Why no money?

[MadMoney]

I do not claim to know much about Communism (you might want to label me as a right-winger and lock me away in your alternative views section or whatever it is called) but the idea of a money-free economy doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It seems that money can do so many things to help organize an economy that the elimination of it would cause disorder and chaos. For example, how does a baker know how many loaves to make or what kinds to make? Especially if he is just giving them away. Also, with the whole notion of gifts freely given for everything, I assume this applies to services too. Would this mean that people choose any occupation they want? Who cleans the bathrooms?

Are there alternative views of Communism that keep some form of money and a marketplace?

[gla22]

Many of us still believe in currency and especially markets. I see them as necessity's in any economic system that still has scarcity. Communism will not get rid of scarcity.

[Plagueround]

It seems that money can do so many things to help organize an economy that the elimination of it would cause disorder and chaos. For example, how does a baker know how many loaves to make or what kinds to make?


The same way a baker does now. The baker makes bread according to what sells well and adjusts to the day's demands. The exchange of money is not needed to monitor these trends.


Especially if he is just giving them away. Also, with the whole notion of gifts freely given for everything, I assume this applies to services too.
With no concern for profit someone baking bread can do so for the sole reason of liking to bake and provide others with bread. Many people take great pleasure in cooking and would probably continue to enjoy it without the demands of profit concerns. I'd venture to say they would enjoy it even more.


Would this mean that people choose any occupation they want?Yes.


Who cleans the bathrooms?Why? Is cleaning a job that only a lowly servant or a minimum wage worker should do? Some cultures hold cleaning in high regard. ;)
A few options here: Everyone cleans up after themselves and helps each other out, or someone who wants to clean does it. Again, without the stresses of money management, people would have more time for these things, as well as doing the things they want and enjoy.


Are there alternative views of Communism that keep some form of money and a marketplace?Communism is defined as a classless, stateless society, so I would say in it's purest form, no. There are many different schools of thought dedicated to the progression toward communism that cover this, as well as other proposed forms of post-capitalist society, all of which you can read more about here.

[Bright Banana Beard]

For example, how does a baker know how many loaves to make or what kinds to make? The baker knows, thank to free technology but as the baker not doing it for money, but for hobby and enjoying it. You don't need money for trending the demand.


Also, with the whole notion of gifts freely given for everything, I assume this applies to services too. Would this mean that people choose any occupation they want? Who cleans the bathrooms? People will realize that they are helping themselves & benefits the community, and not for owner's interest. For cleaning, people will have time for it since the working hour is dramatically reduced.

Wage slavery, that simple. We have to pay for everything, but once it abolish, we can mend or progress it simple because there no economic burden. Helping the community will be priority for everyone instead of making money to survive, thus this will make them realize that this will benefits everyone.

[gla22]

Communism is defined as a classless, stateless society, so I would say in it's purest form, no. There are many different schools of thought dedicated to the progression toward communism that cover this, as well as other proposed forms of post-capitalist society, all of which you can read more about here.
You can be a hard line communist or marxist and still believe in markets and money. The idea that scarcity can be eliminated for all items is ludicrous. Most socialists believe in the necessity of markets and currency.

[Plagueround]

You can be a hard line communist or marxist and still believe in markets and money. The idea that scarcity can be eliminated for all items is ludicrous. Most socialists believe in the necessity of markets and currency.

Most scarcity these days is motivated by profits and hoarding. What items do you feel would be subject to scarcity and why?

[Kropotesta]

Why would you need money when your needs and leisures are already being met? Money promotes greed and immediately puts people at a disadvantage, recreating a class system/hierarchy.

[Hiero]

Communism is a really late development in this part of history, it is the end of class history. What we are talking about is the point where relations between humans have change so much that money is not needed.

I think that is what you missed, it is not a policy that money will be eliminated it is a proccess that will eliminate money. This is hard to grasp because we live in a society where currency is the norm. It would be like people in slave society trying to image a capitalist society where people are hired for labour and if they organise can gain some agency on the terms of their employment. It was just not heard of, but as material conditions changed ideas of liberal democracy and emmancipation came a realistic idea.

Even thoose who defend Communism in this thread have no idea how people will act in communism. They are mere speculations and their ideas are constructed through their current relations with other humans in this capitalist system.

For instance "Plagueround" mentions individual merit in doing work in a communist society. Sure some people do like to bake, so they will continue to bake. But no one really enjoys cleaning, however people do enjoy a clean environment. This is what I speculate as the motivation for cleaning. In a communist society the community is supreme, we are talking about people living like we can't really imagine. We can guess it will be more collectively then we have ever seen. In a collective society, what the society plants is what they reap. So I can imagine a collective motivation for people who want to clean. Also cosidering technology will be highly advance by the time we reach communism, it wont be so bad and the hours wont be so long.

[F9]

It seems that money can do so many things to help organize an economy that the elimination of it would cause disorder and chaos.
no it wont cause chaos in any way,instead it will help the citizens to organize better together to fulfill their needs![/QUOTE]


For example, how does a baker know how many loaves to make or what kinds to make?Especially if he is just giving them away.
he just continuous doing what he was doing before communism/anarchism.and of course he is giving it away(except of what the family needs)and he gets something from the others,so if you work you will get and some other food,you cant eat only bread!


