Moneyless society?

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Its seems I have been attacked more for my views of a society without currency than my Communist views:confused: am I the only one that hopes for a such a thing? I am just checking to see if I really am stupid for this opinion?

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Dangit! family member walked behind me and I had to exit out before getting a pole up!:(

[Chislev]

So, go poleless.

Bartering is a truly beautiful thing. Money isn't really helpful in itself. How much money you have or do not have is not is not an indication of how happy you are or how happy you have the potential to be.
Money the way we know it now is a capitalist invention and it is only beneficial (depending on how you look at the situation) to those living within a capitalist society.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

So, go poleless.

Bartering is a truly beautiful thing. Money isn't really helpful in itself. How much money you have or do not have is not is not an indication of how happy you are or how happy you have the potential to be.
Money the way we know it now is a capitalist invention and it is only beneficial (depending on how you look at the situation) to those living within a capitalist society.
But what about the claim that bartering is still a form of Currency with a value to it?

[KurtFF8]

So, go poleless.

Bartering is a truly beautiful thing. Money isn't really helpful in itself. How much money you have or do not have is not is not an indication of how happy you are or how happy you have the potential to be.
Money the way we know it now is a capitalist invention and it is only beneficial (depending on how you look at the situation) to those living within a capitalist society.

Money itself is not a capitalist invention, it just functions differently in the capitalist mode of production than it did in say a feudal mode of production where wealth was owned differently. There were still exchanges of commodities in feudal societies but the overall mode of production was different. Just as in capitalism money serves an altered function.

Money in a capitalist society is in a large part a means of exchange for commodities (and the "universal equivalent for commodities, although it's also a means of payment) and thus serves an important social function. The problem is the way in which it is manipulated, hoarded and used in the accumulation of capital. This is why some leftists believe that "money" should be replaced by something like a labor voucher.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

This is why some leftists believe that "money" should be replaced by something like a labor voucher.
ooooh please continue :) what is this Labor Voucher?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html

Look up labour credits (the physical form being "labour[-time] tokens" or "labour[-time] vouchers") and "energy accounting" (although the latter is more a sci-fi thing).

[Revy]

That's what I advocate too. A moneyless society where everything is free. I honestly can't see socialism working any other way.

[mikelepore]

The basis of money is that it gets its value from the fact that the money supply is nearly constant. Labor time credits or vouchers (probably bits in a computer, rather than paper certificates) than would differ in that each hour unit would comes into existence when someone does an hour of work, and cease to exist when someone redeems it at the store.

Money makes no representation of how a person came into possession of it, whether by work, inheritance, robbery, or some other means. Work time crediting would reward personal work transparently.

A credit system would have the prices of comsumer goods on the store shelf indicated in units of work time. The total number of work hours that people expended to produce a category of product, divided by the number produced, is its price. *

* EDIT: Not exactly, for two reasons. First, we have to overproduce many kinds of goods relative to personal consumption so that we can allocate resources to general administration (expansion, research, etc.) and to free services (medicine, education, etc.) Secondly, if there is a policy of compensating more strenuous work at a higher rate than nominal work, the number of hour credits outstanding would have to be corrected by a coefficient when calculating product prices.

[Chislev]

But what about the claim that bartering is still a form of Currency with a value to it?

I feel like trading what you have for what you need and small objects that can get you, basically, whatever you want are two really different things.

[ernie]

Its seems I have been attacked more for my views of a society without currency than my Communist views:confused: am I the only one that hopes for a such a thing? I am just checking to see if I really am stupid for this opinion?
No, you're not the only one. In fact, some of us here contend that communism must be money-less. More to the point, they must be market-less. That is, nothing should be for sale; everything should be given away.

When people attack your views on such a society, ask them to give you specific examples about when it wouldn't work, then deal with those specific cases.

[mikelepore]

A society in which work is unpaid and goods are distributed for free is impossible, because the only people who would ever return from vacation and go back to work would be those whose job is also their hobby, such as musicians and athletes. There would be no one to operate the factories, farms, mines, chemical refineries, steel mills, etc., all activities which, best case, can be someone's hobby for about a week until the novelty wears off.

