Money?

[harte.beest]

1. What would be the motivation to work without money?

2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve?

3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money?

4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?

[Offbeat]

1. To contribute to society, as something to do to help fill the many hours of free time everyone will have, not to mention that work will be much more enjoyable without bosses and compulsion.

2. There wouldn't be one, there's no money remember.

3. Labour vouchers would be distributed strictly according to the amount of labour put in. They wouldn't be the same as currency either - your labour vouchers are yours to exchange for goods, after which they would not continue to circulate. Not everyone supports a system of labour vouchers; I don't, and therefore I'm sure somebody who does could explain better than me.

4. There would be no nations under communism. Of course, while the revolution is going on there would be places in which more has been achieved, and other places where capitalist governments still exist. But full-blown communism would not be able to exist in one part of the world whilst capitalist nation states existed somewhere else. Communism can only really be achieved when it exists worldwide.


Hope I've been of some help :)

[Rooster]

1. What would be the motivation to work without money?

This involves quite a complicated issue dealing with human nature and alienation, etc. The main thing to take away from all the Marxist literature is that work won't be work anymore. And if that can't be avoided, then the drudgery of the more unpleasant jobs will be reduced.


2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve? Hope not.


3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money? Theoretically, labour-vouchers work in a way that doles out labour which entitles you to the products of society. Of course, some people won't be able to provide labour such as children, the old, the disabled or the sick so there has to be an inequality within this as with all things. In this sense, vouchers (or certificates) don't accumulate and don't circulate.


4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?Within communism, all commodity production has ceased and trading through exchange has ceased. A capitalist nation would not want to trade with a communist one because labour would be protected so much as to make it unprofitable and a communist society would be unable to trade with a capitalist one because it would then be compelled by the forces of capitalism to reduce the power of the labouring people. This is also kinda moot as socialism/communism can only really be called a success when it is the dominant mode of production to such an extent that capitalist markets and modes of production fall apart.

[Rooster]

3. Labour vouchers would be distributed strictly according to the amount of labour put in. They wouldn't be the same as currency either - your labour vouchers are yours to exchange for goods, after which they would not continue to circulate. Not everyone supports a system of labour vouchers; I don't, and therefore I'm sure somebody who does could explain better than me.

I wouldn't say that you exchange your labour power for goods. It's not as if you'd be able to take your voucher (and it has to be singular) and use some of it in one store and then some in another whilst keeping a little tucked away. It would be more like you've worked so you can take what you like. Just to clear this up a little. You're not exchanging labour power for a wage.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There would be no motivation to work without money, and hopefully nobody would.

Of course, I'm being a little bit silly, and playing with definitions, but I think the abolition of work-as-such is absolutely central to the communist project. The vast majority of societies throughout human history have existed without work, and have done rather decently. Hell, consider most of the animal kingdom. Do bears work? What about fish? Maybe weird argument could be made that beavers work, but I bet you'd have a hard time convincing the beavers.

As for labour vouchers, that's some weak shit. Full communism or bust.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I wouldn't say that you exchange your labour power for goods. It's not as if you'd be able to take your voucher (and it has to be singular) and use some of it in one store and then some in another whilst keeping a little tucked away. It would be more like you've worked so you can take what you like. Just to clear this up a little. You're not exchanging labour power for a wage.

There would be different stores in communism? I'm assuming not like regular stores around today, but what will they be like?

[Rooster]

There would be different stores in communism? I'm assuming not like regular stores around today, but what will they be like?

I was just saying that to highlight the fact that labour-vouchers aren't money by not being a universal commodity. As to wether there will be different places to go to get stuff in a communist society then why not? Personally, I think it might be easier to have one giant warehouse where you got stuff. Or maybe just from the internet.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

1. What would be the motivation to work without money?

2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve?

3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money?

4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?

1. In Socialism, so long there is a form of exchange i.e. in labor vouchers; The motivation would be that you would have less material goods, lower living standard than your fellow citizens. It just so happens that people want to live better. Humans are creative beings, once they get to decide about what they make and how they work, once a self-determination of labor is reintroduced into human society, work changes its currently dull, strenuous meaning and all of human creativity can be invested into man's labor.
In communism, there is of course a minimum of labor for humans to do, and labor credits is abolished.

2. Well, immediately after (during) a workers revolution, banks would be nationalised and the national currency and financial apparatus brought under public control. Money is then, after a transition stage, replaced by labor vouchers and a value based system of exchange.

3. Money circulates, and labor vouchers are issued individually, do not circulate. They are, if you will, tokens received for working for a certain amount of time (labour intensity and skill of course as well) that is represented by labor credits which are exchangeable for goods and services equivalent to that labor credit.

4. Well, a "communist nation" does not exist. If by this you mean a socialist nation, then yes, it can and would for existential reasons, have to trade. But this would also depend on the political relations within and between the nations.
In this highly advanced (globalised) stage of capitalism, not trading would be an economic disaster, and therefore the idea for 'world revolution' becomes increasingly relevant.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, obviously you're going to get lot of answers to these questions that don't necessarily agree with each other. So here's another set.


1. What would be the motivation to work without money?

The question presupposes that the only reason people do things is because of money. This is obviously not true. 'Money' as we understand it has only existed for 2,500 years and an awful lot of things were done before that, from the development of stone tools to the invention of the wheel, the domestication of dogs, cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens, the lama, to building Stonehenge and the Pyramids.

So money isn't the only (or even necessarily the main) drive to action - it is important in our society because people have to pay for necessities to live. If they didn't, money has no value as a form of social compulsion. But is this a bad thing?

We do lots of things without getting paid for them. No-one has ever paid me to go to the toilet, for instance. I do it because it's necessary, and more pleasant than the consequences of taking a crap on the floor.

No one has ever paid me to eat my lunch. But I do it because it's necessary and most of the time it's pleasant. Again, necessity is a big motivator her.

In communism, people will 'work' - taking that to mean expend our labour, leaving aside the arguments about whether 'work' per se has any meaning in a post-capitalist society - because it's necessary to work; if people don't work, things don't get done. If we want a new swimming pool in our community, we need to organise ourselves to build it. If we don't, we don't get a swimming pool. If we don't want to organise ourselves to build a swimming pool, then obviously we don't really want a swimming pool all that much. So no problem, we've eliminated some unnecessary 'work'.



2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve? ...

I'd suggest a theatre, putting on plays about how capitalism was a swindle.

Why do you think we need a 'version of the Federal Reserve'? What purpose do you think it serves that will be needed in communism, which is a system without money?




