Money

[Subversive Pessimist]

I've noticed wide opinions regarding the subject. Do you think money should be abolished in a communist/anarchist society? If the society is going to be based on volentary work, then I believe we will have to get rid of money.
What are the problems with a moneyless (is that even a word?) society? What are the problems with a society based on money? What do you think is best?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem with money is that the more you have of it, the more 'pull' you have in any sort of society.

When you have money, it follows that you have wages... and wage-slaves.

The alternative to money is a 'gift economy' where everyone who needs something gets it (Maybe not immediately) and luxuries come afterwards.

[__ca va?]

The problem is that people are -in the present- only motivated by their personal fortunes and don't care about the others. That's why voluntary work is not a good solution: in real life people wouldn't work as hard as they do it now, because they would think that society was going to sustain them any way! :(


The alternative to money is a 'gift economy' where everyone who needs something gets it (Maybe not immediately) and luxuries come afterwards.

And the problem with gift economy is that it can easily be turned into a yery bad kind of capitalism by some of the people who have more access to the goods than other people, so they would exchanges these goods with those who lack them, of course with big profit. In this kind of economy money would be reintroduced in a short time.

First we must equalize wages then introduce communist economy, and when it works with a minimum of errors we can try to eliminate money. But when wages are equal and goods are accessable for everyone, I suppose money would only pay a positive role, because it would make economy easy to survey! :) :) :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is that people are -in the present- only motivated by their personal fortunes and don't care about the others. That's why voluntary work is not a good solution: in real life people wouldn't work as hard as they do it now, because they would think that society was going to sustain them any way!

Well that's what would happen if you tried establishing a gift economy with the proletariat's current level of conciousness.
A revolution doesn't just happen in the streets; it happens in people's heart and minds as well.


And the problem with gift economy is that it can easily be turned into a yery bad kind of capitalism by some of the people who have more access to the goods than other people, so they would exchanges these goods with those who lack them, of course with big profit. In this kind of economy money would be reintroduced in a short time.

How can you 'profit' from giving each other gifts? it's called a gift economy for a reason; you don't give a collective a thousand tons of wheat because they paid you for it; you give it to them because they need a thousand tons of wheat.


First we must equalize wages then introduce communist economy, and when it works with a minimum of errors we can try to eliminate money. But when wages are equal and goods are accessable for everyone, I suppose money would only pay a positive role, because it would make economy easy to survey!

Why not use 'swipe-card' technology to keep track of what people are taking?

[elijahcraig]

Money will not disappear under the socialist stage of society, but under communism it should be abolished, or will whither with the rest of political structures.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You should become a stand-up comedian EC.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by __ca [email protected] 27 2004, 03:41 PM

First we must equalize wages then introduce communist economy, and when it works with a minimum of errors we can try to eliminate money. But when wages are equal and goods are accessable for everyone, I suppose money would only pay a positive role, because it would make economy easy to survey! :) :) :)
The stream of your idea very much reminds economic system of the former USSR (after V.I.Lenin's death). Difference is only in the name of economy - instead of "communistic economy" they named it "socialist economy".
Practice has shown that such economic system is unstable and demands violence of authority for prevention of disintegration and the further transformation in capitalism.

Would you like to explain pls what do you mean as "communist economy"? Maybe I was wrong about your idea.

[elijahcraig]

You should become a stand-up comedian EC.

I stated the standard Marxist position on this issue.

YOU, on the other hand, as usual, stated your anarchist ramblings, and make any sane and realistic person laugh their asses off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:02 PM

I stated the standard Marxist position on this issue.

YOU, on the other hand, as usual, stated your anarchist ramblings, and make any sane and realistic person laugh their asses off.
The standard Marxist position on things 'withering away' has shown to be false throughout the 20th century and as such I reject it. You are being dogmatic in that you are refusing to face material reality.

What precisely is so funny about gift economics? It's a valid principle.

[elijahcraig]

I consider you unrealistic in your anarchist views, simplistic in your views on religion...alltogether, a typical rationalist utopian.

As to being "dogmatic"...I view the objective of classless society as, in short, not very likely. I find the path through socialism realistic, and the most materialist. You on the other hand are into idealist "utopianizing" about things, instead of speaking of things as if you weren't completely removed from reality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I consider you unrealistic in your anarchist views, simplistic in your views on religion...alltogether, a typical rationalist utopian.