The contradiction of distributing goods for free is that consumption would increase toward infinity at the same time that productivity approaches zero, which is clearly an unstable situation. The system probably couldn't last for one full day. It would probably occur on the first day that no one shows up to operate the power plants and everyone's electric lights go out, and from there it's all downhill.

We should not suggest to the working class a model of socialism that's impossible, because most people can immediately realize that it's impossible, and we would only be making more conservatives out of the working class.

I have been a firmly convinced Marxist since the 1960s. I assert that socialism is certainly possible, desirable, and necessary. But not just any old conception of socialism. Each proposal has to be checked for reasonableness.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

The basis of money is that it gets its value from the fact that the money supply is nearly constant. Labor time credits or vouchers (probably bits in a computer, rather than paper certificates) than would differ in that each hour unit would comes into existence when someone does an hour of work, and cease to exist when someone redeems it at the store.





Wouldn't this still be a form of currency? and also able to be exploited? I mean its like money just not physical.

[Organic Revolution]

Bleh, Monetary systems have always operated within an oppressive context. Mutual aid is the way to go.

[mikelepore]

Wouldn't this still be a form of currency? and also able to be exploited? I mean its like money just not physical.

I assume that both of us are talking about a new system in which the industries and services will be collectively owned and democratically controlled by the people. There will be no possibility for someone to be dependent on someone else, no one needing a product or a job offer from someone else. If you can find a hole that needs plugging, to stop a selfish person from exploiting it, then you can point it out, and then I might be able to say what I believe the fix should be.

Yes, people will be able to use the accounting units as currency if they wish, if the majority choose to adopt such a system. There's no way to stop that anyway, during advance planning, since the majority will be able to reverse any policy at any moment.

[Poison]

Money is useless and if kept during an attempt to create a communist society, will only result in failure.

Ie, I agree, currency needs to be abolished.

[DesertShark]

Its seems I have been attacked more for my views of a society without currency than my Communist views:confused: am I the only one that hopes for a such a thing? I am just checking to see if I really am stupid for this opinion?
Cool post. This happens to me all the time, but I remain firm in my belief that monetary systems suck and are not necessary. I've lived in gift communities and they're awesome! I highly recommend it. The wall I've come across is that any gift economy I've ever been in has been fueled by an outside monetary society (people make money outside and buy the things that they then share with everyone else). So I don't know if it's possible while monetary systems rule the world.


Look up labour credits (the physical form being "labour[-time] tokens" or "labour[-time] vouchers") and "energy accounting" (although the latter is more a sci-fi thing).

The basis of money is that it gets its value from the fact that the money supply is nearly constant. Labor time credits or vouchers (probably bits in a computer, rather than paper certificates) than would differ in that each hour unit would comes into existence when someone does an hour of work, and cease to exist when someone redeems it at the store.

Money makes no representation of how a person came into possession of it, whether by work, inheritance, robbery, or some other means. Work time crediting would reward personal work transparently.

A credit system would have the prices of comsumer goods on the store shelf indicated in units of work time. The total number of work hours that people expended to produce a category of product, divided by the number produced, is its price. *

* EDIT: Not exactly, for two reasons. First, we have to overproduce many kinds of goods relative to personal consumption so that we can allocate resources to general administration (expansion, research, etc.) and to free services (medicine, education, etc.) Secondly, if there is a policy of compensating more strenuous work at a higher rate than nominal work, the number of hour credits outstanding would have to be corrected by a coefficient when calculating product prices.
Thank you for this explanation. I'm still skeptical as to how this isn't just a monetary system with some flare or how it won't end up being money with a new name. If everyone is working, then the supply of labor credits will also be constant. What if there was someone who was unable to work for some reason? Would they be left for dead? Wouldn't someone be able to give away their credits if they wanted to or are they non-transferable? If that's the case what about children or the eldery?


A society in which work is unpaid and goods are distributed for free is impossible, because the only people who would ever return from vacation and go back to work would be those whose job is also their hobby, such as musicians and athletes. There would be no one to operate the factories, farms, mines, chemical refineries, steel mills, etc., all activities which, best case, can be someone's hobby for about a week until the novelty wears off.

