Moneyless Economy

[Rakshas]

It is said that a 'Communist' world would be moneyless. There would be no paper money. As far as I know paper money was invented keeping in mind the discrepancy involved in the 'barter system'. Suppose, for example, I wish to buy a car (in capitalist economy) I pay $1000 and get a car. How would such transaction be possible in moneyless economy. How am I going to compensate the worker(s) who have built the car. This question may sound stupid, but views of worthy members would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[JKP]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html

Shorter one:
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Ouroboros]

Have you been in army? That institution works great without any need for money, except on the borderlines with outer world.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:23 PM
Have you been in army? That institution works great without any need for money, except on the borderlines with outer world.
Fascist, authoritarian institutions have nothing to do with communism. That's something for the Leninists.

[which doctor]

In the early days of primitivism there was no money and peopl did not trade either. They simply made their contributions to the group and in turn, they were cared for. In more modern terms we would work and be productive (if we were physically or mentally able to) and we would be cared for by society. We would receive food, shelter, etc.

[Clarksist]

Fascist, authoritarian institutions have nothing to do with communism. That's something for the Leninists.


Line of the fucking day.


In the early days of primitivism there was no money and peopl did not trade either. They simply made their contributions to the group and in turn, they were cared for. In more modern terms we would work and be productive (if we were physically or mentally able to) and we would be cared for by society. We would receive food, shelter, etc.


Or perhaps, we could set up a system of trade amongst worker's groups. I.E. one group makes computers and other communication devices, everyone needs them, so they give them away in exchange for food and other needables.

[anomaly]

In communism, the goal of the collective would be, stretched out, the goal of the individual. The individual's main goal is always to survive, to have control over his life. Now, most bourgeois economists argue that without the incentive of money, people wouldn't go to work. This would in turn logically lead to a domino effect, as people would say 'if he doesn't go to work, why should I?' But this will soon destroy the entire society!

Do you really buy any of that? Do you really think that if money were taken away and communism were implemented, the people would commit suicide, and just let everything, their livlihood, their wellbeing, their culture, everything, just disappear?! That is the most bullshit idea I've ever heard, but say it to the average cappie, and they'll completely buy it.

People would work, and thus carry on economic (productive) affairs for their own benefit. And by doing this, they would benefit their society. Remember, each individual gets a piece of the entire pie, according to their needs, and each individual helped produce this pie. It all seems rather straighforward to me.

[DisIllusion]

Or perhaps, we could set up a system of trade amongst worker's groups. I.E. one group makes computers and other communication devices, everyone needs them, so they give them away in exchange for food and other needables.

Isn't that the definition of a communal society?

[Zingu]

Communism is the total result of the development of the means of production.

I think you can think from there and understand why it would be moneyless.

(Hint; automation & material conditions)

[DisIllusion]

But do you truly believe that a moneyless society is possible? Especially since money has always been a part (if not the only part) of a "civilized" society?

[ComTom]

A moneyless economy would be highly impossible. I am a strong hater of greed and all its forms but money provides stabillity for many things, but it also creates greed in all forms of goverment. A moneyless economy is not possible unless a anarchist revolution overthrows all forms of the capitalist system.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:12 PM
A moneyless economy would be highly impossible. I am a strong hater of greed and all its forms but money provides stabillity for many things, but it also creates greed in all forms of goverment. A moneyless economy is not possible unless a anarchist revolution overthrows all forms of the capitalist system.
The overthrowing of greed and it's embodiment, money doesn't only require an anarchist revolution. All it takes is for people to start realizing that their lives shouldn't be governed by how many little scraps of green paper they have, or how many things they can get with these little scraps of green paper and free themselves from the shackles of capitalism. This is possible through free Communism, where people work for the common good and there is no need for money, since everybody looks out for each other without the need for a reward for doing so. This would also lead into self-orderly anarchy, which is an ultimate goal for both of us, comrade.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:12 AM
A moneyless economy would be highly impossible. I am a strong hater of greed and all its forms but money provides stabillity for many things, but it also creates greed in all forms of goverment. A moneyless economy is not possible unless a anarchist revolution overthrows all forms of the capitalist system.
I take it you're not a Marxist.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by Zingu+Dec 1 2005, 08:11 PM--> (Zingu @ Dec 1 2005, 08:11 PM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 02:12 AM
A moneyless economy would be highly impossible. I am a strong hater of greed and all its forms but money provides stabillity for many things, but it also creates greed in all forms of goverment. A moneyless economy is not possible unless a anarchist revolution overthrows all forms of the capitalist system.
I take it you're not a Marxist. [/b]
Haha, subtle there aren't we, comrade Zingu?

I assume that he's an Anarchist, since he believes in an Anarchist Revolution.

[encephalon]

I think a moneyless society may one day evolve; however, I don't see that in the foreseeable future.

More pertinently, I think a socialist society needs to base the money/credit system on labor value instead of exchange value (as it currently is). That way, if more social labor is required or limited resources make the labor more difficult and time-consuming (if the socialist society is still in a scarcity mode), the credit value will reflect that.

