Money: needed or useless

[God of Imperia]

I was thinking what you think of this, do we need it or not? I wanted to make a post about it, but I can't seem to find how ...
I personally think it is useless, it only enslaves us. We need it, we can't live without it so we don't have the freedom to choose! In a communistic/anarchistic society money should be abolished, where would you need it for? Everything you need you'll get, you just have to ask it or something like that.
Btw, I don't want to go back to trading, this is not what I have in mind, there shouldn't be something like economy, it is not necessary ...
So I am against it. Prove me wrong!

PS:
If anyone can make a poll out of this, please do, and tell me how I can do this, thx anyway

question: money, needed or useless?
possibility 1: needed
poss 2 : useless
poss 3: don't know

[truthaddict11]

money should be abolished along with the wage system

[M.L]

Money should be abolished!
In a perfect world people shouldn't have to buy things from each other. Instead we should share, if I need something to build a house or whatever I should just be able to go to the family next door and get it out of them.
With this i don't mean a trading system, my utopia is a world where people give whatever is needed to the person next door without demanding anything in return.
In the long run this eventually evens out.
Dreams, sweet dreams!

[Retro]

Socialism will weed money from the economy over time...

Communism will have no money, such a glorious idea.

We will only share and not expect things in return.

Money causes greed, the need to have more than your neighbor....You will go to any extent to get it...We could never go back to a trading system either....since still, some things would be worth more than others, and people would extort that...

I really wish there was no need for money in this world..

[M.L]

Are there anything positive with money?
It's the number one accessory that produces greed!

[monkeydust]

Under capitalism currency certainly has a use, and is somewhat fundemental to the economic system itself.

Socialists usually also utilize currency, some may argue that it should be kept during the Leninist 'transition' to communism.

In an actual Communist world however, money will have no real use, and will be abolished as a form of currency.

[BuyOurEverything]

I've never figured out why everyone has an obsession with abolishing currency. There's a difference between money and capital. Everyone should get payed the same wages, which with they can use to purchace goods. If there was no currency, one person could just take everything.

[fernando]

Humans are greedy creatures by nature, we want more and more...

We could go back to the time when we had no money which mean we would trade directly, but then still people would try to make profit out of this.

Humans work harder for a reward, a better life, more money, you name it.

Everybody equal chances and opportunities yes, but everybody exactly the same? No a hard worker should get more than some lazy guy who just sits on his chair *****ing at everybody.

[El Che]

Capital is an unnecessary fiction. It expresses nothing of consequence, nothing that is real. It should have no place outside of the social production relations of capitalism.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:36 AM
Humans work harder for a reward, a better life, more money, you name it.
what do you mean? do we have to let them work for money? for rewards? no!
defenitly not, if you start doing this where will it end? People in a communist society don't work for money, they work for themselves and for the community. Working for wages, everyone gets the same amout of money? I mean, you won't stimulate them to do their best, what's the point if they still get the same amount. If you want to start giving rewards you would just get capitalism again, people trying to earn as much as possible so they can afford as much as possible ... You wouldn't take a step forward, just one aside.
btw, I know human's nature, they desire to have a lot, but I mean, things as food shouldn't be bought or sold, because if you need anything you can just gp get it, no need of just keep harvesting things, that would be useless. And for the rest, things might have to be regulated, but that's another discussion for some other topic ...

[M.L]

As soon as there is money to buy things with we have created a market. And on a market you have to be better then your neighbour to survive.
See my point?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Money, as the universal equivilent, expresses a specific quantity of human labour, it allows one person to own the labour of another. Money must be abolished to end exploitation.

[antieverything]

I've made the case for money many times. I don't think the arguments against it are worth my time in this specific thread.

[God of Imperia]

You would do us a favor and might get this topic actually started

[BuyOurEverything]

To clarify, I don't believe that people in general are naturally greedy or will only work for money, I'm saying that abolishing currency would make society susceptible to the few people that are greedy and only work for money. Perhaps eventually currency will be able to be abolished, but it should not be a priority, and should not happen immediately. Like I said, there's a difference between money and capital.


Money, as the universal equivilent, expresses a specific quantity of human labour, it allows one person to own the labour of another. Money must be abolished to end exploitation.

Quantifying labour is a far cry from exploitation.


As soon as there is money to buy things with we have created a market. And on a market you have to be better then your neighbour to survive.
See my point?


