question for anarchists

[Red Flag]

For those who support the "peoples bank" ideal, with labor notes.. my question is this, arent you just replacing money with these labor notes, and wont that lead to people stock piling these notes and eventually drift right back into a hiarchy ? If I'm misunderstanding a certain aspect please clarify for me, thanks.

[The Feral Underclass]

question is this, arent you just replacing money with these labor notes

I am not sure about this one. I suppose when you work you are provided with a labor note and when you have that note you go to the supermarket with it and take what you need. The problem is that not everyone will work all the time. Maybe someone only works one week in four months. They labour not would then need to be valid for four months. You go to the shop when ever you need food and take what you need.


and wont that lead to people stock piling these notes and eventually drift right back into a hiarchy

People could stock pile them if they wanted but why would they want too. The note is there to allow you to recieve food. They are not worth anything if you hord them.

I am also unsure how this will lead to a hierarchy? Maybe you mean if someone hords them they can sell them or be able to attain a position of importance. This is just not possible. Everyone would work if they could or unless their collective had made a special exception. No one would be able to sell them or trade them because everyone would have them. It would also be very difficult to live in a collective of die hard supporters of the new society and attempt to exploit people to attain positions of importance. People just wouldn't let it happen.

Another issue you might be refering to is are these labor notes creating authority. As in if you dont have a labor not to prove you worked you wouldn't be able to get food. It's a risk you have to take. Maybe there will be individuals who attempt to do that, but I do not think it will last for long. Understand that there has to have been a level of understanding and passion for achieving an anarchist society in order for an anarchist society to materialise. People are not going to fight for it to then betray it.

[Morpheus]

Red Flag, that is a common criticism raised by anarcho-communists against mutualist anarchists. You'll probably find more supporters of mutualism on flag.blackened.net than here, though The Anarchist Tension is aparently sympathetic.

[apathy maybe]

A great idea is that of expirying money. It means that money stops being worth something after a certain period. So if you work and get you money (labour notes, whatever), and you don't need to use it for 6 months, well you just lost the chance to.

[The Feral Underclass]

that is a common criticism raised by anarcho-communists against mutualist anarchists.

Can you explain this in more detail please.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19 2004, 03:50 AM
A great idea is that of expirying money. It means that money stops being worth something after a certain period. So if you work and get you money (labour notes, whatever), and you don't need to use it for 6 months, well you just lost the chance to.
That's a good idea - but a not too good idea...i mean it has to be good all the time, right?

[Invader Zim]

A possible solution to that problem is some kind of shopping smart card, which as a daily/weakly/monthly/anually (take your pick) number of credits, which is given to every one equily, and your goods remove a small number of these credits, according to their percieved value, value not in the idea of money, but difficulty to create.

Of course I would imagine the idea of everyone owning a card like this would cause problems with people hacking the system and giving them selves unlimited credits etc, but you get counterfit notes already, and I am sure that effective preventative methods coulde be found. You would also have the problem of people not wanting to own a card which could be used almost as an identity card, where the government knows what you have bought, etc. So the system would need to be created so that this was impossible.

Its the only effective syatem I can think of, but i'm sure you guys have your own idea's etc.

TAT

I would have thought that the concept of a supermarket would be centralised food distribution in a community... does that not breach anarchist ideals? Surley the people should collect from the producers rather than from a middle man?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:11 PM
A possible solution to that problem is some kind of shopping smart card, which as a daily/weakly/monthly/anually (take your pick) number of credits, which is given to every one equily, and your goods remove a small number of these credits, according to their percieved value, value not in the idea of money, but difficulty to create.

Of course I would imagine the idea of everyone owning a card like this would cause problems with people hacking the system and giving them selves unlimited credits etc, but you get counterfit notes already, and I am sure that effective preventative methods coulde be found. You would also have the problem of people not wanting to own a card which could be used almost as an identity card, where the government knows what you have bought, etc. So the system would need to be created so that this was impossible.

