mo' problems" :lol:

Seriously, in a world without money we would end up with no rich or poor. Imagine going into the shopping center and picking up some clothes that you need and walking out with them. Only worrying about them being the correct size.

A world without money there would be no debt, debt and fear of debt, being one of the primary weapons of the ruling class.

[Thirsty Crow]

The elimination of money as a universal commodity equivalent does not amount to a post-scarcity, free access situation.
One can envision renumeration organized differently, also on the basis of labour time expended.

[Inner Peace]

i was thinking about society without money quite often. And i think:

Money this is the key of corruption ( i knew a friend he own(ed) and woodworking industry it was quite success full until the crises the company "collapses" but on his luck some bought that industry for big big money and jonh (previous director) (im going to call him john ) got allot of money. So it started with eas he started to bought cars big cars he builtet two houses,he got divorced with his wife and re-married with an young girl,... ok nothing speacle and now he got an job as an owner of an big hotel in our city and now he got even more money and he started to spend more and more money he totally changed i dont even recognize him any more he became and spending capitalistic whore.

Ok now i went way off topic

Now about money less world.

why dont we make an sociaty when we work for food you cant get corrupted by food and you cant buy other poeple if you work alot you get alot of food if you dont work you dont get nothing. For buying other things:If you want to buy a car You'll will borrowed it.
you borrow the car only to go from place A to place B,... why do you need to own it?

mah you know what i got realy tired of writing if you want to talk about this add me on skype i can tell you more ther

Skype: peaceof.mind

[Rafiq]

The manifesto was something Marx said didn't apply to conditions in his older years.

Marx wanted to re write it, I think.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The elimination of money as a universal commodity equivalent does not amount to a post-scarcity, free access situation.
One can envision renumeration organized differently, also on the basis of labour time expended.
The idea of labour vouchers comes to mind.

[ZeroNowhere]

The manifesto was something Marx said didn't apply to conditions in his older years.

Marx wanted to re write it, I think.
One specific section, namely the end of section II. Even then, this wasn't any particularly massive revision, and Marx didn't abandon the general conception of transitional measures (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1869/inheritance-report.htm) behind the 'ten planks', for example, but rather simply thought that the specific measures relevant to that time had become antiquated.

In any case, Marx never abandoned the view that money would be abolished, because he was a communist, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. In fact, he spent fairly large stretches of his later manuscripts criticizing various utopian views of 'labour money' (not equivalent to 'labour vouchers', which are 'no more money than a theatre ticket') and the like.

[Thirsty Crow]

The idea of labour vouchers comes to mind.
Or in opther words, renumeration based on labour time ;) (for some reason, I don't like the word "voucher")

[Die Rote Fahne]

Or in opther words, renumeration based on labour time ;) (for some reason, I don't like the word "voucher")

Lol, labour tickets.

[Rooster]

How different are labour vouchers from money?

[Tim Finnegan]

The elimination of money as a universal commodity equivalent does not amount to a post-scarcity, free access situation.
Post-scarcity doesn't necessarily imply free access, even if the latter does the former. It refers to a society of sufficient material abundance as to allow the abolition of work-as-toil, which is to say work obliged by necessity rather than as the free exercise of creative reason, not necessarily to allow everyone as much as they want, whenever they want it.


How different are labour vouchers from money?
They don't circulate, they're just issued and redeemed.

[the Left™]

How different are labour vouchers from money?

Labour vouchers are a product of a set amount of labor(1 hour= 1 voucher, regardless of profession). They have no "value" connotation with them, they are all worth the same amount(a necessary amount per week or per month to gain access to a gift economy). Money has value because it derives itself from scarcity and private ownership, thus creating class. The abolishment of money removes class distinctions, and the use of labor vouchers makes sure that people still have "incentive" if you will to participate the gift economy

[Rafiq]

One specific section, namely the end of section II. Even then, this wasn't any particularly massive revision, and Marx didn't abandon the general conception of transitional measures (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1869/inheritance-report.htm) behind the 'ten planks', for example, but rather simply thought that the specific measures relevant to that time had become antiquated.