No, in a centralized economy where everyone is payed the same (coupled with a communist society), you cannot, and do not want to, earn more than everyone else.


Capital is an unnecessary fiction.

Capital is not the same as currency.


It expresses nothing of consequence, nothing that is real. It should have no place outside of the social production relations of capitalism.

I don't know if I should respond to this in relation to currency, or ignore it as it refers to capital. For the meantime, I'll take the latter course of action.


defenitly not, if you start doing this where will it end?

Hmm... About exactly where it starts, with equal wages for all.


People in a communist society don't work for money, they work for themselves and for the community

Most people, yes, but I guarentee this will never be the case for 100% of people.


Working for wages, everyone gets the same amout of money? I mean, you won't stimulate them to do their best, what's the point if they still get the same amount.

Didn't you just finish saying people don't work for money?


If you want to start giving rewards you would just get capitalism again, people trying to earn as much as possible so they can afford as much as possible

How would this happen if everyone was guarenteed equal wages?


as food shouldn't be bought or sold, because if you need anything you can just gp get it,

Well not everything needs to cost money, but if things like cars were free, could one person not simply 'buy' 300 of them?

[God of Imperia]

I was giving arguements on both sides ... I want to know what flaws there are in my theory, not that it is mine. I know abolishing the currency is not something that will happen one day to another, it will be a slow process, but if everyone gets the same wage you mean that the state controls all the money, no? Then you have to make sure that the right people are on the right places, othersiwe you'll end up with having people in control who don't want to give up their power and then you'll get just another oppresion...

[El Che]

there's a difference between money and capital

Care to elaborate on this?

[dark fairy]

it would be good if it was useless but saddly it's NOT so oh well ... everything happends for a reason... we can't live without money whether we admit it or not

[Essential Insignificance]

it would be good if it was useless but saddly it's NOT so oh well

It well be sooner or latter.


everything happends for a reason

What does that idiom have to do with ''money''.


we can't live without money whether we admit it or not

Well that depends upon on what variety of society you subsist in.

[Revolt!]

seems all so grandly utopian and not realistic. Its pains me to say but i don't see money ever being abolished, it isn't a nice idea but practical.

[quaz]

If in capitalism money is used to motivate people by allowing them to meet their physical needs. Then if the communist state provides for their physical needs, then the motivation would be moral: to provide for the communtiy. This can be exploited by people who don't recognize their duty towards others, they would just slack off at the communities expense.

So money is needed to motivate people who are nuwilling to work for the benefit of others, that is those who are greedy and selfish. If these people didn't exist then there would be no use for money.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:37 AM
If in capitalism money is used to motivate people by allowing them to meet their physical needs. Then if the communist state provides for their physical needs, then the motivation would be moral: to provide for the communtiy. This can be exploited by people who don't recognize their duty towards others, they would just slack off at the communities expense.

So money is needed to motivate people who are nuwilling to work for the benefit of others, that is those who are greedy and selfish. If these people didn't exist then there would be no use for money.
This is misdirected. The profit system is the motivator, money is just a medium of exchange.

[BuyOurEverything]

This is misdirected. The profit system is the motivator, money is just a medium of exchange.

Precisely. Capital (and this is a very crude definition) is value that you use to 'create' more value. For example, say you have 100 dollars. Instead of buying food with that hundred dollars, you would buy 30 punds of corn, which you then sell for 110 dollars. That's capital. Money simply represents value.

[IPkurd]

I wanna ask this question to you lot, what if i wanted a sports car, gold rings necklaces ect just because i wanted to 'show off'

[DaCuBaN]

Only if everyone could have these things should it be feasible. I'm sure others may disagree but it's unfair for one person to acrue things others cannot.

I think you may have been trying to intimate that things deemed 'excessive' will be unavailable - and you would probably be right.

[God of Imperia]

I don't think luxury things should be availble. Why should they? What would be their use? They have non, so they wouldn't exist.

[Essential Insignificance]

It must be asked…what is your definition of a "luxury" product. A computer to many, would be considered thus.

[Osman Ghazi]

Exactly. But also, you have to take into consideration that once the exploiting class has been expropriated, the standard of living will skyrocket. The thing is, what if you want a TV? Or a computer? Should you just have to go without? People have different wants and instead of giving them all the same things, you could simply give them 'credits' or something (which really isn't that different from money anyway) and you could just order any luxury items you want. Maybe you'd even have to save up a month or two to get these things. What is so harmful about that?