3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money?


I don't think there is one in any great degree but supporters of labour-vouchers will tell you they don't circulate. I don't understand how that's supposed to happen.

Somne of us advocate rationing by need as the basis for distributing goods in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, rather than rationing by work (labour-vouchers) or rationing by capital (money). I don't need a wheelchair after the revolution, because my legs work fine thanks, so giving me one because I work is I think counter-productive, no matter how many time-coupons I have. Much better idea to give a wheelchair to someone who needs it even if they can't work.


...
4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?

No, because there's no such thing as a 'communist nation'. What some other people have been referring to as 'socialist nations' (which aren't socialist, socialist is the same as communist in the case of the system/economy, but not necessarily in the name of political parties) are rather capitalist nations where the working class is, at least in theory, in political control. This is not 'socialism' but 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' (in theory at least, some of us believe the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot really be applied to the Soviet Union after about 1921 or perhaps even earlier).

Can capitalist nations trade with other capitalist nations? Yes. Can nations where the working class is theoretically in control trade with capitalist nations? Yes - the Soviet Union did for the whole period of its existence. Is this 'communism' or 'socialism'? No.

Socialism/communism can only exist after capitalsim has been suppressed worldwide. You cannot build socialism in one country, any more than you can build it in one city or one street or one house or one bedroom. It is a worldwide system embracing the whole of human production and distribution and including the whole of human society. Or it's not socialism, it's just a different form of the management of capitalism.

[cyu]

What would be the motivation to work without money?


For anarcho-syndicalists, the motivation would be whatever each group of employees decide on for themselves - not forced upon them by CEOs, private security, and bribed standing armies.

Personally, I would like to see this from http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/ (but do realize that anarchists expect people to come up with their own ideas and systems to vary from location to location):

In today’s system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a “desire” that wouldn’t have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work.

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you’d see for the jobs supported by that organization.

If you’re “lazy” and don’t feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.


Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?

Can former slaves go to the movies with present-day slaves and their masters? I don't see why not, but you do realize it's not going to be the a group of equals sitting down together, don't you? I would imagine the slave master would be a bit jittery and constantly looking over his shoulder behind him.

[harte.beest]

SO basically everything will be free. Nobody will have more then their neighbor. Nobody will ever have to work unless they really, really want too. Nobody will be able to trade withe communists because the communist economy will be so great, nobody will be able to afford to, so they will just become communist themselves.

As a communist, I will never have to work a day in my life, but I will still be able to have a 40-foot yacht and a giant mansion, with a private vineyard, and golf course attached, and so will all my neighbors

Sounds great....:laugh:

[Blake's Baby]

Also pretty much rubbish.

'Everything will be free' - yes if you mean 'will I have to hand over any tokens to get it?', no if you mean 'will everything be done for me and I don't have to do anything?' because if no-one does anything nothing gets done. If you want a hospital built you need to work for it because hospitals don't happen by magic, people have to work to build them.

'Nobody will have more than their neighbour' - where did that come from? My neighbour has pet rabbits. They need a hutch. I don't have pet rabbits. Why do I need a hutch? I have children. I need bunk beds. My neighbour doesn't. Why does she need them?

'Nobody will ever have to work unless they really really want to' - only if we all want to live a very much simpler life than we do now (in some ways it will be simpler but in other ways I suspect much more complex and richer). Human activity - 'work' - is what creates social wealth. If we want to increase social wealth, then we need to engage in purposeful activity - ie 'work - to do it.

'Nobody will be able to trade withe communists because the communist economy will be so great, nobody will be able to afford to, so they will just become communist themselves...' - means nothing. There are no communist countries and no 'communist economy' so there's no comparison, and certainly no 'they can't afford to' because communism has nothing to do with 'trade'. We only work towards communism after capitalism has been suppressed globally. In the period when there are capitalist countries and revolutionary territories, what we call 'the revolution' or 'the world civil war' there probably won't be much trade going on; we'll be sending arms and ammunition to the rebels, the capitalists will be sending cruise missiles and smart bombs.

'As a communist, I will never have to work a day in my life, but I will still be able to have a 40-foot yacht and a giant mansion, with a private vineyard, and golf course attached, and so will all my neighbors...' - can you do magic? Where is the golf-course going to come from, or the yacht, the mansion or the vineyard if no-one does any useful activity? Sure you and your neighbours could 'appropriate' a big house I guess, it might even be next to a golf-course, but if none of you do anything it'll soon be a pigsty. If you and your neighbours want to wallow in your own shit with no electricity, internet, food or anything else that might be considered a sign of 'civilisation' in these days I suppose that's up to you. But if you don't make any contribution to society, how do you expect society to function?

In the end it doesn't so much come down to 'why should we help you?' as 'how do you think stuff gets done without people doing it?'. Your mother isn't going to come and clear up after you and put your socks in the laundry; if you want things, you have to work for them, not because you can work and then trade tokens for what you want, but because what you want takes effort to accomplish - without people working, nothing gets done.

[Regicollis]

1. What would be the motivation to work without money?
Humans are social animals and we need to be part of a community in order to feel good about ourselves.

Doing something productive is a basic human need. Having nothing in particular to do can be relaxing and nice for a short while but eventually you want to do something useful.

If you ask many disabled people who live off disability benefits the hing they dislike the most about their situation is often not their handicap but that they have nothing useful to do all day.

As others have pointed out the character of 'work' will also change into a much more pleasant experience than today. Workers will not have to deal with bosses or with unsafe conditions since they are themselves in charge of how things will get done.

Furthermore the need for work will be reduced drastically in a communist society. A lot of pointless products would not be produced anymore and people would not be indoctrinated to believe they can find happiness through mindless consumption as it is the case now. Technology will also continue to move forward and new advances in robotics and automatisation will also reduce the need for labour.


2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve?

The capitalist central banking system would cease to exist in a communist society so there would be no federal reserve.

However if a system of labour vouchers was introduced there would be a need for some kind of central database that stored the information. It would only be a database that kept record of people's accounts - not a money-lending bank.


3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money?

There are many different proposals to how labour-vouchers could differ from money. One is that they would be non-transferable; you can only spend you labour vouchers to get goods from the collective stores. You cannot transfer them to other people. Once you've paid for your goods the credits are simply deleted. They are not transferred to the shop's account and will not circulate.

Labour vouchers will be more like WWII-era rationing books (but done with modern technology) than like money.