Also, with the whole notion of gifts freely given for everything, I assume this applies to services too. Would this mean that people choose any occupation they want? Who cleans the bathrooms?
there are a lot of people who enjoy cleaning so this wont be a problem,but in your own house you clean it yourself


Are there alternative views of Communism that keep some form of money and a marketplace?
i dont know anyone supporting this,so..


Fuserg9:star:

[gla22]

Hopefully we can get rid of scarcity regarding food, and water, and education and the necessity's but there will be scarcity involving vacations to Hawaii, ect. Unless you want to put yourself on a 20yr wait list. Everyone will be able to afford the basics but when it comes down to new car or vacation there needs to be currency and markets because scarcity will be existent.

[MadMoney]

I guess the main problem for me (as I am not a Communist) is that I find no inherent evil in money. I see money as a tool for people to exchange services peacefully. Why can't a peaceful, classless society operate with money and perhaps a *gasp* profit motive?

[gla22]

I see no evil in money as well. It is a medium of exchange. It lowers transaction costs. You can still make profit as long as the workers own the means of production. The shareholder is replaced with the employee.

[trivas7]

In a society where there is no felt scarcity of resources and greed was not a value, in short where everyone felt materially secure and satisfied -- what purpose would money serve?

[mikelepore]

Are there alternative views of Communism that keep some form of money and a marketplace?

In the proposal that Marx called "the first phase of communist society" (1875), and which Lenin called "socialism" (1905), individuals would be paid in proportion to their work hours.

There wouldn't be a marketplace exactly, because prices wouldn't float according to competitive conditions, but there would be a work-time-based currency.

After dozens of posts in which I repeated Marx's words each time, just the other day I got the bright idea of putting that excerpt on my web site so I can conveniently link to it (http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=lv000016).

[Dros]

There would be no material basis for that as both the system of commodity exchange and the current issue of scarcity would be gone. Basically, everything would be "free" because everyone would already own everything.

[Bright Banana Beard]

*gasp* profit motive? Profit motive will be useless in communism because you already have the stuff you need, even you can pursue to have only your own system console where no one else hold it because you did it yourself. Instead, you will have hobby motive. But I guess you can collect money for collection. :)

[MadMoney]

So in a Communist society people do not need or use money because scarcity has been eliminated? I have to say that doesn't seem to make much sense. It seems that for many things scarcity cannot be eliminated. For example, food must constantly be produced and buildings must be constructed due to population growth and repaired due to aging. Not to mention societies demands for new music and entertainment. Another issue with this idea arises when one must choose between substitute goods. For example, if I walk into a deli I might want shrimp salad instead of tuna salad. Shrimp salad is more expensive, for several reasons, how does one accomidate for this without prices. Or different quality cars or size houses.

I could see communes living in peace and possibly doing well. I just don't know why a free and classless society needs to eliminate money or a profit motive. I don't see why a limited, uncorrupted democracy with a market economy (which is feasable and realistic) that allows for people to live in communes if they wish could not achieve this end rather than the Communist economic system which seems, at least to me, to be completely unrealistic and implausable.

[Dros]

So in a Communist society people do not need or use money because scarcity has been eliminated?

Yup.


I have to say that doesn't seem to make much sense. It seems that for many things scarcity cannot be eliminated. For example, food must constantly be produced and buildings must be constructed due to population growth and repaired due to aging.

Ending scarcity is not a matter of just making enough of something and stopping. Production doesn't halt. It procedes at a pace determined by consumption. With the end of production of luxury goods, the end of anarchic production, and the end of unemployment, production will be able to keep pace easily with consumption in a Communist society.


Not to mention societies demands for new music and entertainment.

So what? It's FREE!


Another issue with this idea arises when one must choose between substitute goods. For example, if I walk into a deli I might want shrimp salad instead of tuna salad. Shrimp salad is more expensive, for several reasons, how does one accomidate for this without prices.

Think about it this way. In a Communist society, everyone owns the means of production. This is not just in a narrow sense that you own your own farm or that you get to decide how things are run at your factory. The means of production are owned collectively and the products are also owned collectively. This means that it's already your tuna salad!


Or different quality cars or size houses.

What about 'em?


I could see communes living in peace and possibly doing well. I just don't know why a free and classless society needs to eliminate money or a profit motive.

Because if it doesn't, it's not free and classless anymore.


I don't see why a limited, uncorrupted democracy with a market economy (which is feasable and realistic) that allows for people to live in communes if they wish could not achieve this end

Profit is generated through the exploitation of labor. We're already back at classes. This means a class struggle necessarily insues. This means a state will form to reconcile these class antagonisms and prevent society from literally tearing itself apart. This state will be dominated by that class which is dominating society. Does this sound familiar to you at all?


rather than the Communist economic system which seems, at least to me, to be completely unrealistic and implausable.

Why do you see this as unrealistic.

[Bright Banana Beard]

unrealistic and implausible Today, the production are made in fixed time as even if the union protested, the other section will produce more in less time to make the price stay the same. Because the production are fixed in capitalism society to maintain profit, it is necessary for them to put the product on scarcity or they run out of money to produce more.