[Essential Insignificance]

Your delineation of the potential communist society and the production of particular articles and the regulation of them, are relatively much the same in the array, to those of my own…and appropriately the future society…maybe.

It absolutely opaque to stop the production of items that many people take great "pleasure" and "enjoyment" in. But of course we will not be able to have a greater number of items then others…for instance I have no meticulous interest in Sony Playstations, but I do subsequently in computers…therefore if given the variety of a particular piece I would opt for the computer over the games console.

But what must be remembered is that, the more time producing products the less time to enjoy them…it is going to have to be a wise balance…I sure we will get the right one.

[DaCuBaN]

It must be asked…what is your definition of a "luxury" product. A computer to many, would be considered thus.

This is a difficult one, because computers are becoming more and more of a necessity, or at least are being regarded as such.

Bearing in mind that as well read people I can only assume that your not of the school of thought that would have us burn down all the libraries. With this given, you could site computers within such establishments to allow access to them.

Certainly with computers as they are now it seems preposterous that we could all get one.

[God of Imperia]

I never said that people will all get the same, if you want something you have to ask it ...
And for luxury products, some computers are and some aren't. I mean, no-one will get the best computer on the market, but if they want they will get a decent one ... Just the same as with cars or TV's or everything.

[Essential Insignificance]

I never said that people will all get the same, if you want something you have to ask it ...
And for luxury products, some computers are and some aren't. I mean, no-one will get the best computer on the market, but if they want they will get a decent one ... Just the same as with cars or TV's or everything.


I, in actuality don’t understand what your saying…is this in a communist society or a capitalist.

[God of Imperia]

A communist one

[Essential Insignificance]

A communist one


The market will be producing, generally, the equivalence of products in "content" and in "quality"…therefore computers will be that of the same commonly…except for a few small deviations…I presume. One will not have a "superior" computer, television, car, etc…then ones next-door neighbour.

No one will receive an enhanced manufactured good then that of someone else…usually.

[Salvador Allende]

Actually, in an interesting and almost unknown fact, besides stamping out illiteracy, foreign investment and disease in Kampuchea and reseting the calendar, Pol Pot also abolished the money system. This actually was pretty effective since Kampuchea had plenty of diversity of crops and resources to trade and use.

[Guest1]

I'm gonna ignore your post, Allende, no one will take you seriously praising Pol Pot.

As for money, we can go towards a gift economy, that is likely the best way.

[pandora]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 11 2004, 01:46 AM
Actually, in an interesting and almost unknown fact, besides stamping out illiteracy, foreign investment and disease in Kampuchea and reseting the calendar, Pol Pot also abolished the money system. This actually was pretty effective since Kampuchea had plenty of diversity of crops and resources to trade and use.
Ah there's someone we should model ourselves after, Pol Pot, Allende I haven't had a chance to give you heck in a while.

You point to barter and trade of agricultural resources, but this always becomes difficult in urban areas and lets be honest population isn't going down.

I really liked when some countries tried to actually go to the gold and silver standard, although people got beheaded over it, but there is the basis of hyperinflation being ruled out if the money is actually based on something.
There is something about the weight of a coin as an option if trade is not available.
With the internet and cards money is becoming antiquated. The problem is these new systems are too trackable. Where as coin, jewels, and trade may not be.

Without inducing people to slow down, I don't know how other options would function, but it is nice to conduct trade with out cash now and again ie. work for food and housing.

[Salvador Allende]

Well, this is true that the agricultural trade would be hard to do in urban areas and I never said it could be done everywhere, but in 1977 Kampuchea had virtually no urban population. The idea of agricultural trade instead of coinage can only be done if the majority of the people live outside of urban life as in Kampuchea.

As for me praising Pol Pot, Pol Pot didn't do as much bad as people think he did. The US when counting how many died in the 70's kept the numbers of deaths caused by US bombings and Vietnamese invasions (South and unified), but attributed them to Pol Pot's regime. Although many people say Pol Pot slaughtered up to 10 million people, it is now estimated that the numbers are only about 50,000 executions. Pol Pot did many things to help Kampuchea, much more good than bad and the majority of the people continued to support him throughout the years. Even today most of the peasants don't talk about Pol Pot because most of them admire him.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:02 PM
Ah there's someone we should model ourselves after, Pol Pot, Allende I haven't had a chance to give you heck in a while.