In any case, Marx never abandoned the view that money would be abolished, because he was a communist, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. In fact, he spent fairly large stretches of his later manuscripts criticizing various utopian views of 'labour money' (not equivalent to 'labour vouchers', which are 'no more money than a theatre ticket') and the like.

Yeah I know, I just mentioned it because not a lot of people know that Marx didn't stay loyal to everything he wrote in that book, and therefore shouldn't be considered the nucleus of Marxist thought.

[Rooster]

I'm not trying to kick up a fuss here (I really can't wrap my head around this) but isn't the value of money the fact that it's a universal exchange whose value is based on the labour time spent producing the things being exchanged with? Would labour vouchers contain anything other than exchange value? :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

No. Labour time vouchers are like money, but slightly less useful, apparently. Can't see how, all a voucher is is a piece of paper that can be exchanged for something, whereas money is... oh wait, no that's money.

[Tim Finnegan]

Labour vouchers are a product of a set amount of labor(1 hour= 1 voucher, regardless of profession). They have no "value" connotation with them, they are all worth the same amount(a necessary amount per week or per month to gain access to a gift economy). Money has value because it derives itself from scarcity and private ownership, thus creating class. The abolishment of money removes class distinctions, and the use of labor vouchers makes sure that people still have "incentive" if you will to participate the gift economy
I disagree. What you seem to be describe would merely be a form of money that was fixed to labour-time, not something fundamentally a apart from it. What would distinguish labour vouchers as traditionally understood is that they are non-circulatory, being issued by the commune(/collective/syndicate/cosmic teepee love village/etc.) and redeemed at the point of distribution, a one-way trip, and so would have no part in the actual production process.


I'm not trying to kick up a fuss here (I really can't wrap my head around this) but isn't the value of money the fact that it's a universal exchange whose value is based on the labour time spent producing the things being exchanged with? Would labour vouchers contain anything other than exchange value? :confused:
The difference is that money embodies labour by necessity, because that is the only way it can fulfil its function as the medium through which all commodities attain homogeneity and thus become exchangeable, while labour vouchers embody labour only because it seems like a convenient thing to pin it to. The former is a fundamental constituent of the bourgeois mode of production, while the latter is just a constructed system for distributing certain goods within a broader productive process.


No. Labour time vouchers are like money, but slightly less useful, apparently. Can't see how, all a voucher is is a piece of paper that can be exchanged for something, whereas money is... oh wait, no that's money.
Not for Marx, it isn't.

[Nucking_Futz51]

Wow, glad this sparked a lot of attention! Really has been fascinating me on the thoughts of life without money. Truly, money is pointless. You give a green bill to someone in return for what you want. Just taking things and building materials for the greater good of a society or community seems the way things should be run.:D

[Savior]

It was thinking about that today. just imagining being able to take a vacation and not have to constantly worry about how much your spending or that you cant do this or that because of monetary restraints.

[Nucking_Futz51]

Yeah, it really is food for thought. Could someone explain to me what exaclty a labor voucher is? Is it like money? Or does it represent hours worked? I have a rather foggy conception of the term.

[Nucking_Futz51]

Yeah, it really is food for thought. What exactly is a labor voucher? I'm pretty unsure on what those are. I've been told they represent hours worked in a given week or month and are used to purchase items based on hours worked. Any kind of insight on this would be great.:) I'm a rather new Leftist. Made the transition only a couple of months ago. Communistic terms and values to me seem like the obvious way to lead lfie, not trying to be bias.

[Tim Finnegan]

With all due respect, I think that you're over-simplifying Marx's conception as a move away from monetary society as emancipatory. It was far more fundamental than just a release from anxiety, it was about the restructuring of society in such a manner as to reconcile the producer with the conditions and products of his production. Anxiety is, to be sure, a product of capitalism, insofar as it expresses the necessity of scarcity for capitalism to function, but it does not represent the full alienation and degradation of human beings under capitalism which was Marx's prime concern.



Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature. ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.

That said, yeah, abudence would be pretty cool. :D

[Nucking_Futz51]

I see what your saying. I understand that it will release anxiety and stress from "normal" struggling middle to lower class Americans and other people globally. I failed to specify that it would also like you said about "reconstructing society". Apologies.