Communism possible without currency?

[Lead Headache]

I'm new to communism and politics in general, so don't blow up on me if this has already been discussed or something.



I've been thinking, and I thought, "In a communist society, is currency necessary?"

People can be given a certain number of tickets or something every month and can get as much food or things as they can get with their tickets.

I got to thinking about this because I was thinking about how certain jobs would be payed more or less in a communist society, and with tickets and such, nobody would have more money than the other, so everyone would be equal.


What do you think? Is currency necessary in communist society?

[Cult of Reason]

In a communist society, is currency necessary?

No, it would be, if anything, a hindrance. Communism is abundant (that is, there is the capacity to produce more than anyone could reasonably consume) by definition, and that renders currency obsolete.

I am lazy at the moment, so just consider this: Have you ever tried selling sand in the Sahara?

I other words, currency, a token of debt, is a medium for the exchange of goods and services and so necessarily depends on there being a scarcity of both. Abundance reduces prices to zero, so making currency worthless.

If currency was forced upon a Communist society we would have all the problems of Capitalism back (in fact, we would have, in that one step, regressed totally), such as the accumulation, through exchange, of other people's currency, which, theoretically, would allow someone to buy up all of a certain good and then sell it for more than its original price. As well, in order for something to have a price at all, it must be made scarce, which would entail destroying produce and so, if it was food, leaving some hungry.

What would be necessary, however, is an accounting system for energy to help manage production and distribution over a large area (anyone who thinks Communism could sustain itself within one country is incorrect, and those who advocate village level "Communism" are insane). Technocracy offers a system imaginatively called Energy Accounting to serve this function.

[crimsonzephyr]

I dont fully understand either. I know currency isnt necessary and would be abolished but then what would happen? Would it be a gift economy? or would there be tickets^? or could it be any other system that doesnt use currency?

[jake williams]

Something like currency would at very least be necessary for what would be a pretty long transitional phase - we're talking about the whole transformation of a society. Whether it would be after that is, I think, both difficult/impossible and not all that important to answer.

[Crest]

I dont fully understand either. I know currency isnt necessary and would be abolished but then what would happen? Would it be a gift economy? or would there be tickets^? or could it be any other system that doesnt use currency?
It would not be a gift economy.
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."
Tickets would in themselves be a form of currency. No, how about abolishing the market and just giving people what they need directly?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[ckaihatsu]

It would not be a gift economy.
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."
Tickets would in themselves be a form of currency. No, how about abolishing the market and just giving people what they need directly?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


If I may put it this way: Imagine what people would do the moment the boot is lifted off of their necks....

Whatever it may take a small town to pave roads, that same workforce could easily solve the local food problem. Whatever public contracts may have constructed city halls or government buildings, that same workforce could easily solve the local housing problem -- and employ people at the same time.

Once the basics are provided for, the question would become what large-scale projects would be worthy of mobilizing larger workforces, for longer periods of time. Perhaps new, high-speed rail lines might be constructed to connect towns and cities better, or WiMax networks set up to provide blanket Internet access once and for all.

Much of the remaining, smaller-scale stuff could be grassroots -- the gift economy -- and person-to-person, like subsidized flea markets -- people would have time on their hands, after all....

In the long-term, there would have to be some process, possibly currency-based, or not -- to account for accumulated value, whether that be energy reserves, or labor-hours, or both -- as a system for enabling democratically planned, large-scale projects. This would be without the massive amounts of stored-up labor power wasted that we see in the present day as capital is entombed in offshore accounts, or wasted in gargantuan military expenditures -- both non-productive.


Chris




--
___

YFI S Dis cussion B oard
ht tp:// discussion. newy outh .com

Fa vor ite we b si tes: chica go.indym edia. org, wsw s. org, ma rxist. com, rwor .org, lab ourstart .or g, fightba ckne ws .org, lab oraction. org, ifam ericansknew .org, subst ancenews . com, soci alismandliberation .o rg, wh atreally hap pened .co m, ple nglis h. com, moneyfile s.o rg/temp .h tml, inform ationcl earingho use .i nfo, blac kcom menta to r. com, na rconew s. com, tru tho ut. org, ra ven1 .n et

Ph otoi llustr atio ns, P oliti cal Di ag rams by Ch ris K ai hatsu
h ttp :/ /co mmunit y.w ebsho ts. co m/u ser /ck aihatsu/

M ySp ace:
ww w. mys pace .co m/ck aihatsu

Co uchSu rfing:
htt p:/ /tinyu rl.c om/ yo h74u

[Dimentio]

I dont fully understand either. I know currency isnt necessary and would be abolished but then what would happen? Would it be a gift economy? or would there be tickets^? or could it be any other system that doesnt use currency?