[MadMoney]

"Ending scarcity is not a matter of just making enough of something and stopping. Production doesn't halt. It procedes at a pace determined by consumption. With the end of production of luxury goods, the end of anarchic production, and the end of unemployment, production will be able to keep pace easily with consumption in a Communist society."

How would one determine production without a market? Who determines it? What is a luxury good? Why can't we have them? Is art a luxury? Speaking of which....

"So what? It's FREE!'

I guess this point was not clear. How can one keep up with the demand for art and music and entertainment in general? This seems like an area where scarcity will always exist (not that that's necessarily bad).

My main question, which has yet to be sufficiently answered (aside from vague and simple statements that all will be taken care of and everyone will get everything they need through working wherever they want to), is how can a Communist economy, or any economy for that matter, operate without money and markets? Basically, what's wrong with money?

[Dros]

How would one determine production without a market? Who determines it? What is a luxury good? Why can't we have them? Is art a luxury? Speaking of which....

The nice cars and mansions you were referring to qualify as luxury items that are totally superfluous. Production would be determined through economic planning.


I guess this point was not clear. How can one keep up with the demand for art and music and entertainment in general? This seems like an area where scarcity will always exist (not that that's necessarily bad).

Come on! In a Communist society, lots and lots of people will be able to spend time doing art that simply don't have the opportunity at this time due to capitalist production relations! So there will probably be far more art in the world.

I don't really understand the question. Someone makes a new album that everyone wants so they go and they get it. What's unclear here and why would there be a problem in keeping up with the demand?


My main question, which has yet to be sufficiently answered (aside from vague and simple statements that all will be taken care of and everyone will get everything they need through working wherever they want to), is how can a Communist economy, or any economy for that matter, operate without money and markets? Basically, what's wrong with money?

I have already answered that question. Explain what you find unsatisfactory about it so that I can clarify.

Oh well I'll do it again.

With abolition of anarchic production under socialism and latter Communism, with the end of alienation caused by the accrual of surplus value, with better technology, with the end of production of luxury goods, and with the end of unemployment, production under Communism will be greatly increased and far more efficient. Scarcity will no longer be an issue. Collective ownership over the means of production means that every single individual in society already owns their share of the products. So there is no basis for commodity exchange!

I've already explained what's wrong with profit motives (which are the basis for markets) and how that necessarily leads back to capitalism. I also explained very clearly how collective ownership means there is no need for currency. If you want more informative answers you're going to have to furnish some kind of reason why the current ones are insufficient.

[trivas7]

My main question, [...] is how can a Communist economy, or any economy for that matter, operate without money and markets? Basically, what's wrong with money?
Money is the result of the division of labor and therefore the exploitation of those who don't have it by those who do. Read Marx's "Das Kapitial" for details.

And, yes, communist society is hard to imagine.

[mikelepore]

I'm one Marxist who is opposed to a system in which all goods would be free, because there's no way to determine whether many people would ever return from vacation and go back to work if their individual standard of living didn't depend on it. If everything were free, I believe production levels would drop way down just at the same time that consumption levels would shoot way up, which is a contradiction that means the new system would probably last no more than a few days -- then people would be so disgusted with the shortages that they might swing to the opposite extreme and install a dictator. This is no way to begin the new classless age. We must proceed with tested components only, just as we wouldn't launch an aircraft without first testing the engine. We know that the concept of compensating labor by the hour, and having individuals take their income to the supermarket and spend it, is a concept that works because previous societies have tested this. Socialism must do the same, and compensate workers with incomes proportional to their work hours. Then exploitation will have been abolished; society will be classless. Then if people want to try increasing the list of free items a few at a time, for example, not only having free education and medicine (which we should have from the beginning), but also having free food and fuel, then these experiments can be conducted gradually, without threatening the stability of the social structure. The very last thing that people should consider distributing for free should be luxury items, because any one of us has enough imagination to fill a hundred room mansion with hobby equipment. Even if automated production did support it, the earth's environment would be ruined.

[gla22]

"Ending scarcity is not a matter of just making enough of something and stopping. Production doesn't halt. It procedes at a pace determined by consumption. With the end of production of luxury goods, the end of anarchic production, and the end of unemployment, production will be able to keep pace easily with consumption in a Communist society."

How would one determine production without a market? Who determines it? What is a luxury good? Why can't we have them? Is art a luxury? Speaking of which....

"So what? It's FREE!'

I guess this point was not clear. How can one keep up with the demand for art and music and entertainment in general? This seems like an area where scarcity will always exist (not that that's necessarily bad).

My main question, which has yet to be sufficiently answered (aside from vague and simple statements that all will be taken care of and everyone will get everything they need through working wherever they want to), is how can a Communist economy, or any economy for that matter, operate without money and markets? Basically, what's wrong with money?

Eventually everyone hopes to move to a scarcity free world, and this might happen with increasing technology however as of now it is not feasible and will possibly never be. Scarcity should be eliminated for basic foodstuffs clean water ect. Previously land used to be not scarce same with clean water. That has obviously changed as population has increased. Scarcity for some goods will always exist and communism and currency is compatible. An economy should be mixed but markets will be necessary for many goods and services always. If not there will be huge black market problems.