The contradiction of distributing goods for free is that consumption would increase toward infinity at the same time that productivity approaches zero, which is clearly an unstable situation. The system probably couldn't last for one full day. It would probably occur on the first day that no one shows up to operate the power plants and everyone's electric lights go out, and from there it's all downhill.

We should not suggest to the working class a model of socialism that's impossible, because most people can immediately realize that it's impossible, and we would only be making more conservatives out of the working class.

I have been a firmly convinced Marxist since the 1960s. I assert that socialism is certainly possible, desirable, and necessary. But not just any old conception of socialism. Each proposal has to be checked for reasonableness.
That's not true. There are people who enjoy their jobs who are not musicians and athletes. Perhaps it would lead to the development of technology to do the jobs that no one wanted leaving more free time to everyone. Or it could lead to making undesirable jobs more fun/entertaining/rewarding.

-DesertShark

[Die Neue Zeit]

The basis of money is that it gets its value from the fact that the money supply is nearly constant. Labor time credits or vouchers (probably bits in a computer, rather than paper certificates) than would differ in that each hour unit would comes into existence when someone does an hour of work, and cease to exist when someone redeems it at the store.

Mike, could you please clarify? :(

You say that these labour credits should circulate between individuals (and, unfortunately, facilitate the on-the-side-accumulation of de facto money-capital), but the mere fact that it "ceases to exist" when someone redeems goods at the "store" means that the circulation isn't as widespread as that of $$$, that these credits cease to be "transferrable"/"circulable" when they're redeemed at some "store" (I assume you mean here one that is operated by the "Socialist Industrial Union").



For the other posters on this board, where I disagree with Mike is the question of black-market circulation between individuals (as per Chapter 18 of Das Kapital, Volume II):

In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.

[By "producers," retirees, the disabled, and so on are indeed included.]

[benhur]

Do people here believe labor credit system can replace the monetary system in one country? Or, must it be global for it to succeed? The latter is hard to accomplish, but if the former works, it can be an inspiration for other countries to follow.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The better question, actually, is continental vs. "global," because it really depends on the country. Even the U$ would need Canada and Mexico. Even China would need Japan and India. Even Germany would need France, Italy, Spain, Poland, etc.

[ZeroNowhere]

Do people here believe labor credit system can replace the monetary system in one country? Or, must it be global for it to succeed? The latter is hard to accomplish, but if the former works, it can be an inspiration for other countries to follow.
We'd still need to use money for some stuff (we certainly couldn't let the capitalists control all of it) when capitalism still existed (that is, the revolution was not successful internationally yet), probably, but we could start an economy using it while the revolution wasn't yet international ('dictatorship of the proletariat'), to get ready for socialism (that is, communism).

[benhur]

^^^ The better question, actually, is continental vs. "global," because it really depends on the country. Even the U$ would need Canada and Mexico. Even China would need Japan and India. Even Germany would need France, Italy, Spain, Poland, etc.

Would you explain this a bit more?

[PostAnarchy]

I believe an anti-authoritarian socialist revolution would result in a moneyless society.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There would be no one to operate the factories, farms, mines, chemical refineries, steel mills, etc.

Ever heard of sustenance farming? It's more popular than you seem to realize. Furthermore, make no mistakes, I'm not a primitivist, but maybe we need to radically reprioritize, and ask our selves how important the ongoing operation of mines, chemical refineries, steel mills, etc. are to a post-capitalist society. I think that there are incredibly strong arguments for massively reducing our industrial output while we still have a choice whether or not to do so.
Fear of a society without money, without some universal means of mediating exchange (labour vouchers, or whatever) seems to be pretty common among the first-world leftists who benefit most from the spoils of imperialist pillaging of earth's natural resources, and who are unfamiliar with actually producing anything necessary to survive. I'm not necessarily saying, "I'm right, they're wrong!" but perhaps folk who are enamored with the idea that gift economies are impossible should consider the ways in which this may stem from their privilege.

[Dimentio]

Energy accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=103)

Basically give everyone a certifikate containing a certain amount of energy credits. What you chose to consume, society will produce. The cost in energy will always be equal with your energy credits. No one will gain any profit.

[mikelepore]

Do people here believe labor credit system can replace the monetary system in one country? Or, must it be global for it to succeed? The latter is hard to accomplish, but if the former works, it can be an inspiration for other countries to follow.

