Money

[Redhead]

One of the main targets in the last step of a communist society is abolition of the wage-system. But will this mean all forms of money will cease to exist? I can see how this works for normal items such as food, housing, transport etc. But what about rare items and collectibles? What about the more expensive houses? What if you for example were planning a party and needed more than just your daily food consumption?

[Brutus]

Surely not everyone wants the Patrick Swayzie express (please someone get this reference), so collectibles would hardly be a barrier to the abolition of money. As for the food, you could take what you need from the communal food warehouse or whatever. We're talking about total abundance here, so starvation won't be an issue.

[Slavic]

Surely not everyone wants the Patrick Swayzie express (please someone get this reference), so collectibles would hardly be a barrier to the abolition of money. As for the food, you could take what you need from the communal food warehouse or whatever. We're talking about total abundance here, so starvation won't be an issue.


The Patrick Swayzie express is a vital infrastructure for trade between the US and Canada, and will surely be nationalized.

[tuwix]

One of the main targets in the last step of a communist society is abolition of the wage-system. But will this mean all forms of money will cease to exist? I can see how this works for normal items such as food, housing, transport etc. But what about rare items and collectibles? What about the more expensive houses? What if you for example were planning a party and needed more than just your daily food consumption?

Abolition of wage system is something different than abolition of money. Wage assumes being employer and employee. If there is unity in both, there is no wage. There is salary, but it isn't wage then. And this unity of both is basic condition of Marx's socialism (the first phase).

Abolition of money is case for the Marx's higher phase of communism. And it happens because money becomes obsolete due to abundance of goods and services.

[Five Year Plan]

I think a better question is why a world-historical relic would be somebody's personal property in a communist society in the first place, rather than whether somebody would pay money for it or not.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

One of the main targets in the last step of a communist society is abolition of the wage-system. But will this mean all forms of money will cease to exist? I can see how this works for normal items such as food, housing, transport etc. But what about rare items and collectibles? What about the more expensive houses? What if you for example were planning a party and needed more than just your daily food consumption?

Socialism entails free access to the social product by every member of society - if you need a hundred paper cups because you're throwing a party, you walk into a distribution centre and take one hundred cups. As for rare items, these would probably either be open to public viewing and/or use, or would be given to people on a first-come-first serve basis.


Abolition of wage system is something different than abolition of money. Wage assumes being employer and employee. If there is unity in both, there is no wage. There is salary, but it isn't wage then. And this unity of both is basic condition of Marx's socialism (the first phase).

No, "Marx's socialism (the first phase)" is not worker-managed capitalism but a society where wage labour and money have been abolished, and which might have non-circulating labour vouchers as a rationing mechanism. Might. Labour vouchers were an idea Marx proposed, they aren't sacred.

[Connolly1916]

As for rare items, these would probably either be open to public viewing and/or use, or would be given to people on a first-come-first serve basis.

Hardly fair to distribute them, for private ownership, on a first-come-first serve basis. Your first suggestion is a much better idea.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hardly fair to distribute them, for private ownership, on a first-come-first serve basis. Your first suggestion is a much better idea.

That depends - if we're talking about paintings by El Greco then yes, it would be much better to organise public access to them outside anyone's home. If we're talking about first edition Batman action figures or whatever, I'm not sure it would be worth the cost of organising such access. And it wouldn't be private property but use.

(You might wonder why we're even talking about first edition Batman action figures, but something similar has been used as an example in a previous thread - the capitalists on this site are really desperate when trying to prove money would be needed in a socialist society. Bitcoin money, usually. Sometimes I wonder if these people are real, but then I remember what rubbish people usually believe.)

[Connolly1916]

That depends - if we're talking about paintings by El Greco then yes, it would be much better to organise public access to them outside anyone's home. If we're talking about first edition Batman action figures or whatever, I'm not sure it would be worth the cost of organising such access. And it wouldn't be private property but use.

(You might wonder why we're even talking about first edition Batman action figures, but something similar has been used as an example in a previous thread - the capitalists on this site are really desperate when trying to prove money would be needed in a socialist society. Bitcoin money, usually. Sometimes I wonder if these people are real, but then I remember what rubbish people usually believe.)

Well, I'm sure a museum (or something along those lines) dedicated to first edition Batman action figures and similar items would attract plenty of people, which is surely a better alternative to an individual owning it? Batman isn't my thing, so I'll use a different example; I'm a Glasgow Celtic fan, and there are many items of Celtic memorabilia that interest me. I'd rather they be kept on public display than be in the hands of an individual, even if that individual was me.

Perhaps I have you taken you up wrong here. Can you explain the difference between an individual having a rare item for use, and owning it as private property?

[Red Star Rising]

Would "more expensive houses" even exist in Communism? Wouldn't this create a concept of private ownership of property? Property would be distributed based on what everyone needs.

