Money-free world
- This topic has 84 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Do we have the withering away of money, in the same way as we have the withering away of the State?
We technically do not stand for the abolition of money but for the abolition of private property and the exchange economy and the role of money disappears as a function – it becomes redundant – not abolished
Should we add caveats that for many goods we will not wake up on the first morning of socialism and find everything free? That circumstances and situations will determine free access and how wide-ranging it will be.
Should we acknowledge that other socialists may well be right that some form of labour time vouchers may be used in the interim as production for use is transforming how we work and distribute?
Or is our best bet is to present socialism in our propaganda in its fullest ideal state and leave the details of actual implementation to the generation that has that task? In other words, don't complicate our message and keep it simple.
Well, it's to abolish the need for money, so I imagine that money might linger for a short while (and money does the job of money better than labour time vouchers do). But, lets say we come to power, and at a stroke abolish rent and mortgage payments, and fairly quickly get housing for free. Supermarkets might make produce free (up to a certain value) on production of a union card, say, and continue to operate their accounts with suppliers, as a parrallel system uintil we get a co-operative system going. We cease to collect taxes, and lay-off the civil servants. Money is then only needed for some trinkets and marginal goods. We could fairly quickly move money to the edge of the economy.
I seem to remember reading that Makhno abolished money and wages in the Free Territory in the Ukraine, but that the workers (loosely called, as they had freed themselves from employment!) insisted on being paid wages even though everything was free! It had, even at that stage, become a fetish with them, even though unnecessary. So Makhno printed toy money, so that people could imagine they were receiving wages!
With the fluidity of the situation there i'm not surprised that they wanted cash-in-hand. People aren't stupid thinking that Makhno and his Insurgent Army would be a permanent feature. I certainly wouldn't have wanted "toy" money but what was the most popular money…Austro-Hingarian marks/shillings, what the Ukrainian Nationalist used and of course the Red Army roubles but best of all, goooooold money.
Why assume money will start withering away after the capture of political power? Would it not make a lot more sense to talk of that happening before the capture of political power? The praxis of a growing socialist moment will surely translate into an increasing tendency to transcend the cash nexus in all sorts of ways. I cannot really see how a money system could linger on after this democratic capture of political power; its very continuation raises all sorts of thorny theoretical questions such as how do we acquire the wherewithal – money – to purchase goods in a market (which would also surely continues if money continues – by definition) Would we continue to work for wages and be employed by the state as Lenin envisaged in his conception of "socialism". I cant see this at all. That said, there might well be a need for some form of rationing post revolution. True, money is a form of rationing but the very nature of money and what it implies, in my view rules it out completely as a candidate in this case. Labour time vouchers is another candidate but there are huge problems with this too. My preference would be for a "compensation" model of rationing based on the assessed quality of housing stock. This would be much simpler to administer and it would help to address the potentially tricky problem arising from huge differences in the quality of housing stock inherited from capitalism by giving those compelled in the short term to continue living in poor quality housing, priority access to rationed goods as opposed to free access goods.
Depends what you mean by "money". We always said that in the early days of socialism there might not be able to be full free access to everything. In which case there would have to be some sort of "rationing" of the goods and services in short supply. Personally, I'd have thought coupons for those goods and services only would be best way to deal with this. Certainly not "labour-time vouchers". But if these are not regarded as "money" then nor would any other all-purpose circulating vouchers be that could be used to acquire anything. An option, I suppose, but only slightly not as bad as labour-time vouchers and not really "money" (though we wouldn't be able to stop people calling it that. After all some, eg the pre-war Dutch Council Communists, call "labour-time vouchers" "labour-money".)