[ckaihatsu]

Disclaimer: If I didn't feel such a sense of revolutionary duty I would not take even one second to respond to the mixed-up assertions of gla22 and MadMoney. It's obvious that they are *not* on the left, nor do they represent the left, no matter what kind of whining they do. I have a PayPal account, so anyone who benefits from the time I'm taking to respond to these reactionary arguments should feel free to send me a donation.



Many of us still believe in currency and especially markets. I see them as necessity's in any economic system that still has scarcity. Communism will not get rid of scarcity.


Scarcity is the only thing that *keeps* businesses in business. Wars exist only because of the profit motive, which leads to competition over markets. Wars not only determine who dominates choice markets, but it also creates artificial scarcity by destroying stuff that *had* been there. The profit motive itself creates artificial scarcity by excluding everyone who can't afford something, even if there's plenty of the stuff itself -- perhaps caviar would be an example.

Stuff that's in abundance *can't* be commodified, because there no profit in it -- so, ironically, wherever people have enough they don't need capitalism and/or the markets.

Communism *will* get rid of scarcity by matching demands with supply, without relying on the non-conscious "invisible hand" of the markets. Today many people could eaasily make a list of what they need and want before they go to the store, but because of the markets they would *not* be able to just take stuff from the shelves, even if it's right in front of their faces, and they just worked a 40+ hour week.

Communism is basically having everyone make a list of what they need and want in their daily life, and then matching them up with all of the goods and services that people are willing to produce. There -- no market needed.



You can be a hard line communist or marxist and still believe in markets and money. The idea that scarcity can be eliminated for all items is ludicrous. Most socialists believe in the necessity of markets and currency.


This is absolute bullshit -- this is like saying that vegetarians believe in eating meat. Money and the markets that non-consciously channel money are just mechanisms for distributing the surplus value that society continuously creates. Obviously we've gotten past the point of scouraging in the wild for food, so the question is: Who gets what, and why?
Under capitalism the rule is that those who have wealth -- that is, ownership of the means of mass production -- get rewarded just for that, while everyone else has to sell their labor for less than it's really worth, just to get by.

I'd like to point out that the term 'libertarian' is a contradiction to the term 'socialist' -- therefore the term 'libertarian socialist' is like saying 'capitalist commie'.



Hopefully we can get rid of scarcity regarding food, and water, and education and the necessity's but there will be scarcity involving vacations to Hawaii, ect. Unless you want to put yourself on a 20yr wait list. Everyone will be able to afford the basics but when it comes down to new car or vacation there needs to be currency and markets because scarcity will be existent.


Amazing -- who the fuck died and made you dictator? The giveaway for spotting any sort of right-winger is that they say stuff and assume they're right, *and* they expect others to just accept whatever they say at face-value. Some might even call this hubris or brazenness -- I'd call it stupidity because they're assuming that people can't think for themselves.

"Hopefully" -- ??? That doesn't cut it -- either one does what one can to make it happen, or else you're just blowing hot air. The means for getting rid of hunger and thirst is here, now -- there's no question about the *capacity* for doing it. We even have plenty of steel and jet fuel to make air travel super-cheap and commonplace -- but when travellers have to pay the extortion fee called profit, that kinda takes away from the money left to pay for material costs...!

This asshole is mixing up Stalinism with revolutionary socialism, and the two are *very* different things. If this person / asshole were on the left they'd be a Stalinist, but they're not so that's why this stuff sounds like it's coming from a dictator.



I guess the main problem for me (as I am not a Communist) is that I find no inherent evil in money. I see money as a tool for people to exchange services peacefully. Why can't a peaceful, classless society operate with money and perhaps a *gasp* profit motive?


Notice that no one mentioned anything about religion or "evil" -- relying on religious terminology is yet another distortion when we're here to talk about politics, which is all about administration (and/or ownership). The business of trade has *never* been peaceful -- recall World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. -- these wars were to see which country's companies would have access to the best sources of cheap labor, raw materials, and markets.

The profit motive is just extortion -- those who get profits are just sucking up the surplus from what others are doing when they're working. Class society is a society where one class controls the bulk of the surplus, and then uses the threat of violence (military, police, the state) to keep the workers from reclaiming what was taken from them. If we allow leeches to suck off our blood by taking profits then we don't get it back, and so we have a class society.



I see no evil in money as well. It is a medium of exchange. It lowers transaction costs. You can still make profit as long as the workers own the means of production. The shareholder is replaced with the employee.


This is also bullshit -- profit is economic rape, pure and simple. If the workers owned the means of mass production they would not just *give away* parts of it by allowing profit to be extracted. The shareholders, employers, and employees would be eliminated and you would have only the co-worker / co-administrator.

There's another medium of exchange, and it's called a fucking list. If I can go on the Internet and find a list of what there is to do in a city I travel to, then that's a list of *supply*. Whatever tasks and hours the people of a city work at, that's called a list of *supply*. A shopping list is called *demand*. Now we can fire all the politicians and executives and shut down the market exchanges and proletize the banks.



Eventually everyone hopes to move to a scarcity free world,


You don't -- so why are you saying it?



and this might happen with increasing technology however as of now it is not feasible and will possibly never be.