Energy accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=137) is a better option

[Raúl Duke]

What do you think? Is currency necessary in communist society?No, actually it won't be communism if there was currency (or capital of anysort, or "private property" {out of any of the means of production, etc}, or "capitalist economic relations" etc.)

It would be an economy based on "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." It might resemble some form of gift economy.

Technocrats have of course supported the energy accounting model (maybe it's communistic or maybe a form of it can be modified to be communistic, etc.)

How it would look and function has been discussed by, I suppose many or some, people.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would invest time in researching energy accounting. As a substitution for the price system, abundant goods would be tracked and accounted for so that demand can be studied (both by computers and humans). It also serves to blow through any argument about natural tendencies to not work since people not employed under the (proto)-technate could be refused access to energy certificates. I made a thread a few days ago pertaining to aa proto-technate competing against private firms to put capitalism out using its own game. People would get to choose between top-down, authoritative rule with a scarcity model, or. The only problem I see is having stubborn capitalist apologists solicit technate workers for goods.

For now we could use a limited price system where money/time vouchers are only meant to be used for specific purposes: housing and vehichles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I am sorta warming up to the concept, as well.

[ckaihatsu]

Revolutionaries of all stripes would be in agreement that the point of a revolution would be to take care of human needs first, on a permanent basis. This would require the overthrow of the capitalist class in order to deny its claims to private property (wealth and land).

The revolution, as a transitional period, would not be complete until every single last person on the earth had a standard of living of their choosing, up to First World standards. This would include water, food, clothing / toiletries, housing, gas / heat, sewage / waste disposal, electricity, telecommunications / Internet, health care, leisure / entertainment, education, maintenance of public areas, and transportation. (Please let me know if I missed anything.)

This period would use a command economy, similar to how capitalists conduct their wartime efforts, so that everyone would be employed to some degree in bringing about this welfare state on a global scale. Currency could be used, but it would not be based on private property, nor would it be subject to buying and selling, or speculation. It would simply be used to value efforts above and beyond the socially required labor -- kind of like a sanctioned black market beyond the command economy.

The fundamental question of economics -- in any mode of production -- is about scarcity versus abundance. Anywhere that we see something in abundance is also where there is no market possible for it, because there's nothing to haggle over. My favorite example is air, which is plentiful, usually non-polluted, and requires no inventions in order to consume. The commodification of air would be more trouble than it's worth.

In contemporary, First World societies the domain of cultural goods would be another example of abundance. Many people have access to libraries, where they can read books for free. Above the initial cost of the books and other materials themselves, there is no additional cost for additional consumption -- many people can read the same book without incurring further costs.

And, now, with the digitization of many cultural goods, the same production can be consumed by millions and billions without incurring additional costs -- the duplication of the digital data is negligible in cost.

A post-revolution government would have to prohibit the destruction of energy, materials, and assets -- all the fruits of labor -- since the destruction of abundance is the basis of private property.

Once the transition is complete it wouldn't matter if people wanted to work or not -- the available technology and social infrastructure would be globally self-sustaining, enabling people to live comfortably from cradle to grave without working, or needing to work.

What would remain is the question of the future of civilization -- given that no one is under any duress, what would society do with the vast amounts of energy and resources at its disposal? One could actually make a good case for using a market-based economy at this point -- no sooner -- as long as there was no private property or speculation on the currency itself. The point is that there would be some accounting of whatever would be considered scarce at that point -- energy resources for basic living would be considered insignificant, but dedicating labor-hours to sourcing new, exotic, massive forms of energy for large-scale, long-term projects would require some collective decision-making and possible accounting.

The technique used is not important -- as long as the large-scale projects were planned in a bottom-up way, with full public transparency, by the labor-participants themselves, then the rest would simply be political, in a classical Greek Senate sort of way.



First, according to the traditional technocratic design, every individual is granted an equal share of access to the production capacity of the technate. This division of access is made according to a very simple equation. The entire production capacity of the technate during a given period (which must be determinable in length), is divided according to the number of users the technate has. Thus, no individual and no groups of individuals would "own" the means of production in themselves, but the fruits of the production capacity would be under usership of the individuals who are users of the technate. These usership rights could neither be sold, bought or compromised except for in cases of emigration.

The usership rights do not correspond to "real resources" but rather to the production of consumer items and services. Hence, cars, computers and other machinery is accounted for as parts of the technate. The cost of using them is corresponding to the electricity usage.