Many communists are against the idea of labour vouchers since they want everything to be distributed according to need. Personally I think it would be necessary to have a limited labour voucher system to ration limited luxuries. Your needs for food, housing, clothing etc. would be met but if you want a gold necklace you have to spend you labour vouchers to 'buy' it. In this way labour vouchers would also give an incentive to work. Of course children, the elderly and the disabled should get some "free" credits to compensate them for their inability to work.


4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?

As it has been pointed out before there is no such things as a "communist nation" and communism has to be introduced on a global level.

However it is not impossible that at some point there will be a revolutionary or socialist area of the world with the rest still being split into nations. It is also not unlikely that such a situation could exist for quite some time.

I have nothing against the liberated areas trading with the capitalist ones per se. The trade will have to take place on a barter level though since capitalist money will be of no use in the liberated areas. However I doubt that the capitalists would be interested in exchanging anything else than gunfire.

[harte.beest]

The idea that a world can exist without money or nations is childish, there is no possible way (without a mass group of labomotmies) that any "utopian" civilization can exist without money and nations.

Is commusinm suposed to be somekind of de-materialistic world view of how the future should or could be? No it is merely the fantasies of childlike philophers dreaming that one day all of mankind will be able to co-exist peacefully. Will there be a future society that exist through one world government....possibly. But the idea that without any motivation to create such an empire, that it can exist simply because, based on some abstract theoretical philosophy it "can" exist, is again childish.

There seems to be alot finger-pointing at all the problems of capitalism without any real answers or solutions. How can a world exist without money or nations? Originally, I thought these were insults about the communists. That we would have to live in a world without luxury. That we all must live in simliar houses and drive similair cars and earn similair profit.

Recently on this site, somebody posted that nintendo earned over $1 million for each employee that it has. The poster was making this statement, as if to say, that if they had simply dividided the profit more equally, everyone would be millionare's!

Well thats all well, and good, when it comes to the hard workers of nintendo. I'm sure they would all love to be millionares, and are very upset about the gross level of income inequality between the workers and managers.

But these statements are made as if to say the future economic situation, should be based on communism, where everyone earns millions of dollars and therefore we all can live the life of a millionare, maybe not a billonare but atleast like millionare.

In fact, just he opposite is true under communism isn't it? Minimalism would be law, inheritance would be outlawed, wealth itself would have to be outlawed.

SO long Ferrari, So long cigarrettes, So long smores' flavored lube

:cursing: :cursing: :cursing:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The idea that a world can exist without money or nations is childish, there is no possible way (without a mass group of labomotmies) that any "utopian" civilization can exist without money and nations.

This is moronic. Most of the world was free of money and nations(tates) for most of the time humans have existed.

[harte.beest]

This is moronic. Most of the world was free of money and nations(tates) for most of the time humans have existed.
When? back in hunter, gatherer caveman time?? We also hunted deer,picked berries, and died by the age of 30 for "most of the time humans have existed"? What is your point?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with most of the responses here, and have some distinctiveness to add....





1. What would be the motivation to work without money?


Being a materialist Marxist I don't think that personal ambition *or* societal ambition is bad, undesirable, or should be discouraged. Under capitalism these traits are practically synonymous with greed and chauvinism, unfortunately, due to the profit mechanism and warfare being the default means by which to achieve these.

Once past the automatic privatization that corresponds to these achievements in the present era, we *could* have a society / civilization that *encourages* individuality and individualism in its best, constructive forms, *without* it necessitating a corresponding destruction elsewhere -- ditto for social/cultural ambitions, etc.

In such a society working for the sake of material rewards could very well be ennobling and enlightening for many -- maybe even most -- since one could have a greater variety of material-related experiences in their life, if one so wished. I doubt that anyone could *deny* such rewards to one who could demonstrate that they put in certain constructive and yielding efforts -- the difference would be that such efforts could not be *limited* to individual personal enrichment and they *definitely* could not be for private accumulated gain.





2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve?


Any formal political *system* will necessitate the use of some *system* of record-keeping, and hence administration.

By whatever method of material accounting used there will have to be some *administration* of it, and this would be the "officialdom" of that society, as it were. Communists posit a mass *sharing* of these societal responsibilities so that no objective opportunities for the aggrandizement of power are allowed to develop in the first place.

I'd estimate that a revolution successful enough to overthrow capitalism on a worldwide basis would necessarily mean a mass participation in empowered political matters never before seen in human history. As a continuation of the revolution beyond the rule of capital this mass participation would contribute adequate political attentions to fulfill basic administrative routines on an ongoing, equitable basis.





3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money?


Money is inherently flawed as a means of material measure since its own value is subject to fluctuation -- the market being defined by market measures leads inexorably to catastrophic deflation, as seen in the historical evidence.

Labor vouchers are inherently flawed as a means of material measure because it leads to a politics of subjective material valuations, better known as party elitism.





4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?


No, for reasons others have already stated.










In today’s system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a “desire” that wouldn’t have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work.


This critique of personal material gain is only valid because of the current context of the capitalist regime. As I mentioned above individualism itself is not necessarily a bad thing, nor are desires. A society / civilization unhindered by the erratic, faulty, and destructive developments of capitalism would be free to develop in a *collective*, *constructive* way, bringing forth new kinds of possibilities that people would then desire.





'Nobody will ever have to work unless they really really want to' - only if we all want to live a very much simpler life than we do now (in some ways it will be simpler but in other ways I suspect much more complex and richer). Human activity - 'work' - is what creates social wealth. If we want to increase social wealth, then we need to engage in purposeful activity - ie 'work - to do it.


I agree with and appreciate the socialist positivism of this statement, and will only add that the fruits of automation should be made much more commonly available to everyone.

As an example, I recently noted that my Google Mail account storage space had been increased to 10 GB from the previous 7 GB.
Did I do anything to *deserve* this? No. Did I *work* for it? No. Did I *purchase* it? No. Did I *request* it? No. Is there any reason I should *not* receive it? No.

[cyu]

Nobody will have more then their neighbor.

I would say in an anarchist society, so long as you gathering up random objects isn't preventing other people from surviving, you'd be free to indulge in your eccentricities. If you're going to start killing people if they venture too close to your pile of sticks or pile of rocks, then that's a different issue and you may end up getting killed yourself ;)


I will still be able to have a 40-foot yacht and a giant mansion, with a private vineyard, and golf course attached, and so will all my neighbors

You are still living in the mindset of advertising induced consumer culture - which is to be expected - it's very difficult for anyone to think completely differently from the culture he grew up in. The very fact that you even want those things is because of the 24/7 consumer advertising / brainwashing you're exposed to. If the advertising disappeared, you may still experience materialism and consumerism for a while, but like a fog lifting, it won't last any more than if you stopped any other kind of indoctrination - whether authoritarian, religious, or even sexual (consider how concepts of beauty differ between the chubby ideals of earlier centuries, the bound feet of pre-revolutionary China, or the various fads of clothing and hair through the decades).