Why is 'utopian' such a dirty word for you?


As to being "dogmatic"...I view the objective of classless society as, in short, not very likely. I find the path through socialism realistic, and the most materialist. You on the other hand are into idealist "utopianizing" about things, instead of speaking of things as if you weren't completely removed from reality.

What? so in short, you want to replace one form of class society with another?
History has proved you wrong. Socialism has only been good as a transition between fuedalism and capitalism.
Besides, I don't want to be the next ruling class. I want to get rid of classes completely!.

Socialism will not so that.

[elijahcraig]

Why is 'utopian' such a dirty word for you?

I find it very Christian.


What? so in short, you want to replace one form of class society with another?
History has proved you wrong. Socialism has only been good as a transition between fuedalism and capitalism.
Besides, I don't want to be the next ruling class. I want to get rid of classes completely!.

Yeah, I understand your opinion. I just don't find it realistic.

I would LIKE for it to happen...but I don't see it as likely. I see socialism as a viable and realistic alternative.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I find it very Christian.

Hahaha, nice try. But it didn't work. Christians are not 'Utopian'


Yeah, I understand your opinion. I just don't find it realistic.

I would LIKE for it to happen...but I don't see it as likely. I see socialism as a viable and realistic alternative.

I would resist a socialist 'worker's state' just as much as I would a capitalist one.

[elijahcraig]

Hahaha, nice try. But it didn't work. Christians are not 'Utopian'

Yes they are. They think someday a guy will come and bring heaven to earth.

Sounds utopian to me.

Utopianism doesn't really do anything except to give you an illusion to believe in.


I would resist a socialist 'worker's state' just as much as I would a capitalist one.

Hopefully we could put you down with one shot as we would need all the bullets we could get.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes they are. They think someday a guy will come and bring heaven to earth.

Sounds utopian to me.

Utopianism doesn't really do anything except to give you an illusion to believe in.


Personally I think the Leninist paradigm of the party 'saving the proletariat' from the 'devil' of capitalism sounds more Christian to me.
Christians have never said: Save yourself!

Not to mention faith in the vangaurd that borders on the theological.

[elijahcraig]

Personally I think the Leninist paradigm of the party 'saving the proletariat' from the 'devil' of capitalism sounds more Christian to me.
Christians have never said: Save yourself!

Good one. I call it realism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In all honesty, what the hell can I say to that? you take irrationalism and call it realism.

[elijahcraig]

Just shut up. I'm tired of arguing with anarchists.

[Rex_20XD6]

About the question I think that a communist/anarchist society wouldn't be able to sustain its self without a form of money or credit system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What the fuck? do mountains of grain, coal, cotton and manufactured goods simply disappear when money does? Explain yourself.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:20 PM
I consider you unrealistic in your anarchist views, simplistic in your views on religion...alltogether, a typical rationalist utopian.
Since China, Russia and Vietnam are enjoying the leadership of their "great party leaders" that are about to "wither away the state" since they have finally "smashed the bourgeoisie" (that means, anyone who opposed them) and have started to build a "great future for mankind" through the "workers state"... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Good one. I call it realism.

Everyone who doesn't have enough evidence to defend his position from any kind of doubts calls himself a "realist". That includes capitalists, Stalin-wannabes, various fascists, "welfare liberals", etc.

[Kurai Tsuki]

http://www.cheguevara.silken.art.pl/data/pict/posters/banknot%20bad.jpg

[apathy maybe]

I don't see any point to money in any post state system.

In a socialist system (i.e. workers state (hopefully democratic)), some form of credit maybe wanted (which may as well be money), It only would only be used to keep track of how long a person worked for, and hopefully would have a expiry date.

In a communist/anarchist system, there is no need for money at all.

Under the present system, money is used to represent resources. This is what it has always represented. It is just so much easier to carry around a few notes then a cow (and the person you want something off, may not even want a cow).
The control of resources (and power) is the problem with the present system. They are controlled by too few people.

[elijahcraig]

El Infiltrade, did you get those insults out of some secret playbook, possibly written by RedStar?

Come on guy, at least attempt to be original.

[Scottish_Militant]

under communism, production will be raised to such a high level that we eventually wont need money to 'make sure we are getting our share', it will be used less and less by people until they stop using it altogether - it will have outlived it's usefullness.

