Pros & Cons of Monetary System

[Ezekiel101]

I personally think that money is a stupid system, but for the sake of not screwing something up, I want the opinion of educated people. What are the Pros & Cons of a Monetary system?

[Strannik]

That depends on which point of histoy you ask that question. :)

Long time ago money allowed people to trade better, so they could specialize on a single area of work and produce more and better commodities. So it was a good system.

Unfortunately people started to trade more and more just to make more money and today we do everything not because we want or need the result but because we need the money.

So once it was a good thing and today it has evolved into a problem.

[roy]

It's a pro if you're bourgeois and you have more than everyone else but it's a con for the vast majority of the world's population. I think RevLeft is at least in agreement about the abolition of money.

[getfiscal]

There have been several attempts by socialist countries to move "beyond" the circulation of money and they have failed. Even when you ban small trading and such people tend to do it anyway. I'm not saying money is some intrinsic feature of economics, it will probably fade away one day. But we can't simply announce that money is over, we need to end the capitalist commodity production which is at its root. Unfortunately this has proven incredibly difficult.

[runequester]

It isn't impossible (we put people in space, nothing else is impossible after that :) ) to abolish money. The trick is to make any of a billion transactions and administrative tasks not insanely complicated while abolishing money.

If you detach capitalist ideals of accumulation and artificial scarcity, what you are left with is money as a means of exchange. It provides a short, easy model to determine how many chickens a car is worth.

In the short term, money will likely persist since in administering a new economy, we'll need methods of easy exchange. As things evolve, presumably we'll figure out better ways.

[ckaihatsu]

Good recent thread:


Money - The downfall of man?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/money-downfall-mani-t164755/index.html


Also:


Wages with a worker's state in place: yay or nay?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wages-workers-state-t166833/index.html

[Ezekiel101]

Like I think a ration system or something would be preferable. That way everyone gets their fair share (meaning they earned it) of what the community produces. What do you think?

[ckaihatsu]

Like I think a ration system or something would be preferable. That way everyone gets their fair share (meaning they earned it) of what the community produces. What do you think?


Hey -- don't get me started...!

I got onto this stuff in a serious way, thanks to RevLeft, a couple of years ago.... There are actually some intricacies to the subject that are worth working one's way through. (Should everyone get the same rations, for example, regardless of work inputs -- ?)

The following is a model I developed, to address this issue and to put forth my position on it -- it's also at my blog entry.





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://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/




A further explanation and sample scenario can be found here:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev


'Hours as a measure of labor’

tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

[Ostrinski]

Money is a means of commodity exchange. If there were no commodity production, then money would have no function.

[robbo203]

There is another aspect to this and that is the built-in waste that goes with the money system. Rather than go into great detail let me quote from the following pamplet which incidentally is quite a good introductory text in my opinion


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/capitalism-socialism-how-we-live-and-how-we-could-live