Again from http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/

before you make the argument that advertising isn’t all that effective in getting people to buy what they don’t want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television – million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn’t spend so much if it didn’t work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that “boring” doesn’t sell.

[cyu]

The idea that a world can exist without money or nations is childish

I would say communism, either anarchist or otherwise, can exist with or without money. There's nothing special about the concept of a medium of exchange that either prevents or is required by economic equality.

For example, with money, you could achieve economic equality by simply giving everyone access to the same amount of money. Similar to political democracy, where everyone gets a "salary" of political votes every election cycle, economic democracy would mean everyone gets the same economic votes, with which they use to determine what should be produced and how best to allocate resources.

Without money, you just need a different way to direct how resources will be used and how people will be motivated. Both can be done by advertising - which is used indirectly by capitalism for the same purpose anyway. The main difference is one of intrinsic vs external motivations.

The "typical" reward structure, where you want X and you'll get X if you do Y, results in brainwashing people to only appreciate X. This type of motivation (as documented by Aronson, Ariely, Kohn, and others) inadvertently makes people feel *worse* about doing Y. They are subconciously brainwashed to actually hate their jobs simply by the fact that something entirely different is considered the "real" reward.

The alternative motivation, where you do X because you want to do X, is better psychologically for the actor, and better for productivity as well. The reward in this case is intrinsic - that of doing X itself is the reward.

As far as nations go, I don't see why you believe the world can't exist without nations. Seems to me like you've just taken a position against communism and are now flailing in random directions, hoping to hit something.

Take any small enough subsection of society, and it will be without nations. Is my house a different nation from my neighbor? Of course not. Is my town a different nation from the next village? Nope. Is my county or province different from the one due south? Wrong again.

In fact, you could say the same of money as well. Do I spend all day paying my relatives and friends to hang out or talk on the phone? Do husbands pay wives or wives pay husbands to do stuff around the house? Of course, without payment, some other types of motivations will have to be devised. Those that are not good at motivating others often end up in arguments and shouting matches. Happens to both friends and families. Nothing a little psychological study and training can't fix though.

[Blake's Baby]

The idea that a world can exist without money or nations is childish, there is no possible way (without a mass group of labomotmies) that any "utopian" civilization can exist without money and nations...


Good luck here, I predict a rapid restriction to Opposing Ideologies as you're neither a revolutionary nor a 'leftist'.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I was just saying that to highlight the fact that labour-vouchers aren't money by not being a universal commodity. As to wether there will be different places to go to get stuff in a communist society then why not? Personally, I think it might be easier to have one giant warehouse where you got stuff. Or maybe just from the internet.

I do love that internet.

[ckaihatsu]

I do love that internet.


In a post-capitalist world ordering from the Internet will be *mandatory* and all goods -- and people too -- will be transported by conveyor belts, since they'll be everywhere.


= D

[ForgedConscience]

In a post-capitalist world ordering from the Internet will be *mandatory* and all goods -- and people too -- will be transported by conveyor belts, since they'll be everywhere.


= D

To hell with conveyor belts, bring on the army of monkey butlers. Even newborn babies shall be welcomed into this world by the sight of a be-suited milk-bottle bearing primate.

[ckaihatsu]

To hell with conveyor belts, bring on the army of monkey butlers. Even newborn babies shall be welcomed into this world by the sight of a be-suited milk-bottle bearing primate.


Jesus, that's too cute for words -- who *wouldn't* want to enter the world that way...!

But what happens when the monkey-butlers develop their own political theory and do a giant fuck-you to the rest of us? Then it's conveyor belts, buddy!

Actually, hang on a sec. I just thought this through, and it turns out that without any money or material issues to stress over any more everyone will be so at-peace and tranquil that we'll mass-converge, using Internet connections, to become one total nervous system.

The rest of time will be an existence of simply thinking up novel color-shapes, immediately perceived by all others, for everyone's consumption and enjoyment.


x D

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Actually though, I have no idea who, in a free society, is going to be all like, "I'm totally going to go down in to these toxic mines, and get the rare earth metals necessary for computers and cell phones." So, does communism mean the end of the internet? Probably. I'm also pretty alright with that trade off since, y'know, I have friends in real life.

Bringing this back around to the question of money, is there the possibility that some system of money or labour vouchers could serve to compel people to enter toxic mines, shorten their lives, and destroy their landbases? Probably, but it's exactly for that reason that money needs to be abolished immediately, within the process of creating communism.

[ckaihatsu]

So, does communism mean the end of the internet? Probably. I'm also pretty alright with that trade off since, y'know, I have friends in real life.


For the rest of us who don't have the option of endlessly hangin' with the Beautiful People in-crowd there's always work. There's even a term for us -- maybe you've heard of it -- the 'working class'.

While *avoidable* hazards of life and *imperatives* of work could be relieved in a moneyless world, it wouldn't be a world *without* work. Rather humanity would finally be able to *not waste* its work anymore, but instead direct it in a mass-conscious way to where it's needed most and can be used the best.





Bringing this back around to the question of money, is there the possibility that some system of money or labour vouchers could serve to compel people to enter toxic mines, shorten their lives, and destroy their landbases?




[I] have no idea who, in a free society, is going to be all like, "I'm totally going to go down in to these toxic mines, and get the rare earth metals necessary for computers and cell phones."


What if your motivation was an idea to use those same rare earth metals in a new way that would mean no one having to enter those toxic mines ever again? (Maybe a "final" type of super-efficient computer design that could be used remotely, like a mainframe -- ?)





[I]t's exactly for that reason that money needs to be abolished immediately, within the process of creating communism.


I've picked up here and there that for *some* people communism is -- perhaps subconsciously -- equated to a religious-like "heaven" where all material development just stops and all people do is hang out for the rest of eternity.

Certainly that would be *possible* if that's what one wanted to do, but in terms of the overall world the fall of money would be commensurate with the *rise* of a political society that actually *meant* something. It would be empowered over the most important matters of the world and would have to set a course for the same, finally free of the "invisible hand" substituting *for* us.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wait, you just suggested that I've got a religious-like view of communism because I can imagine life without the internet, and, at the same time, just promised me "a final type of super-efficient computer design" that would let us have computers without "having to enter those toxic mines ever again"?