I think it requires an absolute minimum size that has at least one of each type of industry, because the outputs of one industry are the inputs of another industry, e.g., an output of a steel mill is an input of a refrigerator factory, etc. The idea assumes that no industry has to buy its resources because all industries are departments of one network. In some cases it could be functional within national boundaries while waiting for the workers of other countries to emancipate themselves from capitalism and merge into the world economic system. There are exceptions, for example, Japan has no deposits of several minerals, so modern technology cannot exist there even for a short time without either trade or worldwide administration.

IMO, the main reason that socialism has to be a world without national boundaries is because socialism means conscious planning, and inheritance of arbitrary geographical boundaries from the past is a form of behavior by default instead of by conscious reason. If it later turns out that planning is facilitated by using regional divisions, I suggest that socialism use the rectangular regions formed by latitude and longitude, so that we do not continue the habitual recognition of meaningless national boundaries.

[mikelepore]

Mike, could you please clarify? :(

You say that these labour credits should circulate between individuals (and, unfortunately, facilitate the on-the-side-accumulation of de facto money-capital), but the mere fact that it "ceases to exist" when someone redeems goods at the "store" means that the circulation isn't as widespread as that of $$$, that these credits cease to be "transferrable"/"circulable" when they're redeemed at some "store" (I assume you mean here one that is operated by the "Socialist Industrial Union").

Yes, the store operated by the industrial organization that includes all socially owned industries.

The units cease to exist when redeemed. However, the credits that you have earned but not yet redeemed, you can give to me if you wish.

************

You asked me a similar question four weeks ago in the thread: theory > economics > economic calculation.

At that time I replied to you:


It's not exactly that I think credits should circulate. I think the people should be able to have whatever system details the majority want, and I feel rather certain that the majority will want credits to circulate, so I believe it will be done, as it should. The first reason: With industry collectively owned, the people will still find themselves bartering with simple services: I'll paint your bedroom if you'll fix my snowblower; I'll give you a basket of garden tomatoes if you'll style my hair. Then people will find it convenient to defer half of the deal until another time: I'll paint your bedroom today, but I'm not prepared for you to do anything for me just now. Therefore they will realize that paying someone for their time is the simplest method. The second reason: I expect a continuation of the tradition of giving people financial gifts for anniversaries, weddings, graduations, while other people choose to give wine glasses, etc. I see nor reason to think that these customs will diminish after socialism is established.

I don't see a connection to Marx's critique, which is about a society in which the essential means of life are under exclusive ownership, and the individual worker is informed that the rule is serve someone or or die. A very different situation.

[benhur]

I think it requires an absolute minimum size that has at least one of each type of industry, because the outputs of one industry are the inputs of another industry, e.g., an output of a steel mill is an input of a refrigerator factory, etc. The idea assumes that no industry has to buy its resources because all industries are departments of one network. In some cases it could be functional within national boundaries while waiting for the workers of other countries to emancipate themselves from capitalism and merge into the world economic system. There are exceptions, for example, Japan has no deposits of several minerals, so modern technology cannot exist there even for a short time without either trade or worldwide administration.

IMO, the main reason that socialism has to be a world without national boundaries is because socialism means conscious planning, and inheritance of arbitrary geographical boundaries from the past is a form of behavior by default instead of by conscious reason. If it later turns out that planning is facilitated by using regional divisions, I suggest that socialism use the rectangular regions formed by latitude and longitude, so that we do not continue the habitual recognition of meaningless national boundaries.

Thanks, Mike, for the detailed explanation.

I understand socialism has to be global, but I was just wondering what a country can do if it becomes socialist, and its neighbors and other countries aren't. Can the country be socialist in the true sense, or must it wait for other countries to become socialist? What must it do until that happens?

It will help if you can start a new topic on this, you seem to be knowledgeable.

[mikelepore]

I'm still skeptical as to how this isn't just a monetary system with some flare or how it won't end up being money with a new name. If everyone is working, then the supply of labor credits will also be constant. What if there was someone who was unable to work for some reason? Would they be left for dead? Wouldn't someone be able to give away their credits if they wanted to or are they non-transferable? If that's the case what about children or the eldery?