I recommend you read Lenin's State and Revolution

[Cheech06]

The problem with money is that there will always be someone with out it. And whats up with the voluntary work? Hell, if it were up to the people, i dont think anything would get goin. i disagree with voluntary work.

[Essential Insignificance]

under communism, production will be raised to such a high level that we eventually wont need money to 'make sure we are getting our share', it will be used less and less by people until they stop using it altogether
It would never happen like that; at least I think and hope not. And if it were, it would cause an enormous cleavage in the new formed social society, sure to lead back to a partially capitalist functioning of society and, perhaps above all else a commodity producing society.

The class society implementation and regulating of money will be submitted as, as it is, a form of oppression just as the capitalist mode of production was in it self, and will be rendered worthless, that is, valueless following revolution.


it will have outlived it's usefullness.

It would have outlived it usefulness instantaneously, post revolution…I think.

[James]

Robert Owen tried to address this - i'll try and recap my knowledge before i discuss it in great detail.

Basically though it failed, because his system was too stable, thus couldn't compete with the capitalist system (which obvioulsy has some prices which are much lower).

[Funky Monk]

Yes but Owenism failed for a lot of other reasons, on a larger scale it may have been more succesful.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:01 AM
El Infiltrade, did you get those insults out of some secret playbook, possibly written by RedStar?

Come on guy, at least attempt to be original.
Three things:
1) Those weren't "insults"
2) I always write like that but lately I've been becoming more "agressive" and that's why i sound like redstar.
3) It seems some mmebers think there's some kind of sectarian secret organization led by redstar2000 to rule the world and create a "new world order" with it as a government (which obviously is a threat to the aspirations Leninists have)

[DaCuBaN]

It seems some mmebers think there's some kind of sectarian secret organization led by redstar2000 to rule the world and create a "new world order" with it as a government (which obviously is a threat to the aspirations Leninists have)

...holy shit... :blink: :lol:

I agree wholeheartedly: It will never cease to amaze me how hypocritical people can be.

[James]

"Yes but Owenism failed for a lot of other reasons, on a larger scale it may have been more succesful. "

Fundamentally though, i'd say it was due to the inability to survive financially. This of course could be itself down to other factors... well worth researching further!

Must make a mental note to do so.

[elijahcraig]

Three things:
1) Those weren't "insults"

Yes they were.


2) I always write like that but lately I've been becoming more "agressive" and that's why i sound like redstar.

You sound like RedStar because you are using his arguments. Very original.


3) It seems some mmebers think there's some kind of sectarian secret organization led by redstar2000 to rule the world and create a "new world order" with it as a government (which obviously is a threat to the aspirations Leninists have)

Anyone who didn't believe that obviously has some sort of mental problem.

[Scottish_Militant]

It would never happen like that; at least I think and hope not. And if it were, it would cause an enormous cleavage in the new formed social society, sure to lead back to a partially capitalist functioning of society and, perhaps above all else a commodity producing society.

That is an absurd suggestion, why on earth would any person living in a communist society who produces to their ability and consumes to their needs want to return to the hell of capitalism? If anyone even suggested this they would be mocked, if they tried to sabotage the collective system they would be punished, fataly no doubt.

You havent really explained your point properly, if you want a discussion you will need to be clearer.

[Scottish_Militant]

It would have outlived it usefulness instantaneously, post revolution…I think.

Are you calling for the abolition of money instantly after a socialist revolution?

[Essential Insignificance]

Are you calling for the abolition of money instantly after a socialist revolution?

Yes, provided that circumstances and conditions allow so.

[Latin American Socialist]

i agree with justice, get rid of money. Communism makes people equal by taking money from rich and giving to the poor, so there is no rich and no poor. So why not jut destroy money. Voluntary work, but some people might not volunteer.

[Essential Insignificance]

Voluntary work, but some people might not volunteer.

Strictly speaking, both manual and mental labour, of course; in a communist society will not be voluntary work, in the narrowest sense.

As for people not wanting to work; that’s simple, they don’t get fed. Much the same in modern day capitalist society.

[Essential Insignificance]

That is an absurd suggestion, why on earth would any person living in a communist society who produces to their ability and consumes to their needs want to return to the hell of capitalism?

Not through choice, perhaps; but if money was still in circulation as you are suggestive of, then you have only taken over the mode of production, and not smashed the fundamental aspect of the bourgeoisie system, namely commodity production.