Also - fuck reducing "THE WORKING CLASS (TM)" to a homogeneous ideological bludgeon. What next, "COMMUNISTS MUST DRINK BUD LIGHT - IT'S WHAT THE WORKING CLASS DOES."? Anyway, the neat thing about the working class, and one of the only redeeming things about it the working-class-as-such (as opposed to for itself - a different matter), is that it's brought together IRL as a necessity of production. Like, most working class people have friends who exist off the internet (if anything, the beautiful-people-in-crowd is an effect of the internet / mass communication).

[ckaihatsu]

Wait, you just suggested that I've got a religious-like view of communism because I can imagine life without the internet, and, at the same time, just promised me "a final type of super-efficient computer design" that would let us have computers without "having to enter those toxic mines ever again"?

Also - fuck reducing "THE WORKING CLASS (TM)" to a homogeneous ideological bludgeon. What next, "COMMUNISTS MUST DRINK BUD LIGHT - IT'S WHAT THE WORKING CLASS DOES."? Anyway, the neat thing about the working class, and one of the only redeeming things about it the working-class-as-such (as opposed to for itself - a different matter), is that it's brought together IRL as a necessity of production. Like, most working class people have friends who exist off the internet (if anything, the beautiful-people-in-crowd is an effect of the internet / mass communication).


No, what I *said* was that your entire family lineage is bullshit and that your dearly departed should be performing oral sex for *my* ancestors in ghost heaven.

(Jesus!) I'll *try* to clarify things here, but I may only wind up bloodying my fingertips with all the typing I'll have to do, given your comprehension skills here....

I *didn't imply* that *you* have a religious-like view of communism. What I said was:





I've picked up here and there that for *some* people communism is -- perhaps subconsciously -- equated to a religious-like "heaven" where all material development just stops and all people do is hang out for the rest of eternity.


So, no, *you* won't have to go into the toxic mines *or* use the Internet because I'm running for Supreme Commander of the Universe's Communist Vanguard and I got your back. ( - Whatever - )

[harte.beest]

This seems to be a very big part of the revolution, yet so far no one can give me an answer?

Lenin wasn't primarily influenced by Karl Marx as most people claim, in fact he was more influenced by the author Nikolay Chernyshevsky who founded Narodnism and something caught my attention:

"The more well-known Doctrinaire Narodniks had a firm belief that capitalism had no future in Russia, or any agrarian country."

An agrarian society is defined as: (a political philosophy which values rural society as superior to urban society, the independent farmer as superior to the paid worker, and sees farming as a way of life that can shape the ideal social values. It stresses the superiority of a simpler rural life as opposed to the complexity of city life, with its banks and factories.)


Agrarianism seems to be the founding principle of communism which I think really explains what I mean when I said "Minimalism would be law, inheritance would be outlawed, wealth itself would have to be outlawed."

I'm starting to think 1850's Marx didn't predict the world we'd live in today. Didn't predict the problems with overpopulation. What would be the modern definition of the bourgeois? I noticed that in Chernyshevsky's books the main character "Rakhmetov" eats nothing but black bread and steak. As a sign of respect for the working class, he quote " In St. Petersburg he permits himself oranges because there ordinary people eat them, but in the countryside he doesn't touch them."

Now, I don't know what kind of economy creates a world in which steak is considered peasant food and oranges are for the wealthy, but regardless I think it says a lot about the state of life in 1850's Russia, and where a lot of these writer's get their ideas from.

I bring up world nations only because my question "Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?" was answered with: "no because there can be no such thing as a communist nation. "

This implies that in order for us to determine whether or not Communism can work we must give one world control to a single Communist government authority. (That's all commies want, just world domination, is that too much to ask LOL!!)

I reject the idea of a world with no nations because of the economics of it. I think most communists except this idea mainly because of the many other reasons our various nations are separated, and divided, language, politics, values, religion etc.

Now if one continent let's say Africa, became a communist continent, and the lives of those people drastically improved, their economy their quality of life, their political squabbles get handled peacefully and without bloodshed. Then the entire world would then see the inspiration to adopt this way of life no matter what it is, could be satanism, could be communism, nobody would care as long as you could provide reasonable proof that it was a better way of life and that's something words in books can never do.

Communism is the extremist leftist philosophy, after the communist revolt and the 1 world government of nudist lesbian hippies rules the world, then what? Who would be on the left who would be on the right? Can their be a government more leftist then communism? I must believe so, because communism is more of fringe political theory exempt from what modern leftists value, even contradicts what some modern leftists value. Freedom of speech, Freedom religion, aren't values of communism, after all the bourgeois can simply brainwash us with their marketing and advertisements so they must be censored and barred from doing so right?
As one person said earlier the only reason why I want a 40 foot yacht is because the bourgeois have brainwashed me into wanting it. How will the communist prevent this kind of brainwashing, is the more interesting aspect.

I love this paradox that was presented above, how will we get people to risk their lives and their health to fetch rare minerals needed for computers without providing them wealth,?... the answer was create a massive computer that can automate the work for them. LOL!!!

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

1. What would be the motivation to work without money?

People would be free to pursue vocations which they would enjoy more without the fear of not being able to have food, clothing and shelter.


2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve?

Fuck the Fed, there is nothing "federal," about it. It's a private entity which sucks up the tax payers money like a fucking tick. A thievery which has long gone unnoticed.


3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money?

Good question.


4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?

They have in the past. Presumably though, the revolution wouldn't have slowed down, stagnated and died like it did in the early part of the last century.

I would also point out that we shouldn't be concerned with trying to do some weird mimicking of the current system in red dressings but change society on a fundamental level.

[Ismail]

Check your PM box, haarte.

Also "overpopulation" doesn't exist (at least not in today's world.) Marx attacked Malthus, as have subsequent Marxists.

See as an introductory example: http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/03/01/the-myth-of-overpopulation/
And once you're done reading that: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/society-future/ch10.htm

[ckaihatsu]

Responding to your points here....





Agrarianism seems to be the founding principle of communism which I think really explains what I mean when I said "Minimalism would be law, inheritance would be outlawed, wealth itself would have to be outlawed."


This is anarchronistic since society has surpassed agriculture as the motive force behind its development. For 2+ centuries now we've used more mechanistic means and artificial power to do our work for us. The means of *industrial* production need to be collectivized.