Thank you, God, with your omniscient powers, for telling us decisively what will never, ever be. We are only too fortunate to have Your Presence on our humble message board.

The systems of slavery and feudalism held back progress because there was no incentive for innovation -- if a serf worked harder and made more produce the noble would just take it anyway.... If a serf invented a more efficient way of farming and got more produce in less time the noble would just take it anyway.... Likewise, under capitalism, the profit motive robs workers of the value of their work -- if they work harder they are still being robbed -- it might be a little better than under feudalism, but it's still theft. If a worker invents a better way to use technology to run society it will just be ignored by the politicians and big business, so why bother? In this way progress is *held back* by capitalism, because there's no incentive to work extra to make society better. People do volunteer work *despite* there being no material incentive for it -- imagine if their life's needs and wants were met by society as a whole just by them doing volunteer work?



Scarcity should be eliminated for basic foodstuffs clean water ect. Previously land used to be not scarce same with clean water. That has obviously changed as population has increased. Scarcity for some goods will always exist and communism and currency is compatible. An economy should be mixed but markets will be necessary for many goods and services always. If not there will be huge black market problems.


The other giveaway for spotting a right-winger is that they *always* kowtow to the market -- their entire way of thinking is about "How can I serve the market? What does the market want? Can I rub the tummy of the market somehow?"

Black markets only exist because of mismanagement, or corrupt administration -- again, this is the very real demon of Stalinism, or corruption in general. If people can make a profit by fucking over the people they're supposed to serve, then that's what they'll do, whether it's a normal market, a green market, a gray market, or a black market.

If I happen to know someone who can paint me the kind of picture I want and I can do the cleaning work that they want, then we can go ahead and no market is needed. On a mass scale there's some bookkeeping and administration involved, but the same idea is still at work -- NO MARKETS!!!



The baker knows, thank to free technology but as the baker not doing it for money, but for hobby and enjoying it. You don't need money for trending the demand.

People will realize that they are helping themselves & benefits the community, and not for owner's interest. For cleaning, people will have time for it since the working hour is dramatically reduced.

Wage slavery, that simple. We have to pay for everything, but once it abolish, we can mend or progress it simple because there no economic burden. Helping the community will be priority for everyone instead of making money to survive, thus this will make them realize that this will benefits everyone.



Scarcity vs. abundance

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.

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.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-possible-without-t74901/index.html?p=1125724

[Die Neue Zeit]

Social Proletocracy: The Critique of the Gotha Programme Revisited

Eight years ago, one Scottish comrade of the Republican Communist Network, Allan Armstrong, had this to say in the Weekly Worker (# 318):

If there is a distinction to be made between pre- and post-international revolutionary wave, revolutionary social democracy, it lies in the following. The older revolutionary social democracy clung to Marx's pre-Paris Commune view that socialism would come about by further perfecting and bringing the existing capitalist state 'under workers' control' - through socialist majorities in parliament and other levels of the state. Drawing on the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx later rejected his earlier view. He now boldly declared the need to smash the capitalist state machinery.

But in the period following the Paris Commune Marx went further, making his earlier slogan, "Abolish the wages system" more concrete. He showed us that workers' economic control could not be brought about just by placing the wages system under 'workers' control'. The whole wages system needed to be abolished. This requires a double mechanism. First, we have to take over direct control of production and distribution through combining as 'freely associated labour' - what was later understood as workers' councils. Secondly, our workers' councils must plan production and distribution directly on the basis of labour time. This eliminates the distinction between socially necessary and surplus labour and allows us collectively to agree what proportion of social labour is allocated to individuals (by means of labour certificates showing the hours we have worked) and what is reserved for the meeting of wider social needs, democratically decided by the workers' councils themselves.

Sufficed to say, Armstrong went on to criticize Lenin’s conception of "socialism," despite the latter's extensive citation of Critique of the Gotha Programme in his monumental The State and Revolution.

So why is Marx’s 1875 work so important? It is here where he talks about labour time:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

In the very next paragraph, he talks about the differences between money as we know it today and labour-time vouchers:

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

In other words, labour-time vouchers are a more restrictive form of exchange, since they prevent individual capital accumulation. In the very next four paragraphs, he makes his strongest case against the French-socialist obsession with egalitarianism, the latter of which has consistently fed the pro-establishment, “humans are selfish” academic and media hegemons:

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

It is in the next paragraph that Marx finally discusses proper “communism”:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

The Italian Communist Amadeo Bordiga gave a rather excellent recap of what Marx said above regarding the three (not two) stages following the workers’ revolution, in his critique of the grossly revisionist “Comrade” Stalin’s Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR – titled Dialogue with Stalin:

The following schema can serve as a re-capitulation of our difficult subject [...]:

Transition stage: the proletariat has conquered power and must withdraw legal protection from the non-proletarian classes, precisely because it cannot 'abolish' them in one go. This means that the proletarian state controls an economy of which a part, a decreasing part it is true, knows commercial distribution and even forms of private disposition of the product and the means of production (whether these be concentrated or scattered). Economy not yet socialist, a transitional economy.