If anyone even suggested this they would be mocked, if they tried to sabotage the collective system they would be punished, fataly no doubt.

What! This is a dramatic turn around, for someone who wanted to maintain the regulation of money, subsequent to proletarian revolution.

Your not being consistent, however, this is an good thing sometimes.
---------------------------------------
Sorry for the double post everyone :D

[Latin American Socialist]

good point

[Floyd.]

I don't know the official standpoint on this but, I, ME PERSONALLY, I think that everything that you need to live food/shelter/clothing/transport and so on should be free, and money could exist only for luxury purchases like paying for manicures and rubbish like that.

[Essential Insignificance]

money could exist only for luxury purchases like paying for manicures and rubbish like that.

What for...they would be socially "free" also, just as food, warmth and clothing etc, are.

Money would only bring back social dissimilarity; because as soon as there is material money, accumulation can transpire, and then supplementary material wealth is placed upon those who are able to swindle more money then others, and thus acquire more goods and services. This can be done even without owning the means of material life, and obviously as a consequent, class society would be forced back upon us.

[Scottish_Militant]

I disagree with what much of what Essential Insignificance, I prefer to take a Marxist stance. Money cannot be simply 'abolished' this would only play into the hands of counter revolutionaries, the high production in a socialist society will cause money to become worthless tokens, it will gradually filter away as it is used less and less.

Have you ever read 'the state and revolution' by Lenin? I think you should

You must also realise that communism is a completely different society, you cannot use the actions of people living under capitalism and apply it to those living in a free communist society

[DaCuBaN]

money could exist only for luxury purchases like paying for manicures and rubbish like that.

What for...they would be socially "free" also, just as food, warmth and clothing etc, are

In my eyes, things like manicures would also help to prolong the class divide.... Most would agree that we shouldn't allow subjegation of our kin - this is if not the 'real deal' then very close...

[Scottish_Militant]

Like I said already, some comrades seem to be looking at human traits under capitalism and are trying to 'see how it fits' in a communist society, this cant possibly give you an accurate insight into things

[refuse_resist]

Money is a form of oppression by the rich and wealthy, since those who have the most money are the ones who control everything and have the most power. Under a Communist society, money would be abolished, since there is no use for its existence. It only creates greed and conflict among individuals, since living under a capitalist society has obviously proved this.

[DaCuBaN]

Face it folks... if you don't like boiler suits, you enjoy spending money, you like to waste time with frivolities and you don't like to sing revolutionary songs, then you're in on the wrong ideology :lol:

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 01:46 AM
Yes they were.
I don't see how I "insulted" you.


You sound like RedStar because you are using his arguments. Very original.

Blah blah blah. I don't get what you are trying to prove: anyone who doesn't agree with you can post simmilar things. So what?


Anyone who didn't believe that obviously has some sort of mental problem.

What are you exactly talking about? Do you really believe the "new world order is coming to get you"?

[Essential Insignificance]

Money cannot be simply 'abolished' this would only play into the hands of counter revolutionaries

How so; on the contrary I think. If money was rendered valueless, the counter revolutionaries, from what ever field and reasoning they came; the bourgeoisie, pious and even petty bourgeoisie would find it very durable to find mercenaries and armed forces to overthrow the existing social rule.


the high production in a socialist society will cause money to become worthless tokens, it will gradually filter away as it is used less and less.

Too "gradually filter" away, is just, not good enough. How could you even propose such a method?...Where some localities are still in the exercise of exchanging money for other commodities; and others are not. Anarchy; absolute anarchy!


you cannot use the actions of people living under capitalism and apply it to those living in a free communist society

Thats precisely what your suggesting :lol:

[Pawn Power]

I am sick and tired and my money's always spent,
and though their jobs are killing me, thier money pays my rent.
The fuel of world hate, although it's just a seed,
but when it grows and flowers, it becomes the world's greed!

money for the rich, money for the fed,
god supplies the money and god supplies the dead!
And when yer dead and ready, "exploited" be thy name,
'cuase after you have money things are never quite the same!

I don't care for money, and money's not for me,
the money fueled this empire and our racist history.
Although I'm forced to use it, the rules have all been set.
But life is not worth living when yer soul is in debt!

MONEY KILLS.
MONEY RAPES.
MONEY LIES.
MONEY HATES.

lyrics from the song Money by Choking Victim