I bring up world nations only because my question "Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?" was answered with: "no because there can be no such thing as a communist nation. "

This implies that in order for us to determine whether or not Communism can work we must give one world control to a single Communist government authority. (That's all commies want, just world domination, is that too much to ask LOL!!)


You're missing the *basis* for the argument -- at any given point in the revolution to surpass commodity production the political question will be: "Do we push on ahead to politically collectivize more production, or do we rest and capitulate to the capitalist way of doing things by trading with them?"

If you're only going to focus on the political *structure* that this revolution may take for pragmatic reasons, then you're missing out on the *purpose* driving it -- to liberate all of humanity from exploitation, forever.





I reject the idea of a world with no nations because of the economics of it. I think most communists except this idea mainly because of the many other reasons our various nations are separated, and divided, language, politics, values, religion etc.

Now if one continent let's say Africa, became a communist continent, and the lives of those people drastically improved, their economy their quality of life, their political squabbles get handled peacefully and without bloodshed. Then the entire world would then see the inspiration to adopt this way of life no matter what it is, could be satanism, could be communism, nobody would care as long as you could provide reasonable proof that it was a better way of life and that's something words in books can never do.


We *could* just turn this RevLeft discussion board into an imagination fantasyland, where people blurt out nothing but warm sentiments and grand ideas for how everyone could join hands and will world peace into existence, *or* we could approach the subject *seriously* and determine what *prevents* people from sharing common interests in the first place -- it's the class divide, to spell it out.





Communism is the extremist leftist philosophy, after the communist revolt and the 1 world government of nudist lesbian hippies rules the world, then what? Who would be on the left who would be on the right?


It would depend on the geography of the sexual position they're using...(!) (heh)





Can their be a government more leftist then communism? I must believe so, because communism is more of fringe political theory exempt from what modern leftists value, even contradicts what some modern leftists value. Freedom of speech, Freedom religion, aren't values of communism, after all the bourgeois can simply brainwash us with their marketing and advertisements so they must be censored and barred from doing so right?


This is all *legalistic* reasoning that has its roots in the bourgeois revolution against the kings, queens, aristocracy, and clergy. Today, in legalistic terms, the question is no longer about these basic rights -- technology has far superseded such issues and made them moot -- the question is about controlling the most productive implements in human history, industrial production.





As one person said earlier the only reason why I want a 40 foot yacht is because the bourgeois have brainwashed me into wanting it. How will the communist prevent this kind of brainwashing, is the more interesting aspect.


As with anything political the prevailing sentiment would define the politics of the day -- if a (mass) revolution is in progress very few would continue to be concerned with yachts and conspicuous consumption.





I love this paradox that was presented above, how will we get people to risk their lives and their health to fetch rare minerals needed for computers without providing them wealth,?... the answer was create a massive computer that can automate the work for them. LOL!!!


Again, more to the point is where the politics are at -- if there wasn't such a profit-driven need to endlessly produce more electronic machinery (commodities) for small-scale use, perhaps people / workers would find it less of a hassle to just combine and centralize computing power as much as possible, and not produce so many individual units. It would certainly cut back on how much labor was required to make computing power commonly available, for starters.

[Rafiq]

1. What would be the motivation to work without money?

In what context?

Money is not some universal embodiment of absolute value, it merely represents something simliar. Work has existed before for survival, i.e. but in this context, there could be other incentives.

no one knows yet.


2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve?


All of these *Would be* questions are getting quite tiring, no offense. As materialists, we don't propose a new society, or how that partiuclar society we look like. For now, as Marxists, we understand that eventually, the aim of the proletariat is the conquest of state dictatorship, the liquidation of its class enemy, and the abolishment of itself.

What happens after that is largely, or completely unknown. To talk as if we have solutions to everything in capitalism, to talk of material conditions which don't exist yet is ludicrous. It accomplishes nothing.

I assert that every blueprint for a "New" society can only exist within the constraint of Bourgeois society. Why? Because there isn't in existence a material base which is external from Bourgeois society, i.e. The thoughts and Ideas about a "New" Society within Bourgeois society, of which's base is the sole determinant of thoughts and Ideas, are not new societies at all, rather, just different forms of the ones they are already in.

We Communists do not exist to "achieve" a state of affairs. We exist to exert the interests of the class which created this ideology, the proletarian class. The Proletariat uses communism as a weapon to achieve its ends.


4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?

This would necessitate such to be within the capitalist mode of production. In short, the only way a Proletarian state can survive is with such a revolution to spread to these "Capitalist nations". Indeed, their existences are antithetical. A proletarian sparta can exist for only so long..

[La Peur Rouge]

This seems to be a very big part of the revolution, yet so far no one can give me an answer?

Lenin wasn't primarily influenced by Karl Marx as most people claim, in fact he was more influenced by the author Nikolay Chernyshevsky who founded Narodnism and something caught my attention:

"The more well-known Doctrinaire Narodniks had a firm belief that capitalism had no future in Russia, or any agrarian country."

An agrarian society is defined as: (a political philosophy which values rural society as superior to urban society, the independent farmer as superior to the paid worker, and sees farming as a way of life that can shape the ideal social values. It stresses the superiority of a simpler rural life as opposed to the complexity of city life, with its banks and factories.)


Agrarianism seems to be the founding principle of communism which I think really explains what I mean when I said "Minimalism would be law, inheritance would be outlawed, wealth itself would have to be outlawed."

What?



Didn't predict the problems with overpopulation.lol overpopulation.


What would be the modern definition of the bourgeois?The same as it's always been. The capitalist class. Owners of private property, landlords, whatever.


I bring up world nations only because my question "Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?" was answered with: "no because there can be no such thing as a communist nation. "

This implies that in order for us to determine whether or not Communism can work we must give one world control to a single Communist government authority. (That's all commies want, just world domination, is that too much to ask LOL!!)No, guy, that implies that communism can be achieved by "giving control" to some authority.

It doesn't work like that. It's a mass movement of the entire working class not some "authority" above and beyond it.


Communism is the extremist leftist philosophy, after the communist revolt and the 1 world government of nudist lesbian hippies rules the world, Nice touch with the homophobia, really helps get your point across.


then what?Well in your fantasy world hopefully some nude drum circles and plenty of ganja.

[Blake's Baby]

If there's not nude drum circles and plenty of ganja it's not my revolution.