The primary task of socialism will be to produce enough of all the things that people need and to get them to the right places at the right times. This will require a large part of the administrative organisation already built up within capitalism; but it will require more. Firstly, in the world as a whole, not enough of the most useful things is ever produced. It is a system of artificial scarcity. In socialism we shall need to produce much more, so that everyone can have enough. And it will be quite possible to do this.
One example of how this can happen compared to what happens now relates to the way in which periodically, world-wide capitalism enters into severe slumps because too much has been produced for available markets. Goods pile up, unable to be sold, and enterprises shut down. When this occurs the production of goods and services falls hugely below its potential. The number of unemployed workers runs into tens of millions. Factories, machines and offices, ships and lorries, buildings and land stand idle because they cannot be used profitably. The productive potential of all these is enormous; but it is by no means the whole story. Many of the factories and farms, mines and ships that remain working are typically on short time and a large proportion of the production that is still being carried on will be in weapons, equipment or services for making war, rather than production of things that are genuinely useful.
More noticeable than any of this in capitalism, however – whether in slump or boom – is the number of workers and the plant and equipment devoted to running and protecting the system of capitalism itself. Apart from all the forces of law and order, much of whose work we rarely see, the financial system itself is a coercive apparatus that we tend to take for granted. It is totally useless to a free society, but in capitalism a large number of the working population spend their lives in its service. Although the following lists are far from complete they give some idea of the social costs of running the capitalist system:
PRODUCTS CONCERNED WITH MONEY
account books and computer files
armoured vehicles
bank books
bank notes
bank statements
bills
billfolds
books on finance
cash cards
cash points
cash registers
change machines
cheques
cheque cards
coin boxes
deposit and withdrawal slips
excise and duty stamps
football coupons
gambling machines
guarantees
insurance certificates
insurance policies
invoices
licences for:
export & import
marriage
motor vehicles
selling alcohol firearms
tobacco
television sets
meters for:
electricity
gas
parking
telephones
water
money orders and postal orders
mortgage agreements
night safes
overdrafts
overtime payments
parking tickets
pension books
postage stamps
raffle tickets
rates demands
receipts
rents and rent books
safes
saving certificates
share certificates
slot machines
stock markets
strong rooms
tax returns: income tax corporation
tax VAT
tickets for: cinemas, theatres, buses, trains, etc
ticket offices
ticket machines
travellers' cheques
turnstiles
TV give-away shows
wages slips
wallets
Wills
MONEY OCCUPATIONS AND ORGANISATIONS
accountants
advertising agencies
auctioneers
auditors
banking
bailiffs
bookkeepers
bookmakers
building societies
buyers
capitalists
cashiers
casinos
charities
christmas clubs
consumer protection
credit card agencies
credit worthiness investigators
debt collectors
economists
estate agents
excise officers
financial advisers
finance houses
friendly societies
football pools
fundraisers
grant awarding trusts
health finance schemes
hire purchase firms
holding companies
income tax officers
inspectors of weights and measures
insurance brokers
insurance companies
investment consultants
licensing officers
loan companies
luncheon voucher schemes
management consultants
market analysts
mints
money lenders
mortgage brokers
national health insurance
patents offices and copyright
enforcement
pension funds
post offices
public relations officers
raffles
rate-fixers for piecework
rates offices receivers
rent collectors
salesmen and saleswomen
security firms
social security offices
stock brokers and jobbers
stock exchanges
superannuation schemes
tax consultants
ticket sellers, collectors and inspectors
totes
trade unions treasurers
underwriters
unemployment benefit offices
unit trusts
valuers
wages clerks
work study engineers
In the moneyless world of socialism, where private property will not exist, the people currently involved in such occupations will be able to choose more rewarding and useful kinds of work. But this is only the beginning: restrictive practices and regulations that exist in capitalism, whether initiated by employers, governments, or trading-blocs such as the European Union, or even the defensive practices of trade unions, deliberately curtail a great deal of production. And the possibilities of automation, which the capitalist system can only introduce in bits and pieces, are, as yet, largely unrealised. Tedious, dirty or dangerous jobs that at present constitute a miserable working life for so many millions of workers across the world could be automated in socialist society. We have developed a technology so sophisticated that it can send machines to the surface of the planet Mars, scrape up soil samples and analyse them. This suggests that there is no existing social problem that we cannot solve. The science and technology are already established to create a world of abundance for everyone; but only socialism can turn it into a reality.

[CommunityBeliever]

Before there was a distribution network like the Internet and the means of production to create an abundance, money was a necessity. However, with the development and the continued expansion of the Internet, we now have the basis of a network to distribute information, energy, and all other personal goods to everyone in the world. Furthermore, with the development of modern computers, industrial agriculture, and other advanced means of production, the need to charge for personal goods is rapidly becoming obsolete.

[ckaihatsu]

Before there was a distribution network like the Internet and the means of production to create an abundance, money was a necessity. However, with the development and the continued expansion of the Internet, we now have the basis of a network to distribute information, energy, and all other personal goods to everyone in the world. Furthermore, with the development of modern computers, industrial agriculture, and other advanced means of production, the need to charge for personal goods is rapidly becoming obsolete.


Sorry to nit-pick, but how is the Internet a basis by which to distribute *energy* -- ?

From what I can see there's still an unresolved question around the *production* of sufficient clean energy, not to mention its social distribution.

[CommunityBeliever]

Sorry to nit-pick, but how is the Internet a basis by which to distribute *energy* -- ?

The *Enernet* is a network for the distribution of energy based upon the model provided by the Internet:

cA811EPzwLI

From what I can see there's still an unresolved question around the *production* of sufficient clean energy, not to mention its social distribution.

The principal unresolved problems in the field of energy-production are a result of the global capitalist system. The Enernet provides a good model for global energy distribution. Furthermore, most extant nuclear fission reactors primarily use Uranium-235 so there is an abundance of untapped fertile nuclear fuels such as Uranium-238 and Thorium-232 that can be utilised by breeder reactors.