The usership right is a part of the social contract which is the technate. It is physically manifested through an energy certificate. The available capacity is divided into energy units, which could also be called energy credits, although it might be misleading. Why? Because the units, since they most correspond to the available consumption capacity in the technate during a given time period (minus, of course, the usage during a given period), would not be possible to save over that period. Instead, the certificate will be recharged with a new share corresponding to the new total production capacity of the technate.

h tt p:/ /en. tec hnoc racyne t.e u/inde x.ph p?optio n= com_ con tent& ta sk=vi ew&i d= 84& Itemid= 137


The problem I have with this technate model is that it skirts the political aspect -- it's very similar to a shareholder system, but doesn't speak to issues of administration or meta-planning. In the current, capitalist mode of production this system would fall victim to the same problems of shareholder ownership that we see currently -- insider trading, inner-circle / outer-circle dynamics, and speculation / hoarding (if there's no political infrastructure to enforce the ground rules).

In a world of energy scarcity the political question of government comes to the forefront -- in a world of energy abundance politics would be virtually unnecessary, except for large-scale, scientific / artistic explorations.


Chris

[RedFlagComrade]

Energy Accounting is the answer.

[ckaihatsu]

Energy Accounting is the answer.


Care to elaborate?

[Dros]

No currency is not necessary because Communist economics is not based on the commodity form of exchanging labor. The creation of surplus combined with communal ownership over production and the abolition of class means that exchange is no longer focused on generating a return in profit for a capitalist class. This men that modeling the abstract value of various commodities with currency is no longer necessary. Goods and services will be "free" and it won't matter.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I'm new to communism and politics in general, so don't blow up on me if this has already been discussed or something.



I've been thinking, and I thought, "In a communist society, is currency necessary?"

People can be given a certain number of tickets or something every month and can get as much food or things as they can get with their tickets.

I got to thinking about this because I was thinking about how certain jobs would be payed more or less in a communist society, and with tickets and such, nobody would have more money than the other, so everyone would be equal.


What do you think? Is currency necessary in communist society?

I'm confident that money wont be needed, instead it'd probably be a barter system were people trade possessions or services.

[ckaihatsu]

What would be necessary, however, is an accounting system for energy to help manage production and distribution over a large area (anyone who thinks Communism could sustain itself within one country is incorrect, and those who advocate village level "Communism" are insane). Technocracy offers a system imaginatively called Energy Accounting to serve this function.

(Cult of Reason)


No currency is not necessary because Communist economics is not based on the commodity form of exchanging labor. The creation of surplus combined with communal ownership over production and the abolition of class means that exchange is no longer focused on generating a return in profit for a capitalist class. This men that modeling the abstract value of various commodities with currency is no longer necessary. Goods and services will be "free" and it won't matter.

(drosera99)


I'm confident that money wont be needed, instead it'd probably be a barter system were people trade possessions or services.

(Green Apostle)


- Okay, I agree with the grassroots / anarchist / gift economy model for a post-revolution, non-private-property society.

- I also agree, given the availability of computer-based information systems -- like this message board, for example -- that actual printed currency would be unnecessary and cumbersome in a communist / anarchist society.

- However, we haven't really spoken to the question of how surplus would be managed in a post-revolution society -- once the revolution liberated humanity from want what would do you think people might want to do with the potential for producing a surplus of *whatever*...?

Sure many people could simply live the way they want, without having any obligations to work for the larger society, and many people might band together and work to create some specialized communities for themselves -- *but* -- what about those who were in a position to bring forth a surplus of energy reserves, for example? I don't mean to say that they would have malevolent motivations of elitism or dominance -- rather, I mean to ask how greater society might make decisions as how that's managed. Should the clock tick by while solar cells sit in the sun but with the cord unattached to anything?

Maybe academic and research institutions would pick up the slack here? But then would communist / anarchist society at large have some system of oversight to make sure that these institutions wouldn't run amuck with their energy reserves, possibly in a negligent or careless manner -- ?

[MarxSchmarx]

hat about those who were in a position to bring forth a surplus of energy reserves, for example? I don't mean to say that they would have malevolent motivations of elitism or dominance -- rather, I mean to ask how greater society might make decisions as how that's managed. Should the clock tick by while solar cells sit in the sun but with the cord unattached to anything?

I'm a little confused on why you assume there would be (1) surpluses and (2) the potential to abuse one's access to these surpluses.

I am not nearly as confident that there would be surpluses of much consequence in a planned economy. What is so wrong with keeping the solar cells unplugged and the workers taking the day off to write poems if the energy demands are met and there is a sufficient reserve for cloudy days?