[Slavic]

Would "more expensive houses" even exist in Communism? Wouldn't this create a concept of private ownership of property? Property would be distributed based on what everyone needs.


Large "expensive houses" exist now, so they are not going to go away post revolution. I am unsure what will happen with them; I do not like the idea of someone's personal home being taken from them or forced to have others dwell in their home. Ultimatly I guess it will just be up to the community to decide what happens to large houses.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That depends - if we're talking about paintings by El Greco then yes, it would be much better to organise public access to them outside anyone's home. If we're talking about first edition Batman action figures or whatever, I'm not sure it would be worth the cost of organising such access. And it wouldn't be private property but use.

(You might wonder why we're even talking about first edition Batman action figures, but something similar has been used as an example in a previous thread - the capitalists on this site are really desperate when trying to prove money would be needed in a socialist society. Bitcoin money, usually. Sometimes I wonder if these people are real, but then I remember what rubbish people usually believe.)

What do you mean use? I collect dolls and action figures which if they were ever used or touched I'd be pissed because it would further add to depreciation of said item. Are you saying my doll collection post-revolution should be raided by packs of girls cuz they'd actually 'use' them?

[Wht.Rex]

what about rare items and collectibles? What about the more expensive houses?

Rare items like what exactly? What for? Communism is also resource based ideology, there should be reason to explain to other people why would you need rare items or collectables.

Those who would work more, product more good for society also would recieve more. In Soviet Union, if you had loot of money did not mean anything, it depended on your status among workers. If you worked a lot, was very honest and helped others, you could recieve extra. Example is my grandmother, she was very hardworking, kind and perfect architype of Homo Sovieticus. That is why she had private house in suburbs, dacha (summer house) and 3 room apartment in city.

[Krasnyymir]

I guess "rare" items would be rare stamps, works of art and exclusive handcrafted items: A handmade violin or guitar for example, or a Ferrari sportscar.

(Cars btw. were one of the ways to reward good workers or party members in the Soviet Union and eastern bloc.)

A more interesting question I think, would be what would happen to the element of multiculturalism in a truly communist society: In today's world most emigration happens because of political, but especially economical reasons. People mostly immigrate because they want a materially better and safer life, rather than from some sense of adventure, or for other reasons. (That's also why you often see immigrants living in the same neighbourhoods, etc.)

What would happen to immigration and the multicultural societies in for example Europe and the US, in a communist world? With all the necessities of life being "free", and no economic benefit in emigrating, wouldn't the mass migrations as we see them today come to a halt? And societies in the different parts of the world would become homogenous cultures/societies in a generation or two?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Rare items like what exactly? What for? Communism is also resource based ideology, there should be reason to explain to other people why would you need rare items or collectables.

See my actual real doll example. I shouldn't need a permit for a doll collection.


Those who would work more, product more good for society also would recieve more. In Soviet Union, if you had loot of money did not mean anything, it depended on your status among workers. If you worked a lot, was very honest and helped others, you could recieve extra. Example is my grandmother, she was very hardworking, kind and perfect architype of Homo Sovieticus. That is why she had private house in suburbs, dacha (summer house) and 3 room apartment in city.

That system of privilege is bullshit and ridiculous. It was all political while simultaneously being antiziganist. My grandparents worked their ass off and were super nice and barely managed a living shelter.

[Five Year Plan]

See my actual real doll example. I shouldn't need a permit for a doll collection.

If your doll collection is of world-historical significance, and deemed socially important enough, then, yes, I do think it should be taken away from your private possession. Somehow, though, I don't think this would likely be the case.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, I'm sure a museum (or something along those lines) dedicated to first edition Batman action figures and similar items would attract plenty of people, which is surely a better alternative to an individual owning it? Batman isn't my thing, so I'll use a different example; I'm a Glasgow Celtic fan, and there are many items of Celtic memorabilia that interest me. I'd rather they be kept on public display than be in the hands of an individual, even if that individual was me.

Perhaps I have you taken you up wrong here. Can you explain the difference between an individual having a rare item for use, and owning it as private property?

Alright, but Batman and Celtic are both fairly popular. Let me use a different example, the old WarPlanets toy line, which was really cool, but never really caught on. If we set up museums dedicated to every toy line, we would run out of museums fairly quickly. In cases of toy lines with limited runs, no real popularity and so on it would probably be more efficient to "give" them to someone for keeping. Presumably this person would share the toys with other people who are interested in them - i.e. if I had the entire collection of WarPlanets toys I would let people come and see them, play with them and so on.

The difference between use and personal property is that in the first case possession of the item would not be enforced by society. And if I lost my marbles and refused to let people see "my" toys unless they blow me or something, I would probably lose them.