You point to barter and trade of agricultural resources, but this always becomes difficult in urban areas and lets be honest population isn't going down.

I really liked when some countries tried to actually go to the gold and silver standard, although people got beheaded over it, but there is the basis of hyperinflation being ruled out if the money is actually based on something.
There is something about the weight of a coin as an option if trade is not available.
With the internet and cards money is becoming antiquated. The problem is these new systems are too trackable. Where as coin, jewels, and trade may not be.

Without inducing people to slow down, I don't know how other options would function, but it is nice to conduct trade with out cash now and again ie. work for food and housing.
We don't need any of that, stop thinking trade. What we need is a gift economy. So long as you work for free, you get everything you need for free. If you abuse the system and horde products, you're cut off and no one gives you anything anymore.

It's simple and efficient, very much the most realistic way of getting rid of money.

It's like going to a bar with friends, one of them doesn't have much money that night, you don't say "you owe me this much". You just buy them a few drinks, cause you know they'll do the same when you need it. If they don't, everyone stops buying them drinks, cause they know they're stingey moochers.

[Invader Zim]

I used to believe that we should abolish money, and that it was just a complete waste of time. However after a little thought I dont see the point of abolishing it, when you consdier how it could be used. For example, it would be easier to allocate an exact number of credits ($, £, euro's or whatever), than it would be to allocate every one, with an equil amount iof every thing. Easier to regulate what people have (after all you dont want people taking more than someone else), it also allows people to have a better choise in how to convert their labour into goods.

Though I can see a system also working without currancy. But I recon it would be far harder to regulate, and stop abuse of the system.

[Essential Insignificance]

I used to believe that we should abolish money, and that it was just a complete waste of time.

You sure are "right" about that.


However after a little thought I dont see the point of abolishing it, when you consdier how it could be used.

How it is used, is the paramount reasoning why it should…and will be "abolished".



For example, it would be easier to allocate an exact number of credits ($, £, euro's or whatever), than it would be to allocate every one, with an equil amount iof every thing.

Credits are a deceitful submission…it is far too close to that of money and the function it plays in capitalist societies. Credits can be accrued on a mass scale, just as money can.

This is a suggestion that Proudhon proposed, "that everyone should get paid the equivalent", and that it is up to individual on how they opt to squander it.

If this line of proposal were to be taken and "entrenched" in to a communist society, I would concede that the ramifications would be catastrophic…it would generate one immense quasi-capitalist economy- due to the circulation of money-…products would soon become commodities. And the division of labour would stern its "hideous head" once again.

Given that individuals were and wanted too work "over-time"; they would be able to appropriate surplus-wages, and the accumulation of wealth would begin here…leading itself into a class society. With a divsion of wealth in society.



Easier to regulate what people have (after all you dont want people taking more than someone else), it also allows people to have a better choise in how to convert their labour into goods.

Though I can see a system also working without currancy. But I recon it would be far harder to regulate, and stop abuse of the system

I disagree…regulating a currency would be extremely difficult, much more so then regulation an equal distribution of "goods and services" leading to the inevitable accumulation of wealth, hence class society.

[DaCuBaN]

I think I should start by saying I agree before I dig ;)


Given that individuals were and wanted too work "over-time"; they would be able to appropriate surplus-wages, and the accumulation of wealth would begin here…leading itself into a class society. With a divsion of wealth in society.


So, the big question has to be what is wrong with rewarding someone for effort?
I wouldn't be nearly so bitter if those who were rich became so through hard grafting. In all honesty this is somewhat like taking capitalism and levelling the playing field, but I really just wanted to know what you thought...

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, this is true that the agricultural trade would be hard to do in urban areas and I never said it could be done everywhere, but in 1977 Kampuchea had virtually no urban population.

Even though this isn't really the topic of the forum, I felt that I had to enlighten you to the fact that Phnom Penh had a population of 3 million before the 'revolution' and a population of 40,000 afterwards. Many of the urbanites were killed but most were simply forced to go and work in the fields. Pol Pot had this peculiar idea that agricultural labour had a 'purifying' effect.

And although I previously said that money shouldn't be abolished, I have to say that I have definately changed my mind on this one. Though money in and of itself is not the problem, but rather the lust for money, it should be eliminated so as not to tempt anyone.