The use of these fertile nuclear fuels for fission reactions can provide all our energy needs for hundreds or thousands of years, which if we establish socialism, will be plenty of time to develop nuclear fusion so that we utilize deuterium, tritium, and Helium-3, and other fusionable materials for energy. Nuclear fusion technology will completely solve the world's energy problem for billions of years.

[arilando]

Like I think a ration system or something would be preferable. That way everyone gets their fair share (meaning they earned it) of what the community produces. What do you think?
I consider rations to be too inflexible, immediately following the revolution labor note would be preferable, so people themselves could decide how to spend they labors worth.

[ckaihatsu]

The *Enernet* is a network for the distribution of energy based upon the model provided by the Internet:


I didn't watch the video, but I looked up an article on the guy:





"Now, decades later, are we using less bandwidth now than before? Of course not. We are using million times more bandwidth. If the Internet is any guide, when we are done solving energy, we are not going to use less energy but much, much more--a squanderable abundance, just like we have in computation."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10203683-54.html


Your mentioning of this guy is practically a commercial advertisement here at RevLeft -- one that the board is not even getting revenue for.

A data-distribution network is *not comparable* to an *energy* distribution network. The overhead for data is *nothing* compared to that required for energy, and all standards were readily worked out.

Energy concerns remain profitable so there's much "turf-war" remaining there, unlike in mere standardized digital pipes for entirely standardized data transmissions that hardly use any energy themselves.





The principal unresolved problems in the field of energy-production are a result of the global capitalist system. The Enernet provides a good model for global energy distribution.


Yes, it may be a *model*, but to promote it in the here-and-now, under still-capitalist social relations, is to put forth an inherent contradiction of terms, one I'd imagine you should already be aware of. How can this 'Enernet' be supportable when you're acknowledging *right here* that the unresolved problems in energy are a result of the global capitalist system -- ? -- !

[CommunityBeliever]

Yes, it may be a *model*, but to promote it in the here-and-now, under still-capitalist social relations, is to put forth an inherent contradiction of terms, one I'd imagine you should already be aware of. How can this 'Enernet' be supportable when you're acknowledging *right here* that the unresolved problems in energy are a result of the global capitalist system -- ? -- ! I am not personally promoting this model "in the here in and now". A global network for the distribution of all personal goods without the use of money is necessarily communist. It is only with considerable struggle that we are even able to maintain some semblance of a system for the distribution of free information within capitalism as it is.

All we have so far is a system for the distribution of information, the Internet, so the rest of the network will be inspired by these conditions. Furthermore, I agree with you that energy and information have some significant differences. In particular, whereas the transmission of information has essentially no overhead, the transmission of electrical energy is constrained by electrical resistance.

[ckaihatsu]

I am not personally promoting this model "in the here in and now".


Okay.





A global network for the distribution of all personal goods without the use of money is necessarily communist.


Yes.





It is only with considerable struggle that we are even able to maintain some semblance of a system of free information in the Internet within capitalist society as it is.


This is certainly debatable, and could be the thesis of an entire degree program. I'll opt here to take a pass on commenting on it.





All we have so far is a system for the distribution of free information, the Internet, so the rest of the network will be inspired by these conditions.


Probably.

Also please note that the *infrastructure* for networked electricity supply *already exists* -- what's more to the point, as I know you're aware, is the *ownership* of it. (One may recall the Northeast blackout of 2003.... tinyurl.com/6qa5ode)





Furthermore, I agree with you that energy and information have some significant differences. In particular, whereas the transmission of energy has essentially no overhead, the transmission of electrical energy is constrained by electrical resistance.


(You may want to elaborate here on the distinction between the 'transmission of energy' and the 'transmission of electrical energy'....)(*All* activity has *some* kind of overhead associated with it....)

[CommunityBeliever]

This is certainly debatable, and could be the thesis of an entire degree program. I'll opt here to take a pass on commenting on it.

In what sense is that point debatable? The presence artificial scarcity and anti-"piracy" measures should be abundantly clear to any computer user.


(You may want to elaborate here on the distinction between the 'transmission of energy' and the 'transmission of electrical energy'....)(*All* activity has *some* kind of overhead associated with it....)

That was I typo. I edited that out before you replied.

[ckaihatsu]

In what sense is that point debatable? The presence artificial scarcity and anti-"piracy" measures should be abundantly clear to any computer user.


I won't debate the point then.

[Strannik]

Socialism is total subjugation of capital to social needs. That includes capital in its money form. I belive that "money" (or labour tokens, energy credits) should be abolished when and where its no longer needed and not before. For distributing limited goods, money can be useful even if you have a "product distribution network". Obviously its pointless where we have created cyclical abundance.