For instance: if it takes eight man-hours to manufacture a complete computer, it should "cost" 8 man-hour credits. If it takes 4 man-hours to create a bottle of beer, then a bottle of beer would create 4 man-hour credits (this is of course, exaggurating; neither a computer or a beer bottle takes that long).

As the means of production are revolutionized and man-hours required to produce commodities are reduced, so too does the "price" of the commodity fall. Commodities become more and more available as the means of production are revolutionized in this fashion, but instead of only to the select few that have the money it would be available equally and to all. It also provides a supply and demand function, which from what I've seen is rather lacking in most leftist economic systems. The more labor-hours a worker must spend on a commodity, the less that worker would be willing to spend on it; that is, it prevents those limited resources (human labor included, since the commodity would require so much work) from drying up before the means of production reduces the hours involved (if/when possible). Another factor is that it would allow a large degree of choice over what they buy/don't-buy to the consumer, something that people discarding the throes of capitalism might still cling to.

And, of course, since no surplus is involved that doesn't go back to the society (the surplus in wealth, embodied by commodities and created by revolutionizing the means of production, would automatically lower the price of the commodity at hand), workers will be able to work fewer and fewer man-hours as time progresses; not to mention that the labor itself would create no surplus value as it does in capitalism (therefore allowing man-hours to reduce more than today).

Credits could be distributed on similar lines: paid by man-hours. Of course, some items would be excluded, such as food, shelter, etc.. those would have to be in a social network of man-hour credits of some sort, I imagine.

This doesn't factor in the difficulty of labor, of course, which might vary.. a worker in a glass factory will work harder in one man-hour than, say, a desk clerk might in the same man-hour. I don't, however, like the idea of providing more credits for the more difficult labor, since it creates an uneven distribution of commodities. I've not yet figured a way around that one yet...

In any case, I think calling for a moneyless system right away is a bit too gunhappy. We will first need to be able to track consumption and production in a manner that uses the one value all commodities share: labor. I think at some point, such a system will cause everything to be so cheap that the concept of money would in fact be meaningless or arbitrary. When it costs 0.0001 man-hours to "buy" a computer--or anything else produced--it's pretty pointless to even consider that a money system in the first place.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:26 AM
It is said that a 'Communist' world would be moneyless. There would be no paper money. As far as I know paper money was invented keeping in mind the discrepancy involved in the 'barter system'. Suppose, for example, I wish to buy a car (in capitalist economy) I pay $1000 and get a car. How would such transaction be possible in moneyless economy. How am I going to compensate the worker(s) who have built the car. This question may sound stupid, but views of worthy members would be appreciated.

Thanks!
The car would be free.

Everything would be free in a communist society.

Why would the worker build the care? what would he gain?

Cars need to be built, he would have whatever he wants, everything would be free, nobody would get paid, nothing can be bought or sold, all needs and wants can and will be met for free.



Free free
it's equality

:)

[FidelCastro]

I think the way a communist society would work best is if people did what they enjoy (I personally enjoy Music and History and I hope to one day teach history.) but have everyone work together at particular days to get the dirty work done. Think of the world as a family. My family doesn't have to clean the house, we could just sit around and bathe in our own filth all day but we don't, we clean up. Do we get compensated for it? No we do not and we are not complaining either. If we all work together to get the crap cleaned out then we can be more confortable when doing what we enjoy. Stuff like teaching and science is generally something that is of personal interest. However, cleaning crap all day is generally not someones interest so therefore, everyone clean it up. At the begining, people will get annoyed, the days will be long, the pain will be great but soon people will realize that if they don't create a mess, there is nothing to clean up.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:15 PM
I think the way a communist society would work best is if people did what they enjoy (I personally enjoy Music and History and I hope to one day teach history.) but have everyone work together at particular days to get the dirty work done. Think of the world as a family. My family doesn't have to clean the house, we could just sit around and bathe in our own filth all day but we don't, we clean up. Do we get compensated for it? No we do not and we are not complaining either. If we all work together to get the crap cleaned out then we can be more confortable when doing what we enjoy. Stuff like teaching and science is generally something that is of personal interest. However, cleaning crap all day is generally not someones interest so therefore, everyone clean it up. At the begining, people will get annoyed, the days will be long, the pain will be great but soon people will realize that if they don't create a mess, there is nothing to clean up.
That is the definition of a communal society, but how do you propose the dissolution of capital as we know it? It's not just going to disappear one day and jump straight into free Communism.

[encephalon]

That is the definition of a communal society, but how do you propose the dissolution of capital as we know it? It's not just going to disappear one day and jump straight into free Communism.


Dissolution of capital is not the same as dissolution of a monetary system. Monetary systems existed long before capitalism directly after the agricultural revolution, and will likely continue to do so until all items are so cheaply made that a monetary system is generally too macroscopic to adequately measure the value of a given commodity.

Capital is the direct result of capitalism. Money is the direct result of relations between various commodities and their real or imagined values.