[Essential Insignificance]

So, the big question has to be what is wrong with rewarding someone for effort?
I wouldn't be nearly so bitter if those who were rich became so through hard grafting. In all honesty this is somewhat like taking capitalism and levelling the playing field, but I really just wanted to know what you thought...

It’s not in actual verity, all that "big "of a question, with what, is "off beam" when rewarding someone with his or her individual "tedious" labours…it being manual or intellectual.

But…its always going to be depending on what one recognizes as remuneration and what form, if any, this will come in.

The infinite majority under the "false-consciousness" of the material production of society, that being, of course, the capitalist mode of production…are "driven" by incentives and rewards, which is done so, with the objective of accumulating and acquiring a "pay increase" or an "promotional uplift", or both, in their specified "occupation"…this being a dynamic driving force of the capitalist mode of production.

But of course in a communist society, conditions, workers productivity and most importantly, workers awareness of the social conditions and implications of the assertions on their "labour-power", will be effusively understood and recognized by themselves for themselves above all else…by thus, I mean to imply, that rewarding will be looked upon in a different reckoning of social reflection.

In communist society people, generally, I believe will be "driven" not by profit and wealth (there not being any, individualistic, that is) but, instead for recognition, admiration, esteem, respect, reverence, high opinion and gratitude of their labours for the benefit of the society as a whole, by the populace of the society.



And although I previously said that money shouldn't be abolished, I have to say that I have definately changed my mind on this one. Though money in and of itself is not the problem, but rather the lust for money, it should be eliminated so as not to tempt anyone.

I am glad you have changed your opinion on the area under discussion.

[DaCuBaN]

In communist society people, generally, I believe will be "driven" not by profit and wealth (there not being any, individualistic, that is) but, instead for recognition, admiration, esteem, respect, reverence, high opinion and gratitude of their labours for the benefit of the society as a whole, by the populace of the society.


That's pretty much what I wanted to hear :D To put it crudely, for honour.
Interestingly there is a thread in the CC sort of relevant: Kid not getting a chance for having 'biased' views, and some members refusing to accept that change is possible. Surely then this undermines the whole idea of a communist revolution, as it requires awareness on behalf of the entire (or at least the majority) of the proletariat?

[apathy maybe]

*fast reply* (with out reading beyond first few mosts)

I read a book where a 'communist' world had been created (it wasn't really communist, come to that later). A man had a great job etc, but he wanted a hobby. So he starts to build model railways (I think it was railways). He then gives these too his friends. Only trouble is that this is picked up by the ruling elite (told you it wasn't communist) through the use of computers to moniter the things people get from central storage. He gets into trouble for building stuff, and for then giving it away. He gave stuff away, others built stuff and came him stuff, it totaly screwed up the distribution system that had been implemented by the computers and the ruling elite.

The moral of the story is that you don't remove the ability for people to trade stuff. Money makes it easier to trade stuff. This does not make money either good or nessesary however.

(I can't remember the author, the title or anything else todo with the story. I wish I could, but I read too many books to memorise every one.)

[Essential Insignificance]

That's pretty much what I wanted to hear To put it crudely, for honour.

I am going to assume that there was a typo variance, with "honour", and that you meant "humour" instead.

One query…why.

[DaCuBaN]

As I stated, I agreed with you... I merely wished to see that aspect explored into further detail, and as noone else was forthcoming I intercepted :)


recognition, admiration, esteem, respect, reverence, high opinion and gratitude

crudely put, honour :) the intangible idea of the 'moral' human perhaps is closer to what I intended. I think maybe you thought I meant honour to do with the debate.... :lol: :D

[Essential Insignificance]

Oh I understand…I have got it all wrong. Sorry. :lol:

[Guest1]

Essential Insignificance, it is good to see you around here again.

I do enjoy reading your posts :)

I'm also very happy to see that there are many people here who aren't willing to settle for Capitalism with plastic surgery, people who believe the only solution is a full-on shotgun blast to the face of wage-slavery :lol:

[Essential Insignificance]

Essential Insignificance, it is good to see you around here again.

Yeah thanks…I have not being contributing as much as I would like to, to the various discussions on "Che-lives", due to; I am only able to so on my girlfriends computer, as mine is out of order beyond repair.


I do enjoy reading your posts

Thank you, much appreciated.


I'm also very happy to see that there are many people here who aren't willing to settle for Capitalism with plastic surgery, people who believe the only solution is a full-on shotgun blast to the face of wage-slavery

It’s the only way. :D