Harte.beest, you're massively missing the point. Just as a planet cannot spin both west-to-east and east-to-west, a society cannot be both communist and capitalist. Something cannot both exist and not-exist. Either there is exclusive claim to property, or there is not exclusive claim to property. There can't be 'a bit not-exclusive claim to property'. The end of capitalism is a necessary condition for the transition to communism. It's nothing to do with 'wanting' anything, it's to do with 'needing' something.

There's an expression, 'you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs'. That doesn't mean that everyone who likes omlettes is motivated by wanting to smash eggshells. It's necessary to break them, as it's necessary to suppress capitalism, but it's not actually the point. The point is the creation of something new, afterwards.

Communists in fact believe in 'world domination' in exactly the same way that everyone who isn't a communist believes that WalMart or the Fox Corporation should control their entire life. Pro-capitalists just want one big corporation running everything and enslaving us right? That is after all the point of capitalism, yes? Ultimately, one person controlling all the wealth and the rest of us as his slaves?

So why do you want Fox and WalMart to control your life harte.beest?

[ckaihatsu]

Also, I left this point unaddressed:





[A]fter all the bourgeois can simply brainwash us with their marketing and advertisements so they must be censored and barred from doing so right?
As one person said earlier the only reason why I want a 40 foot yacht is because the bourgeois have brainwashed me into wanting it. How will the communist prevent this kind of brainwashing, is the more interesting aspect.


The reason why so many -- particularly anti-establishment types -- resent advertising and such is due to the sheer *hegemony* of it all. Much of mainstream mass communication -- TV, radio, billboards, etc. -- are in very few total hands and are practically monopolized.

[mykittyhasaboner]

1. What would be the motivation to work without money?

Production of social wealth. Work is social and not done for exploitative purposes (work is not a commodity). Surplus is distributed according to labor time/need.


2. What would be the Communist version of the Federal Reserve? N/a.


3. What's the difference between labor-vouchers and money? Well first of all, a labor voucher can only be acquired by performing labor. Labor vouchers don't circulate, as labor cannot be a commodity. Money can be acquired by selling anything on the market, like labor, and circulates.


4. Can a Communist nation trade with a Capitalist nation?The Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, Yugoslavia, China, Cuba, etc all trade/traded with "capitalist nations". "Communist nation" is a misleading term, as nations are a bourgeois social construct.


There would be no motivation to work without money, and hopefully nobody would.

Explain volunteers in today's society then. Why do people do work that doesn't pay at all or very little? People want to help others or enjoy their work. Not all social production is drudgery and alienating.


Of course, I'm being a little bit silly, and playing with definitions, but I think the abolition of work-as-such is absolutely central to the communist project.Work-as-such, yes. But that's because work as such is exploitation. Production for the market.


The vast majority of societies throughout human history have existed without work, and have done rather decently.That's pretty false by intuitive logic. Any society requires water, food, shelter, etc to survive. All of which requires labor.


Hell, consider most of the animal kingdom. Do bears work? What about fish? Maybe weird argument could be made that beavers work, but I bet you'd have a hard time convincing the beavers.Wild animals are not humans though. Humans are on a much higher level.


As for labour vouchers, that's some weak shit. Full communism or bust.Labor-time economies are about as full communism can be until we can actually see the bridge you want to cross, the bridge to this "full communism". Please explain how labor vouchers are weak shit compared to the lofty idea that everything can be freely distributed? Or even your "no work" scenario...?


Actually though, I have no idea who, in a free society, is going to be all like, "I'm totally going to go down in to these toxic mines, and get the rare earth metals necessary for computers and cell phones." So, does communism mean the end of the internet? Probably. I'm also pretty alright with that trade off since, y'know, I have friends in real life.

The internet is essential for economic planning, not for social interaction. Capitalism can never be surpassed without utilization of the internet.


Bringing this back around to the question of money, is there the possibility that some system of money or labour vouchers could serve to compel people to enter toxic mines, shorten their lives, and destroy their landbases? Probably, but it's exactly for that reason that money needs to be abolished immediately, within the process of creating communism.So "communism" to you is a society where nobody has to do intense labor? On the contrary i think intense labor is going to be important....except with a larger labor pool and for shorter hours.



Agrarianism seems to be the founding principle of communism which I think really explains what I mean when I said "Minimalism would be law, inheritance would be outlawed, wealth itself would have to be outlawed."

Poor straw man.


I'm starting to think 1850's Marx didn't predict the world we'd live in today.No shit really?!


Didn't predict the problems with overpopulation.Over population has nothing to do with anything.


What would be the modern definition of the bourgeois?Propertied classes who live off their money and market purchasing power, usually used to buy labor power (exploitation), rather than their own work.




I reject the idea of a world with no nations because of the economics of it.Please enlighten us all about the futility of a nation-less world because of the "economics of it".

Were waiting. Holding our breath even.



Communism is the extremist leftist philosophy, after the communist revolt and the 1 world government of nudist lesbian hippies rules the world, then what? Then everyone goes home wasted and passes out.


Who would be on the left who would be on the right? Can their be a government more leftist then communism? I must believe so, because communism is more of fringe political theory exempt from what modern leftists value, even contradicts what some modern leftists value. Freedom of speech, Freedom religion, aren't values of communism, after all the bourgeois can simply brainwash us with their marketing and advertisements so they must be censored and barred from doing so right?
As one person said earlier the only reason why I want a 40 foot yacht is because the bourgeois have brainwashed me into wanting it. How will the communist prevent this kind of brainwashing, is the more interesting aspect.

I love this paradox that was presented above, how will we get people to risk their lives and their health to fetch rare minerals needed for computers without providing them wealth,?... the answer was create a massive computer that can automate the work for them. LOL!!!Your "paradox" is a poorly articulated rant which does not even form an argument, since your basically ignoring everything everyone has said so far. (not that all of the replies to your questions are perfect)

The real paradox here is you post a thread with a bunch of questions and proceed to ignore most of them. Meanwhile you demonstrate your inability to comprehend basic communist political theory, as evident by the assertion that communism is based on agrarianism or "minimalism". Do you want to understand other opinions or just ramble on and on? Please answer this question before anyone potentially wastes time here.

[cyu]

I have no idea who, in a free society, is going to be all like, "I'm totally going to go down in to these toxic mines, and get the rare earth metals necessary for computers and cell phones."

There shouldn't be. Consider the priorities of a mining company. If employees had control of the company, would they prefer to invest company money in improving health and safety standards, or would they prefer to buy one guy in the entire company a private jet, a few kilos of coke, and 5 nights a week with hookers?