Its the only effective syatem I can think of, but i'm sure you guys have your own idea's etc.

TAT

I would have thought that the concept of a supermarket would be centralised food distribution in a community... does that not breach anarchist ideals? Surley the people should collect from the producers rather than from a middle man?
Here's what i think - Labor notes should be good all the time. These labor
notes should be distributed for the hard work you have done. If you did'nt
do any work - you get less labor notes. Labor notes should only be avialiable for food and essential products. Materialistic stuff - like TVs and Video games - that were produced with the hands of labor - Should also be
purchased with labor notes.....

Here's my idea of labor notes: 1 labor note - all the food you would buy in
a store and essential products

3 labor notes - TV's, Video Games, etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

I would have thought that the concept of a supermarket would be centralised food distribution in a community... does that not breach anarchist ideals? Surley the people should collect from the producers rather than from a middle man?

The supermarket has no power. The volunteers who work in it have no power. There is no legislative decisions made by the supermarket or the people who work there.

In my opinion every collective has groups of volunteers who do certain amounts of socially necessary work and who take on certain responsabilities. One task would be food distribution. They would have to organize the delivery of food, the quantity and the collection etc. This supermarket would act as a point for the collective to be supplied with food.

The supermarkets etc would not be an independent thing run by the collective for the collective. It would not be a string of shops owned by a central authority.

There is a difference in organizing food distribution and having a centralized goverment who make decisions for everyone. Centralized control is inherently wrong no matter what it is. Having an independent, collectivly owned and organized supermarket to allow an easy access of food is not.

[Red Flag]

who issues these labor notes is the "peoples bank" though right? here's where i see a major problem. you're taking the power of capital from the capitalists and giving it to collectives of the "people'', wouldnt this just create a new capitalist though?

So what other alternatives are there for progressing to a moneyless system?? are there more I'm unfamiliar with?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 19 2004, 06:34 PM
who issues these labor notes is the "peoples bank" though right? here's where i see a major problem. you're taking the power of capital from the capitalists and giving it to collectives of the "people'', wouldnt this just create a new capitalist though?

So what other alternatives are there for progressing to a moneyless system?? are there more I'm unfamiliar with?
I'm not sure about that.....

[The Feral Underclass]

who issues these labor notes is the "peoples bank" though right? here's where i see a major problem. you're taking the power of capital from the capitalists and giving it to collectives of the "people'', wouldnt this just create a new capitalist though

No banks are needed. If people are to be issued with labor notes then it would be done by the production collective they worked for or by the socially necessary team they worked for.


So what other alternatives are there for progressing to a moneyless system?? are there more I'm unfamiliar with?

Why do you need money? Money is used in this society as a means to purchase items which are sold by individuals to make profit. In an anarchist society people would be provided for with what they wanted and what the needed would be supplied to them also for free. It may take a while, but they would be provided.

[Red Flag]

thats not a real answer.. your sayin everything will just be free for the taking? even if this could ever happen, which i dont believe it has since primitive times, it would lead back to people stock piling reserve resources, thus recreating the hiarchy..

if the collectives produce the labor notes, whats to stop them from producing more labor notes then there are resources? since in a decentralized system there would be no regulation? would one collectives labor notes be recognized universally? if so, whats to stop one collective from producing an abundance of labor notes to buy out the majority of another collectives resources, once again destroying equality...

If im missing somthing here please let me know, im just trying to figure out the logisitics of this theory..

[Don't Change Your Name]

I prefer using such a thing as money for pay when you worked more hours than the time established in your workplace.

[The Feral Underclass]

your sayin everything will just be free for the taking?

No that's not what i'm saying. People would have a responsability to work for society and in return would be provided for with want they needed and later what they wanted.


it would lead back to people stock piling reserve resources, thus recreating the hiarchy

It is a lack of faith in humanity that brings you to this conclusion. You believe that human nature will always play a part in any society which will invaraible lead back to selfishness such as the one you have described. I do not believe this. I believe it to be fact that humans have the ability to udnerstand what ever they want and act in what ever way they choose to.