Moreover, any planned economy worth its salt will be democratically planned. Workers and consumers themselves will decide how to distribute surpluses, if and when they occur. As such, the workers at the people's solar energy plant will be systematically prevented from hording extra energy and selling it to the highest bidder.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm a little confused on why you assume there would be (1) surpluses and (2) the potential to abuse one's access to these surpluses.

I am not nearly as confident that there would be surpluses of much consequence in a planned economy. What is so wrong with keeping the solar cells unplugged and the workers taking the day off to write poems if the energy demands are met and there is a sufficient reserve for cloudy days?

Moreover, any planned economy worth its salt will be democratically planned. Workers and consumers themselves will decide how to distribute surpluses, if and when they occur. As such, the workers at the people's solar energy plant will be systematically prevented from hording extra energy and selling it to the highest bidder.


So overall you're saying that we should live in a kind of high-tech primitive communism, where we have the benefits of modern technology, but live in a hunter-gatherer, or village, kind of way, in a hand-to-mouth, or as-needed, kind of existence...?

So would there be surpluses or wouldn't there be? If society consciously decided not to cultivate surpluses, as you first suggest, then it *would* be hand-to-mouth, more-or-less.

However, you then seem to allow for surpluses to accumulate, and for "workers and consumers themselves" to decide how to distribute them.

Here's my point: in a communist society -- free of any private property or need for bidding, or speculation, or exchange value of any sort -- why *not* implement centralized planning that would have an energy policy? Why *not* allow the accumulation of energy reserves, in batteries in warehouses everywhere, or whatever, so that there *is* a surplus?

And, then, why *not* have a centralized structure, over the entire planet, that decides *what to do* with that surplus? I just think that people envision modern communism as a return to localities, as an anti-globalization type of society, and I find that, well, very non-communistic. I thought the whole point was to have centralized, rational planning so that we could make the most of it, and *not* renounce globalization.

[Dimentio]

Care to elaborate?

Energy Accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=137)

[ckaihatsu]

The problem I have with this technate model is that it skirts the political aspect -- it's very similar to a shareholder system, but doesn't speak to issues of administration or meta-planning. In the current, capitalist mode of production this system would fall victim to the same problems of shareholder ownership that we see currently -- insider trading, inner-circle / outer-circle dynamics, and speculation / hoarding (if there's no political infrastructure to enforce the ground rules).

In a world of energy scarcity the political question of government comes to the forefront -- in a world of energy abundance politics would be virtually unnecessary, except for large-scale, scientific / artistic explorations.

[MarxSchmarx]

So overall you're saying that we should live in a kind of high-tech primitive communism, where we have the benefits of modern technology, but live in a hunter-gatherer, or village, kind of way, in a hand-to-mouth, or as-needed, kind of existence...?


My point was merely that, as a crude generality, supply should roughly equal demand. In market economies, prices play this mediating role. In a planned economy, this goal will be met according to a different set of rules, but the goal of supply equaling demand should remain intact.



Here's my point: in a communist society -- free of any private property or need for bidding, or speculation, or exchange value of any sort -- why *not* implement centralized planning that would have an energy policy? Why *not* allow the accumulation of energy reserves, in batteries in warehouses everywhere, or whatever, so that there *is* a surplus?

Three words: Diminishing marginal returns.

At some point, asking that workers spend their time adding ever more to the surplus becomes not only inefficient, but oppressive. In some fields (like energy) some surpluses make sense.
In other fields (like dairy farming) they are the bane of producers and have little benefit for consumers. Again, to expect that dairy workers spend their weekends milking cows to maintain this glorious surplus, instead of coaching their children's basketball games, doesn't appeal to me one bit.

[ckaihatsu]

My point was merely that, as a crude generality, supply should roughly equal demand. In market economies, prices play this mediating role. In a planned economy, this goal will be met according to a different set of rules, but the goal of supply equaling demand should remain intact.


I tend to think that this may just become the general point of equilibrium, as people will not *want* to work if they don't *have* to, and if there's no grand project to get psyched up for.

If you'll entertain this scenario, though -- the solar-cells-left-in-the-sun scenario -- in terms of energy as a readily available surplus, wouldn't we want to cultivate that, given that once put into motion the harvesting of energy would be virtually effortless?

This might motivate a grand project, or it might not -- but I guess I can't get over this notion that a liberated world would *decide* to collectively live hand-to-mouth, even if it was in a degree of luxury. At least wouldn't a communist world want to have a reserve supply of energy and other materials in case of a (very unlikely) emergency or catastrophe?

But also why shouldn't there be *progress*, going forward, where a truly collective, centrally planned economy could *leverage* that liberation and abundance, and *do* something with it?!



Three words: Diminishing marginal returns.