Everyone would need a personal account for income and outgo. There's nothing to limit society from having a policy about how many consumption credits to put into to the accounts of people who are retired or handicapped or don't work for other recognized reasons. The only requirement is that the accounting system handle it correctly. This action makes the number of labor hour credits that are issued exceed the actual number of labor hours performed by everyone, and the ratio of these two numbers has to be used to increase product hour-prices by the same factor. Not only this action, but any form of public allocation of resources, whether it's scientific research or building schools or allocating wealth to retirees, all such acts require an adjustment to the nominal statement "if it takes x hours to make this product, you can work x hours and exchange your credit for that product." No, we have to work x hours multiplied by a factor that accounts for all wealth allocated that didn't have a corresponding entry into the material inventory.

As for transferability, see my reply above to Jacob.

[mikelepore]

I understand socialism has to be global, but I was just wondering what a country can do if it becomes socialist, and its neighbors and other countries aren't. Can the country be socialist in the true sense, or must it wait for other countries to become socialist? What must it do until that happens?

Until socialism becomes global, countries would have to trade. For example, Japan is big on electronics, and that requires solder, and solder contains tin, and Japan doesn't have one speck of tin in the ground to use. Industry requires international trade. That's undesirable as a long term condition because it implies the sender and recipient having to negotiate the rates of exchange, and that implies taking advantage of someone else's misfortunes. The more desperately you need something the more you will "agree" to pay for it. Only a global system will stop that.


It will help if you can start a new topic on this, you seem to be knowledgeable.

I'm not too enthusiastic about that. A forum topic scrolls off the screen and disappears too fast on this site. Every few days someone new always asks exactly the same questions that were asked by someone else just two or three days before.

[mikelepore]

Ever heard of sustenance farming? It's more popular than you seem to realize. Furthermore, make no mistakes, I'm not a primitivist, but maybe we need to radically reprioritize, and ask our selves how important the ongoing operation of mines, chemical refineries, steel mills, etc. are to a post-capitalist society. I think that there are incredibly strong arguments for massively reducing our industrial output while we still have a choice whether or not to do so.

Mining, chemicals, etc. - but that's what these electronic devices are made out of, and the new robotic equipment that will make it manual labor unnecessary. I don't expect industrial output to be reduced. It will undergo changes in form. I hope we get rid of private automobiles and have a convenient public transportation system. Society can get rid of advertising, which has no social usefulness whatsoever. Goodbye to military weapons.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Question about the Worker Voucher (digital credit thing) Thats still money isn't it?

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I got another question. I am all for a moneyless society :) I think it would do this world good:) the only reason theirs poverty and such is because of Currency. But I have been asked a question many times. What of the people who are lazy and just dont do anything? is it fair they get as much as those who work? Well.... what? I think its a fairly reasonable question.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Until socialism becomes global, countries would have to trade. For example, Japan is big on electronics, and that requires solder, and solder contains tin, and Japan doesn't have one speck of tin in the ground to use. Industry requires international trade. That's undesirable as a long term condition because it implies the sender and recipient having to negotiate the rates of exchange, and that implies taking advantage of someone else's misfortunes. The more desperately you need something the more you will "agree" to pay for it. Only a global system will stop that.



I'm not too enthusiastic about that. A forum topic scrolls off the screen and disappears too fast on this site. Every few days someone new always asks exactly the same questions that were asked by someone else just two or three days before.

Maybe you can post some of your answers in the RevMarx forum thread "Economics and Politics." ;)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html

[PostAnarchy]

I got another question. I am all for a moneyless society :) I think it would do this world good:) the only reason theirs poverty and such is because of Currency. But I have been asked a question many times. What of the people who are lazy and just dont do anything? is it fair they get as much as those who work? Well.... what? I think its a fairly reasonable question.

I think that most people do want to work and participate in society in some fashion. If given the opportunity to truly partake in their own endeavors and not be forced into doing boring mundane jobs that they do not wish to participate in or have no interest in because of the desire to have to work for a capitalist who wants to make a profit off your labor.

With that said, I also think that there would be incentives for working and that society would not support those who are able but unwilling to work or meaningfully participate in society. However I believe those people will be very few and far between.