People wouldn't stock pile food or attempt to create divisions like this because they would want this society to work. How do you think they got to this point in history if they did not want it. Furthermore they wouldnt have too. They would be provided for sufficiently.


if the collectives produce the labor notes, whats to stop them from producing more labor notes then there are resources?

Why would they do that.


since in a decentralized system there would be no regulation

The labor note and production are seperate things. Production creates the necessary amounts of food which the collective then asks to be distributed to them. The labor note is simply a piece of paper which says to that they are entitled to their share of the food. It may not even be necessary to have this piece of paper.


would one collectives labor notes be recognized universally?

It's up to the collectives to decide together.


whats to stop one collective from producing an abundance of labor notes to buy out the majority of another collectives resources, once again destroying equality...

Why would they do that?...why would it be necessary?


If im missing somthing here please let me know, im just trying to figure out the logisitics of this theory

Many people attempt to understand it, but it is something that can not be told for certain until it happens. We can not forsee how we structure society and I certainly cannot presume to know how the entirity of the world will react. I can give you my interpretation but that is it.

[Red Flag]

I believe I have faith in humanity, or atleast a MAJORITY of it. There are always a few people who look at every event as an opportunity to gain the upper hand on the rest of the people.. Although I feel this would go away for the most part, I think its impossible for it to go away completely in ALL people. It would only take one person to take advantage of such a market.

"but it is something that can not be told for certain until it happens."

This is the reason most people don't take anarchy seriously, IMO. Without some sort of feasable plan of how EXACTLY things can be improved, it seems rediculous to ask people to give up there entire life style to advance towards a great unknown. Although it's obvious that a revolutions outcome cannot be planned out to a tee, some sort of plans need to be in order, or else it would most likely end up like the spanish revolution did in the long run.

[Invader Zim]

Red Flag

I see no problem with stockpiling what you are given, as long as other people get the same opportunities. For example if you want to "spend" your credits/labour notes on food and not eat it and save it for a rainy day, then I see no problem with this. Others have been given the same amount, but choose to use it all, then that’s their choice, just as long as the person stock piling the food does not try and sell it, I see no problem, and how you conclude it would lead to hierarchy eludes me.

[The Feral Underclass]

There are always a few people who look at every event as an opportunity to gain the upper hand on the rest of the people.. Although I feel this would go away for the most part, I think its impossible for it to go away completely in ALL people. It would only take one person to take advantage of such a market.

They would try but I do not think they would succeed. The vast majority would be fighting this very thing. If an individual or a group of people attempted to take advantage they would come up against some stiff opposition and would find it very difficult to achieve anything.


This is the reason most people don't take anarchy seriously, IMO. Without some sort of feasable plan of how EXACTLY things can be improved, it seems rediculous to ask people to give up there entire life style to advance towards a great unknown.

I do not think this is like a catalouge of political ideologies which you sit down and flick through in order to choose which is the most planned out. Class action against capitalism will happen sooner or later it is inevitable. Anarchism is a form of organization which combined with communism is a sound political and economic theory. A movments responsability is to inject this theory into the working class. As they get more and more conscious or as capitalism fails to justify itself more and more, anarchism will appeal to people because it seeks to destroy oppressive authority. It is co-operative way to organize which working class people would prefer.


it's obvious that a revolutions outcome cannot be planned out to a tee, some sort of plans need to be in order

What is it you feel should be planned out. You ask specific questions which are not up to me to answer. I can not tell you what and how the world will choose to organize itself. I am one individual. There are another thousands if not millions of other people to consider which breaks down into hundreds of collectives. I can not make a decisions, decades before any class action is made, for the collectives througout the world. I can give you my opinion, just as any anarchist could. When the revolution is won then we will all work together to solve these problems. But we have a long long long way to go before that happens.


or else it would most likely end up like the spanish revolution did in the long run.