At some point, asking that workers spend their time adding ever more to the surplus becomes not only inefficient, but oppressive. In some fields (like energy) some surpluses make sense.


This is ridiculous -- I'm sorry, but you just replied to me in another thread about wind power in Spain -- that is certainly *not* a case of diminishing returns -- it's a case of *increasing* returns. Once workers put in their labor power to set up the turbines, the rest is pure return. Same for solar cells, etc. -- here we are, under the regime of imperialist, competing nation-states, and they *still* manage to do something half-right -- how easy do you think energy harvesting would be in a society that's centrally planned?

And once you have energy the rest is up to you -- go drive around, go make pies, * whatever * -- that's liberation, as long as there are no assholes over your head.



In other fields (like dairy farming) they are the bane of producers and have little benefit for consumers. Again, to expect that dairy workers spend their weekends milking cows to maintain this glorious surplus, instead of coaching their children's basketball games, doesn't appeal to me one bit.


Oh, absolutely -- but -- if I may -- it sounds like you're talking more about the present day rather than the possible future. This thread is about communism. Of course people wouldn't work where it wasn't needed, and of course society would have liberated most, if not all, grunt-work kind of jobs through automation (I would argue).

Liberated from external threats and market-based exploitation and human need people would be the ultimate arbiters of their own labor-power -- so the point is that the revolution liberates people from the necessity to work, thereby freeing them up to work for a greater good, *only* if they want to. To me revolution is about liberation from necessity so that everyone can live truly civilized lives.

[ckaihatsu]

At this point in the discussion I also need to add in the standard disclaimer of process regarding a truly communist society:


> If you read Lenin's State and Revolution (highly recommended for all comrades), you can see how Lenin establishes a series of conditions for the functioning of workers' democracy, which he draws mainly from the experience of the 1871 Paris Commune, the first workers' government in history. There are four main conditions:

> 1) All public officials to be elected and with the right to recall (that is that they can be changed immediately when they longer represent the interests of those who elected them).

> 2) No public official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker. Marx said that "social being determines consciousness", in other words the way you live determine the way you think. One of the main causes for reformism amongst labor movement leaders is precisely the inflated salaries they receive as members of the government, or even trade union top officials. They therefore think that capitalism is "not so bad" after all.

> 3) No standing army, but general arming of the people.

> 4) Over a period of time everyone would participate in the tasks of running the economy and the state. In the words of Lenin "if everyone is a bureaucrat, no one is a bureaucrat".

> http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/120/60/

[MarxSchmarx]

ck I don't think we are that far apart at all and are probably just bantering.



Once workers put in their labor power to set up the turbines, the rest is pure return. Same for solar cells, etc. -- here we are, under the regime of imperialist, competing nation-states, and they *still* manage to do something half-right -- how easy do you think energy harvesting would be in a society that's centrally planned?


Of course it would be easier, and a reserve supply would be necessary. Again, my point was merely that if there's demand for say 100 turbines, let's have 200 turbines and save the rest for later. And if demand goes up to 200, build a hundred more. But let's not build 1000000000000 turbines when 200 will more than suffice. That's all I was trying to say.


To me revolution is about liberation from necessity so that everyone can live truly civilized lives.

As well it should be ;)

[ckaihatsu]

ck I don't think we are that far apart at all and are probably just bantering.



Of course it would be easier, and a reserve supply would be necessary. Again, my point was merely that if there's demand for say 100 turbines, let's have 200 turbines and save the rest for later. And if demand goes up to 200, build a hundred more. But let's not build 1000000000000 turbines when 200 will more than suffice. That's all I was trying to say.



As well it should be ;)


Yeah, I would say we're in agreement up to the point where a future global communist society has to decide what to do with its excess energy (and possibly materials and assets) surplus, and what its overall energy policy would be.



But also why shouldn't there be *progress*, going forward, where a truly collective, centrally planned economy could *leverage* that liberation and abundance, and *do* something with it?!


This is the point I have to come back to -- I'm not saying that we necessarily should build an express lane through the center of the earth, but neither can we escape the fact that at that point in societal development we would have some pretty huge potentials for large-scale projects.

I have to respectfully take exception to your idea that society at that point should more or less stagnate -- I think the liberated labor force, in whatever composition, would have to decide what to do with the potentialities for work, energy collection, and resources / assets use,

This is far beyond either of us in the present day, of course, but nonetheless the decision would have to be faced at that point -- perhaps building 1,000,000,000,000 turbines then would enable the world to overcome the sun's gravity and send the earth on a journey to travel the universe with the top down or something -- fuck if I know, but you get the point, I hope.