What do you mean use? I collect dolls and action figures which if they were ever used or touched I'd be pissed because it would further add to depreciation of said item. Are you saying my doll collection post-revolution should be raided by packs of girls cuz they'd actually 'use' them?

Well, no, you're using them yourself, but at the same time, there would be no depreciation or appreciation as there would be no money, no exchange-values and so on.


Rare items like what exactly? What for? Communism is also resource based ideology, there should be reason to explain to other people why would you need rare items or collectables.

That's a fairly odd statement. Communism is the abolition of commodity production and private ownership, not a "resource-based ideology", and to be honest I'm not sure what "resource-based ideology" means in this context. It has that hint of Howard Scott that I always find worrying.


Those who would work more, product more good for society also would recieve more. In Soviet Union, if you had loot of money did not mean anything, it depended on your status among workers. If you worked a lot, was very honest and helped others, you could recieve extra. Example is my grandmother, she was very hardworking, kind and perfect architype of Homo Sovieticus. That is why she had private house in suburbs, dacha (summer house) and 3 room apartment in city.

Of course, no one has ever claimed that the Soviet Union was a communist society in the higher phase, the society we are currently discussing. Receiving more for producing more is a bourgeois norm - Marx calls it so in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. The communist norm is free access.



A more interesting question I think, would be what would happen to the element of multiculturalism in a truly communist society: In today's world most emigration happens because of political, but especially economical reasons. People mostly immigrate because they want a materially better and safer life, rather than from some sense of adventure, or for other reasons. (That's also why you often see immigrants living in the same neighbourhoods, etc.)

What would happen to immigration and the multicultural societies in for example Europe and the US, in a communist world? With all the necessities of life being "free", and no economic benefit in emigrating, wouldn't the mass migrations as we see them today come to a halt? And societies in the different parts of the world would become homogenous cultures/societies in a generation or two?

People don't often immigrate in the capitalist society because of ridiculous constraints that would not exist in the communist society. What would most likely happen is that the movement of population would be several orders of magnitude higher than it is now, with the economically unnecessary separate cultures disappearing.

[RedMaterialist]

One of the main targets in the last step of a communist society is abolition of the wage-system. But will this mean all forms of money will cease to exist? I can see how this works for normal items such as food, housing, transport etc. But what about rare items and collectibles? What about the more expensive houses? What if you for example were planning a party and needed more than just your daily food consumption?

You would buy whatever you wanted as long as you used the money/value which your own labor produced. Nobody can buy a Picasso with the value which their own labor produced. Besides, rare items probably have developed a kind of social value and should be used or enjoyed by the entire community by being placed in museums and moved around society. They do it now with lending museums. Picasso's Guernica should be on tour now with the Gaza War. I swear, it looks exactly like the images from Gaza.

In a fully developed communist society I suppose your party would be organized the way that primitive societies had parties: You would have your guests bring food and drink. A kind of potlach, which the native Americans used and which is still used today, it's called pot luck. Or you could just save up some of your labor-value.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, no, you're using them yourself, but at the same time, there would be no depreciation or appreciation as there would be no money, no exchange-values and so on.

There would be depreciation, just not depreciation of value as in an asset but depreciation in terms of the condition and state of preservation it's in.


If your doll collection is of world-historical significance, and deemed socially important enough, then, yes, I do think it should be taken away from your private possession. Somehow, though, I don't think this would likely be the case.

Yeah well I mean my collection isn't too shabby but alrighty then.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We're talking about total abundance here, so starvation won't be an issue.

This is a dream. The material culture that has developed under capitalism is inefficient sure, and it is equally true that the profit motive is inequitable, and these are things that can be changed in a post-capitalist society based on need rather than profit.

But to talk of total abundance is an absolute pipe dream; there are still limits on how much of any kind of good can be produced, on how efficient and equitable it can be (due to logistical issues, for example), and there is also mother nature to consider - undoubtedly natural disasters will continue to cause draughts and temporary shortages of industrial production.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is a dream. The material culture that has developed under capitalism is inefficient sure, and it is equally true that the profit motive is inequitable, and these are things that can be changed in a post-capitalist society based on need rather than profit.

But to talk of total abundance is an absolute pipe dream; there are still limits on how much of any kind of good can be produced, on how efficient and equitable it can be (due to logistical issues, for example), and there is also mother nature to consider - undoubtedly natural disasters will continue to cause draughts and temporary shortages of industrial production.

Already under capitalism, enough food is produced that a significant portion needs to be destroyed to keep prices artificially high. Even most cases of starvation are due to allocation of food rather than its total volume. And of course, the socialist economy will be a planned one, which makes planning for possible crises trivial. If anything, there will probably be slight overproduction.

[Skyhilist]

If communism has been achieved then money doesn't exist. If money or wages exist in any form then you're not looking at communism.