Lower stage of communism: or, if you want, socialism. Society has already come to dispose of the products in general and allocates them to its members by means of a plan for 'rationing'. Exchange and money have ceased to perform this function. It cannot be conceded to Stalin that simple exchange without money although still in accordance with the law of value could be a perspective for arriving at communism: on the contrary that would mean a sort of relapse into the barter system. The allocation of products starts rather from the centre and takes place without any equivalent in exchange. Example: when a malaria epidemic breaks out, quinine is distributed free in the area concerned, but in the proportion of a single tube per inhabitant.

In this stage, apart from the obligation to work continuing, the recording of the labour time supplied and the certificate attesting this are necessary, i.e. the famous labour voucher so much discussed for a hundred years. The voucher cannot be accumulated and any attempt to do so will involve the loss of a given amount of labour without restitution of any equivalent. The law of value is buried (Engels: society no longer attributes a 'value' to products).

Higher stage of communism which can also without hesitation be called full socialism. The productivity of labour has become such that neither constraint nor rationing are any longer necessary (except for pathological cases) as a means of avoiding the waste of products and human energy. Freedom for all to take for consumption. Example: the pharmacies distribute quinine freely and without restriction.

Therefore, social proletocracy, as opposed to ordinary proletocracy, encompasses the following:

1) The establishment of what many radical political liberals call “civic democracy,” which goes beyond the current and degenerating “representative democracy” in regards to a highly engaged and highly active citizenry;
2) The revolutionary (as opposed to reformist) extension of this “civic democracy” to socioeconomic affairs;
3) The revolutionary working-class emphasis of the two features above (that is, at the expense of other classes, such as the bourgeoisie); and
4) In addition to these features of ordinary proletocracy, the “pre-communist” abolition of wage slavery through the full compensation of labour (albeit after deductions “for the common funds”).



REFERENCES:

Human.liberation.com or Bill Gates rules? by Allan Armstrong [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/318/hlcorbg.html]

Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm]

Dialogue with Stalin by Amadeo Bordiga, 1952

Bordigism by Adam Buick [[url=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/bordbuik.html]htt

[gla22]

@ckaihatsu (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162) you dont have to be a dick when you are posting. let me refute your claims.

"Communism *will* get rid of scarcity by matching demands with supply, without relying on the non-conscious "invisible hand" of the markets. Today many people could eaasily make a list of what they need and want before they go to the store, but because of the markets they would *not* be able to just take stuff from the shelves, even if it's right in front of their faces, and they just worked a 40+ hour week."

Do you even know how demand and supply work? Take an economics course. When the "cost of obtaining " of an object is 0 supply will skyrocket, there will be intense shortages and there won't be equilibrium.

"I'd like to point out that the term 'libertarian' is a contradiction to the term 'socialist' -- therefore the term 'libertarian socialist' is like saying 'capitalist commie'."

No not really you ignorant asshole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE&feature=related
here is noam chomsky talking on libertarian-socialism. He is smarter than you I'm sure.

What if people want more than that can be produced? That is scarcity in your gift-economy system. A gift-economy will never work. I'm talking about communism not utopianism. Get real.

[Black Light]

Money is created by the existence of exploitation. Only if you can reduce people to the propertyless condition of a Proletarian, who is denied any access to his own means of production, and therefore must do work without controlling the end result of it, can you use money as a universal subjugator of individual labor capacity. Money, specifically in the form of wage payment, is a tool for enslavement; Money allows the capitalist to force workers to do work that is dictated absolutely by the capitalist himself. Once again, Money exists on the backdrop of a society where the majority is reduced to the condition of generalized want which can only be met by the direct selling of one's own activity to another.

In a society where there is no exploitation, where you cannot force another man to do work against his will simply because he needs money to survive, there is no such thing as money. With the Communization of the means of production, all ownership is abolished and direct and free access is established universally. The hitherto wage-laborers must arrange themselves without the ability to subjugate the labor of others, the community of producers therefore cannot deny access to the results of social labor to anyone, and consequently can only organize production again through the bond of free association and the ethic of from each according to ability, to each according to need.

[Plagueround]

Do you even know how demand and supply work? Take an economics course. When the "cost of obtaining " of an object is 0 supply will skyrocket, there will be intense shortages and there won't be equilibrium.

I'm sure a modern economics class will have a truckload of value in a communist system and won't be outdated.


No not really you ignorant asshole.
here is noam chomsky talking on libertarian-socialism. He is smarter than you I'm sure.Here, you dropped your honor by association fallacy. Let me pick it up for you.


What if people want more than that can be produced? That is scarcity in your gift-economy system. A gift-economy will never work. I'm talking about communism not utopianism. Get real.Some of my favorite quotations:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The telephone will be used to inform people that a telegram has been sent."
- Alexander Graham Bell.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work.

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy."
- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
- Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances."
- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".
- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon".
- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981.

"The Transistor is a passing fad."
- Dr. William J. Barclay, EE Department NCSU, 1969.

[gla22]

Those quotations prove nothing.

[Wake Up]

Money is simply a standard item for use in trade.
If we didn't use coins we could use something else and in our current society trade is something valuable to us as no-one has everything.

In a hardline marxist community there would be no need for trade as everything would be provided centrally, free of charge. Everyone does have everything in an ideal marxist community. At leasts thats how I understand it.