The Spanish civil war was not lost because anarchism failed, it was lost because the authotarian communists had other plans about how to fight. The anarchists were not involved in those plans and were subsequently murdered and the collectives throughout Catalonia and souther Spain were broken up. Anarchism was a huge success, even in big cities like Barcelona which was completely collectivized. I urge you to read 'Homage to Catalonia' by George Orwell.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2004, 11:51 PM
This is the reason most people don't take anarchy seriously, IMO. Without some sort of feasable plan of how EXACTLY things can be improved, it seems rediculous to ask people to give up there entire life style to advance towards a great unknown. Although it's obvious that a revolutions outcome cannot be planned out to a tee, some sort of plans need to be in order, or else it would most likely end up like the spanish revolution did in the long run.

Having an ultra-detailed plan will end up ruining the point of Anarchism. So the closest thing we can do is establishing the most useful patterns that should be followed when a society accepts this order.

[Red Flag]

I agree, I know know one can say for sure what would happen post revolution, but there must be some more solid plans then "we'll cross that bridge when we get there" for the theory to hold any validity.. who would risk their life to fight a revolution with an undetermined outcome? While I admit I'm hardly an anarchist scholar by any means, it just seems to me other leftist theories have much more intricate and definite plans.

"For example if you want to "spend" your credits/labour notes on food and not eat it and save it for a rainy day, then I see no problem with this. Others have been given the same amount, but choose to use it all, then that’s their choice, just as long as the person stock piling the food does not try and sell it, I see no problem, and how you conclude it would lead to hierarchy eludes me. "

anytime you have HAVES and HAVE NOTS it will lead to problems

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree, I know know one can say for sure what would happen post revolution, but there must be some more solid plans then "we'll cross that bridge when we get there" for the theory to hold any validity.. who would risk their life to fight a revolution with an undetermined outcome? While I admit I'm hardly an anarchist scholar by any means, it just seems to me other leftist theories have much more intricate and definite plans.

People will fight a revolution to overthrow capitalism and create a communist society. It is how they organize that revolution which is important. I believe the only way to achieve lasting liberation is if you use anarchism to organzie the revolution and what comes after.

You say that other leftists have theories which are more planned etc but I do not agree. The only reason Leninists etc seem more detailed and planned is because they hold a concept as a form of organization which you can comprehend. No Leninists can predict what will happen or what problems they will face. All they can tell you is that they will use the state to solve the problems. But the state can not achieve workers liberation. No matter how much the champion the ideal and give it sympothetic names like "workers state" the actual material being is something completely different.

Anarchist organization is something that you can not comprehend because you have never experienced it. That does not mean it can not work or that it is invalid.


anytime you have HAVES and HAVE NOTS it will lead to problems

There will be no have nots.

[Iepilei]

Here's a suggestion.

A dual-credit system of food credits and material credits. The food credits could be allocated in a certain amount monthly for individuals and additionals are earned through labour. At the same time, you earn material credits which could be used to purchase luxuries and various material possessions. Make it all electronic.

If need be, material credits could be converted to food credits - but not vice versa.

Something you have to remember is currency is not necessarily capital, as capital is the means in which to invest and the means which to produce. You want people to stop hording capital - currency is merely a designator for work completed and recognized.

Expiring currency is just asking for trouble.

[Comrade Yars]

In response to Iepilei.

... ideally your suggestion sounds excellent... though, however appealing this idea may sound, whether you want to or not you must think in terms of affordability. Just how would the State go about providing millions, even billions of people with credits? Where would these credits come from, and how will the State compensate for those producing the food and material goods acquired through the credit system?

[Red Flag]

That was going to be my exact question, except I wouldnt have said the state since It wouldnt exsist, but society..