[ckaihatsu]

if I [...] refused to let people see "my" toys unless they blow me or something, I would probably lose them.


No more toys or blowjobs -- ?! That would basically end my social existence right there -- !


x D





You would buy whatever you wanted as long as you used the money/value which your own labor produced.


This is easy to *say*, but in practice it would mean that some kind of exchange rate would have to be set for every kind of liberated-labor -- how would a society determine what each kind of work role is 'worth', in relation to all other work roles -- ?





My standing critique [...] is that a 'points system' doesn't go far enough because the question of how points are issued in the first place is intractable:




How would points be assigned to individuals in the first place -- ?

If it's on a strictly across-the-board consistent basis -- say 100 points per person per month -- that would be very egalitarian, but it would be an overall (societal) *disincentive* towards new efforts at greater social coordination and experimental / speculative advancements in research and development.

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

Part of the reason for using RevLeft so much is precisely for this question of a feasible political-logistical approach to a post-capitalist political economy, and why I've developed my own 'solution' for such, at my blog entry, blah blah blah....





Nobody can buy a Picasso with the value which their own labor produced. Besides, rare items probably have developed a kind of social value and should be used or enjoyed by the entire community by being placed in museums and moved around society.


Yup.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Already under capitalism, enough food is produced that a significant portion needs to be destroyed to keep prices artificially high. Even most cases of starvation are due to allocation of food rather than its total volume. And of course, the socialist economy will be a planned one, which makes planning for possible crises trivial. If anything, there will probably be slight overproduction.

I don't really think events like the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Boxing Day Tsunami, local conflict and harsh, extended summers are as easy to plan for as you think.

Food is one thing. What about the materials to build houses, to build industrial centres, to build transport and infrastructure. What about the materials to build consumer goods that will enable the standard of living to be maintained or increased?

Seriously, if it was as easy as you say, somebody would have created a substantiated theory of it by now.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't really think events like the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Boxing Day Tsunami, local conflict and harsh, extended summers are as easy to plan for as you think.

Food is one thing. What about the materials to build houses, to build industrial centres, to build transport and infrastructure. What about the materials to build consumer goods that will enable the standard of living to be maintained or increased?

Seriously, if it was as easy as you say, somebody would have created a substantiated theory of it by now.

Obviously there are no "local conflicts" in communism, and the other things you mention are risks that can be taken into account. Even today, the large capitalist enterprises don't simply assume that every production unit will operate at 100% capacity throughout the period taken into account by the (company) plan, that would be suicidally stupid.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Obviously there are no "local conflicts" in communism, and the other things you mention are risks that can be taken into account. Even today, the large capitalist enterprises don't simply assume that every production unit will operate at 100% capacity throughout the period taken into account by the (company) plan, that would be suicidally stupid.

How can you really say "there are no "local conflicts" in communism"? If that is a prediction (and it can only be that), it is an unsubstantiated belief.

Also, you cannot just 'take into account' natural disasters etc. and expect to still run anywhere near 100% efficiency in production and equity in distribution. I mean, I don't think it's that great a problem - capitalism, as you say, doesn't plan for running at 100% capacity all the time and the same will be true for any social system, but it's disingenuous and, as I say, I think you must be living in a dream world, to promise some sort of post-scarcity utopia. That's simply not a viable option; what is viable is the release of the bourgeoisie from the levers of social, economic, and political control, and with that the lives of the majority of people will improve greatly.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How can you really say "there are no "local conflicts" in communism"? If that is a prediction (and it can only be that), it is an unsubstantiated belief.

Also, you cannot just 'take into account' natural disasters etc. and expect to still run anywhere near 100% efficiency in production and equity in distribution. I mean, I don't think it's that great a problem - capitalism, as you say, doesn't plan for running at 100% capacity all the time and the same will be true for any social system, but it's disingenuous and, as I say, I think you must be living in a dream world, to promise some sort of post-scarcity utopia. That's simply not a viable option; what is viable is the release of the bourgeoisie from the levers of social, economic, and political control, and with that the lives of the majority of people will improve greatly.

It's not so much a prediction as it is a direct consequence of what communism is - if local conflicts exist, the communist society does not.

And who said anything about operating at 100% capacity? In fact I specifically noted that no one in their right mind would expect all economic units to operate at full capacity throughout the period taken into account. But this is not really that big a deal - it means that, instead of 10 factories working to meet the demands laid out in the general plan, it will be necessary for 20 or 25 (operation costs increasing with the number of operational factories, probably) factories to work to produce the same amount of goods.

I have no idea what equity in distribution is, but it seems to be some sort of rationing scheme that has no place in communism, a society of free access.

As I have pointed out, even in capitalism human society is capable of producing much more than it is able to consume. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and I suspect some political shenanigans are behind this crusade against the abolition of scarcity as a "pipe dream".