In an anarchistic community money would exist as the people would be free to trade what they like. However it is likely that basic items such as food, shelter, energy, water etc would be available for free as an anarchist would believe that such items are property and therefore available to the community with no charge. Therefore people will have a lot more money available to obtain luxury items, which are considered possessions and therefore acceptable to trade in an anarchist community.

In my eyes, having a standard currency for trade is not the problem. Its using property (food,land,water etc) as tradable items that is the problem. i.e. captialism.

[punisa]

I do not claim to know much about Communism (you might want to label me as a right-winger and lock me away in your alternative views section or whatever it is called) but the idea of a money-free economy doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It seems that money can do so many things to help organize an economy that the elimination of it would cause disorder and chaos. For example, how does a baker know how many loaves to make or what kinds to make? Especially if he is just giving them away. Also, with the whole notion of gifts freely given for everything, I assume this applies to services too. Would this mean that people choose any occupation they want? Who cleans the bathrooms?

Are there alternative views of Communism that keep some form of money and a marketplace?

Hello Comrade,

I must say that your question makes perfect sense. Communist ideologies tend to be somewhat complex, even seem absurd if you are not introduced to the topic.
Saying that, this forum is a great place to kick off those questions and (hopefully) get a reasonable answer.

To put it simple - you choose the profession that satisfies you on your personal basis. Let's say you like computers, you might get a job being a database administrator. Or you like travelling? You might be publishing articles on travel.
If you like cooking why not be a baker?

The idea of getting the money out of focus is primarily because of all the negative effects money has on people. Corruption, deviated social relationships, theft, crime etc.

Would it make sense to commit an armed robbery if you already posses all you need? That's the point.

Some anti-communist folk will tell you that such work organization techniques halt progress - this are totally wrong assumptions. Your progress and advancement will be highest if you do what you like to do.

Take science for example. If you are an historian, on which topics do you tend to write best articles? Of course, the ones that you find the most interesting!

Again be aware that these descriptions are just the tip of the iceberg, there are billion obstacles that need to be dealt with before such a society could exist. One thing is the "dirtiest" jobs like you mentioned. Of course, I do not want to say that any work is less important, but some are dirty.

Maybe street cleaning and similar might be done by everyone, you form groups that would do it besides their regular job - on the basis of rotation.

This would actually be a great way for people that do most isolated jobs (science, office work) to get in "touch" with society.
Something like the working actions in ex Yugoslavia - many young people went to build rail roads and similar, no money involved. As far as I can say most of them look back on those days as some of the best moments from their youth.
Because they just like the smell of a new rail road? Of course not. :) The fact of belonging and working for a common cause united people and brought them closely together.

In the money driven economy we have "homo hominis lupus" syndrome. It's getting worse by the year. In many cases people can't trust even their closest family - brothers, sisters, parents. Everyone is money hungry and WILL try to cross you over just to get it !

This leads to alienization and chronic individualism, or in other words - you become isolated from people as they usually become a treat to you. Thus you need to learn to be careful of everyone and this can easily develop into paranoia.
Other side-effect is anger, but propaganda is "teaching" us all the time to suppress our anger which results in the 'inverted aggression' or more commonly known - depression. If you wanna follow the trail even further you'll come by such terms as suicidal, bipolarity and killing spree.

Everything mentioned here is not natural and whoever or whatever created human being did not picture it as such.

Human is a social being and it is our humane duty to bring back the social factor.
Eliminating the need for money is just one element that will need to be taken care of.

[Plagueround]

Those quotations prove nothing.

They prove how wrong people who make end all be all predictions can be. :laugh:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I guess the main problem for me (as I am not a Communist) is that I find no inherent evil in money. I see money as a tool for people to exchange services peacefully. Why can't a peaceful, classless society operate with money and perhaps a *gasp* profit motive?
Umm, no communist believes that there is any "inherent evil" in money. Rather, the point is that there is an inherent evil in private property, and the existence of money, in the sense we commonly understand it today, requires the existence of private property.

Now, "money" can mean many different things. If by "money" you mean any general medium of exchange, or in other words, "pieces of paper or other tokens that can be exchanged for goods and services", then communists have nothing against money, and some form of such "money" may still be used in communist society.

On the other hand, if by "money" you mean something much more specific to capitalism, like "a unit of value created by a central bank and regulated by bond and stock markets, that can be used to purchase means of production and may be transferred between individuals", then communists are opposed to money.

We do not oppose the idea of pieces of paper that you take to the store. We oppose the idea of bond markets and stock markets; we oppose the capitalist financial institutions that determine the value and flow of money in the world today; we oppose the idea that money should be used to buy means of production; and many of us oppose the idea that money should be transferable between individuals (if "money" is to be a representation of the amount of labour you performed, then your money should be tied to your name, like a debit card, rather than being in the form of banknotes or coins that anyone can use; this is to prevent the emergence of a black market).


You can be a hard line communist or marxist and still believe in markets and money.
You can believe in money, but not in markets.


The idea that scarcity can be eliminated for all items is ludicrous.
True. But the existence of scarcity does not require that economic transactions be organized in markets.