What capitalism does is that it shifts not just the priorities of the individual mining company, but of the entire economy itself. More recreational drug use and expensive hookers for wealthy executives and investors is partially supported by skimping on health and safety for those doing the work.

Another aspect of capitalism is the competition between mining companies. Even if a mining company wanted to act "morally" and do right by its employees, the more money it spends helping its employees survive, the less money it has to show on its bottom line. It is this race to the bottom that almost forces mining companies to put their people's lives in danger, if only to survive in the capitalist market system.

[cyu]

As one person said earlier the only reason why I want a 40 foot yacht is because the bourgeois have brainwashed me into wanting it. How will the communist prevent this kind of brainwashing, is the more interesting aspect.

The first step to ending a problem is to recognize it exists. If somebody is still stuck at the stage of denial, then they still have much more work to do.


Freedom of speech, Freedom religion, aren't values of communism, after all the bourgeois can simply brainwash us with their marketing and advertisements so they must be censored and barred from doing so right?

Not really. Anarchists recognize that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, but they also realize that banning all weapons would be impossible. On the contrary, anarchists would help the powerless get access to weapons and help empower them to stand up for themselves.

Similarly, if you recognize that the media has the power to brainwash / indoctrinate the entire population or audience, then you help ensure everyone helps control that weapon - rather than leave control in the hands of either a public or private minority. If anarcho-syndicalists are opposed to the authoritarian chain-of-command in modern corporations, clearly they would be opposed to the same chain-of-command in modern media organizations.

[DiaperGrandpa]

Actually though, I have no idea who, in a free society, is going to be all like, "I'm totally going to go down in to these toxic mines, and get the rare earth metals necessary for computers and cell phones." So, does communism mean the end of the internet? Probably. I'm also pretty alright with that trade off since, y'know, I have friends in real life.

Bringing this back around to the question of money, is there the possibility that some system of money or labour vouchers could serve to compel people to enter toxic mines, shorten their lives, and destroy their landbases? Probably, but it's exactly for that reason that money needs to be abolished immediately, within the process of creating communism.
Well, for what it's worth, the advancement of microprocessors has had a significant impact on the manufacturing and production of silicon and other components of integrated circuit transistors. Moore's Law states that the number of transistors able to be placed on a chip doubles approximately every two years, describing a general pattern of exponential growth in complexity of integrated circuits. Dr. Michio Kaku has a brief video that does a good job summarizing the current slowing down of Moore's Law, as well as potential changes that will be made in response. bigthink . com / dr-kakus-universe / tweaking-moores-law-computers-of-the-post-silicon-era (I can't post links yet so just remove the spaces).

Also, I'd just like to add that while the majority of my relationships in the last few years of my life have been formed online (as the nature of my webcam work now requires), my position in the revolutionary working class is not reduced because of this. Most of the people I socialize with are in a similar position as I am. Let's use technological progress in our favor.

[ckaihatsu]

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/

[ckaihatsu]

(Please note that 'Multi-Tiered System' is *structural*, and not *programmatic*, much less *procedural*....)





A determining political process would have to decide this entire economic supply-chain formation, so as to properly, consciously collectivize decision-making among entities at all tiers, among all zones of production and consumption, globally.


There's an ongoing discussion at this thread about structural specifics:


A few questions on incentive and competition

http://www.revleft.com/vb/few-questions-incentive-t172227/index.html?p=2458188

[harte.beest]

I just learned what Karl Marx's defintion of money was:



Marx held that metallic money, such as gold, is a commodity, and its value is the labour time necessary to produce it (mine it, smelt it, etc.). Gold and silver are conventionally used as money because they embody a large amount of labour in a small, durable, form, which is convenient. Paper money is a representation of gold or silver, almost without value of its own but held in circulation by state decree.


This means Karl Marx's "moneyless world" really meant a world without the "gold standard". So the world is already moneyless, and our current money system based on the Federal Reserve, in fact is already a system based on labour vouchers

So Congratulations we've been living in a moneyless world since 1971!!!

:tt2::tt2::tt2:

[ckaihatsu]

So the world is already moneyless, and our current money system based on the Federal Reserve, in fact is already a system based on labour vouchers

So Congratulations we've been living in a moneyless world since 1971!!!


Whew! That is *such* a relief! I'll just go and tell them that at the grocery store when they ask me for my "money"...!


x D

[The Intransigent Faction]

Dunno if this is the right place to ask, but where can I find some critiques of monetary reform ideas? Lately I've been hearing some people say "Well if the Bank of Canada printed the money, we'd be debt-free and have money to spend on better things, and there'd be no problem!". This is something I know very little about, so I'm clueless how to respond even though something seems...off.

[ckaihatsu]

Dunno if this is the right place to ask, but where can I find some critiques of monetary reform ideas? Lately I've been hearing some people say "Well if the Bank of Canada printed the money, we'd be debt-free and have money to spend on better things, and there'd be no problem!". This is something I know very little about, so I'm clueless how to respond even though something seems...off.


Piddling around about the technicalities of the bourgeoisie's *economics* is the same as reformism over their *laws*.

Also, this thread might help:


Need help rebutting typical anti-communist arguments

http://www.revleft.com/vb/need-help-rebutting-t172065/index.html

[ckaihatsu]

The five-year record profits come on top of bumper earnings in 2011, the most profitable year for banking since 2006. While jobs and wages for working people remain deeply depressed, the financial sector, which caused the economic slump, is doing better than ever.

This applies particularly to the financial giants. Two-thirds of all US financial institutions reported increased profits, but the vast bulk of these profits were concentrated in the largest banks, those with assets over $10 billion. While they make up only 1.4 percent of all banks, these institutions raked in 81 percent of the net earnings.

While profits rose 23 percent compared to a year earlier, net operating income revenue was up only five percent. This means most banks boosted their profits not from lending activities, but through bookkeeping operations, like reducing the amount they set aside to cover loan losses (down $6.6 billion compared to the same quarter in 2011).

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/bank-m26.shtml

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

bordiga?!

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Actually though, I have no idea who, in a free society, is going to be all like, "I'm totally going to go down in to these toxic mines, and get the rare earth metals necessary for computers and cell phones." So, does communism mean the end of the internet? Probably. I'm also pretty alright with that trade off since, y'know, I have friends in real life.

Bringing this back around to the question of money, is there the possibility that some system of money or labour vouchers could serve to compel people to enter toxic mines, shorten their lives, and destroy their landbases? Probably, but it's exactly for that reason that money needs to be abolished immediately, within the process of creating communism.

Never mind, I don't like communism anymore.