I see no evil in money as well. It is a medium of exchange. It lowers transaction costs. You can still make profit as long as the workers own the means of production. The shareholder is replaced with the employee.
I know you advocate an economic system in which the ownership of the means of production would still be divided between firms, except these firms would be owned by their employees.

But in that case, what is to prevent some firms from exploiting others, just like under capitalism some individuals exploit others? What is to prevent the emergence of firms who own the means of production and whose employees do no real work, because all work is subcontracted to firms that do not own means of production? What is to prevent some firms from turning into associations of capitalists, exploiting other firms that have become associations of propertyless workers?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hopefully we can get rid of scarcity regarding food, and water, and education and the necessity's but there will be scarcity involving vacations to Hawaii, ect. Unless you want to put yourself on a 20yr wait list.
Something to consider: If the number of vacations to Hawaii is so small that a 20 year waiting list would be required in order to provide everyone with such a vacation, then presumably the only alternative - the one provided by a market economy - is that some people will get the vacation now, and others will get it never.

What is better? To make everyone wait, or to provide the service to some people immediately at the expense of never providing it to others? I prefer to make everyone wait.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My main question, which has yet to be sufficiently answered (aside from vague and simple statements that all will be taken care of and everyone will get everything they need through working wherever they want to), is how can a Communist economy, or any economy for that matter, operate without money and markets?
In very simplistic terms, it would operate like this:

Step 1. Supply and demand are no longer measured in monetary terms, but in terms of labour or energy or natural resources. Goods are divided into scarce and non-scarce. Non-scarce goods are produced in large enough quantities to satisfy all demand. This requires a certain amount of productive capacity, called X. Subtract X from your total productive capacity. To decide what to do with the remaining capacity, proceed to step 2.

Step 2. The people decide what scarce goods and services they want, and in what quantities - for example, by taking a vote. Each person could have a number of points (representing labour or energy or natural resources) to distribute as he wishes between various goods and services. The first vote would take a while to set up, but future votes would be much easier since people would only need to indicate any changes in their preferences.

Step 3. We now have a list of scarce goods and services ranked in order of preference. This is our demand. Productive capacity shall be devoted to meet demand to the greatest possible extent.

Step 4. Once the scarce goods and services have been produced, within the limits of our productive capacity, they must be distributed. Insert the distribution system of your choice (equal value for all, or distribution according to need, or according to the number of hours you work per week, or whatever).

The goal of communism is to move increasing numbers of goods and services into the "non-scarce" category, until the "scarce" category has presumably been eliminated altogether. I am not sure if that is possible, but I am sure it is at least possible to reduce the "scarce" category to the point where it only contains entertainment - everything else being non-scarce. That's good enough.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even if such scenario were not to emerge, comrade, there is still the problem of other sectional control:

http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/bordbuik.html


Bordiga was adamant that socialism did not mean handing over control of the use - and thus effective ownership - of individual factories and other places of work either to the people working in them or to the people living in the area where those factories or places of work were situated. Commenting on a text by Marx, he wrote that socialist society was opposed:

to the attribution of the means of production (the land in our case) to particular social groups: fractions or particular classes of national society, local groups or enterprise groups, professional or trade union categories. [1958]

Furthermore:

The socialist programme insists that no branch of production should remain in the hands of one class only, even if it is that of the producers. Thus the land will not go to peasant associations, nor to the class of peasants, but to the whole of society. [1958]

Demands such as 'the factories for the workers', 'the mines for the miners' and other such schemes for 'workers' control' were not socialist demands, since a society in which they were realised would still be a property society in the sense that parts of the productive apparatus would be controlled by sections only of society to the exclusion of other sections. Socialism, Bordiga always insisted, meant the end of all sectional control over separate parts of the productive apparatus and the establishment of central social control over all the means of production.

So, for Bordiga, in a socialist society there would be no property whatsoever in the means of production, not just of individuals or of groups of individuals, but also not of groups of producers nor of local or national communities either. The means of production would not be owned at all, but would simply be there to be used by the human race for its survival and continuation in the best possible conditions.



[Man, you're much more knowledgeable on labour-time voucher stuff than I am!]

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Jacob, I assume you were responding to this:


I know you [gla22] advocate an economic system in which the ownership of the means of production would still be divided between firms, except these firms would be owned by their employees.

But in that case, what is to prevent some firms from exploiting others, just like under capitalism some individuals exploit others? What is to prevent the emergence of firms who own the means of production and whose employees do no real work, because all work is subcontracted to firms that do not own means of production? What is to prevent some firms from turning into associations of capitalists, exploiting other firms that have become associations of propertyless workers?

"Sectional control" - yes, finally a name for the concept that has been bouncing around in my head for some time. Basically, as long as property over the means of production is divided - as long as some groups own some means of production and other groups own others - there is always the possibility of unequal power arising. Some of those groups will be wealthier, and more powerful, than the others. They will consolidate their wealth and power until they are able to exploit the others, and a new class society is established.

It is not sufficient for some workers to own some means of production, and for other workers to own other means of production. All workers must own all means of production at the same time. Social property must not be divided.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob, I assume you were responding to this:

"Sectional control" - yes, finally a name for the concept that has been bouncing around in my head for some time.

Don't credit my linguistic "habits" this time, comrade. Credit is due to Adam Buick. ;)