ALB wrote:Depends what you mean by "money". We always said that in the early days of socialism there might not be able to be full free access to everything. In which case there would have to be some sort of "rationing" of the goods and services in short supply. Personally, I'd have thought coupons for those goods and services only would be best way to deal with this. Certainly not "labour-time vouchers". But if these are not regarded as "money" then nor would any other all-purpose circulating vouchers be that could be used to acquire anything. An option, I suppose, but only slightly not as bad as labour-time vouchers and not really "money" (though we wouldn't be able to stop people calling it that. After all some, eg the pre-war Dutch Council Communists, call "labour-time vouchers" "labour-money".)I would broadly go along with this. The only point of contention might be on what basis might such coupons be distributed to the populace. As I see it, such distribution perhaps ought to be effected in a way that takes into accout the spatial inequalities which we will inherit from capitalism – above all, in respect of housing since housing constitutes easily the most important component of quality of life and so can serve as a proxy indicator of the latter The huge differences in the quality of housing which will continue to exist for sometime in a socialist society will constitute an open sore that could cause considerable resentment which needs to be addressed. Thats why I would link link it with the question of rationing in the guise of a "compensation model of rationing". It is a symbolic gesture on the part of society that acknowledges the basic unfairness of the situation and seeks to defuse discontent by giving those forced to live in poor quality housing for the time, priority access to rationed goods. There are ways of classifying housing stock into different bands according to various criteria. We would need to do this anyway in process of upgrading housing stock in general. Coupons could be allocated to housing units according to which particular band a housing unit falls under…..
Well, we have the example of WWII rationing (with the possible option that the rations in the books may be sufficiently generous, after a short while) that the system may not be too much of an imposition: I would go with that before labour time vouchers, as a deliberate attempt to break the link between labour and reward.
My apologies, Robbo. I was originally going to mention your point in my post, knowing your views on LETS etc but since i'm often accused of lacking brevity i deliberately did not mention your approach. I wanted to raise the question of the early days of socialism…and for the want of a better word since transitional carries too much of baggage …a hybrid system …socialism emerging from capitalism. The question of how long it lasts and to what extent is generally over-looked, especially if we consider the need for a world-wide approach in our priorities …eg as i am oft to mention, perhaps a reduction in what is known as cash-crops of un-essentials …coffee tea …so that developing regions can turn arable land to producing local food as well as improve working conditions in agriculture.Yes, i think the stronger we become, more we shall be implementing socialist ideas…not just in distribution of goods via voluntary associations but in leader-free organisations being created or rather existing structures being transformed etc, and for all their weaknesses, co-ops and for totally different reasons than tody's use – food-banks – to give away the produce and harvests of increasing allotments and city farms too etc.YMS, "Money Must Go' written by the Philoren duo was published shortly after the war when ration books were still in existence and i think they try to use it is an example of rational rationing.And of course these days it will not be ration books but swipe-cards already used for food-stamps (US) and refugees (UK)…which have the advantage of being able to easily update and amend as seen fit…for instance a boom harvest of tomatoes…or a failed crop of peaches…and of course simply collating and collecting data of demand. [Why not reprint it as a publish on demand book to add to our literature choice….a short new intro/preface and perhaps an appendix indicating where new technology can be applied is all that is needed. JonDWhite seems to be the only one who makes active use of this very simple way of producing books. The Party should increase its use of it.]
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1342-june-2016/cooking-books-mises-irrelevantEntirelky relevant article in this month's Standard:
Quote:‘Obviously there will be no such thing as finance, and whole sections of economic activity will no longer exist because they are completely wasteful and unnecessary. There will be no arms production, no advertising and, of course, no City of London – you can go through the different wasteful forms that will cease to exist. It is quite clear that the standard of living could very quickly be raised if such waste is removed.’So, once this waste is ‘very quickly’ removed, we would already have a situation of relative abundance and so should be able to move equally quickly to socialism and free access to available goods and services.Like I say, it's more likely that legacy prices would be a better guide for the transition (and, gasp, maybe something like UBI, hand out fiat currency to everyone to buy with, have markets based on goods' prices on R-day, and fairly rapidly take key goods out of the market all-together).
R-day (being revolution day?).
Quote:.hand out fiat currency to everyone to buy with, have markets based on goods' prices on R-day,I'm not sure of the impact of this perhaps being a World Revolution day might permit the unscrupulous to make a profit in that the R-day prices in the UK might be a lot more than the R-day prices here in Thailand …so would i quickly buy up goods here and send back in the UK to trade on the black-market?…And i think it was Brian Gardner who pointed out to Parecon, that organised crime is an enormous industry in itself, so perhaps my individual self seizing of an opportunity will be dwarved by container ships of goods being transferred to UK from places where the fiat price is a lot lower. We are a world market not just a domestic one…just a niggly thought at the back of my head,….
Am I the only one slightly alarmed by the tone of some of these comments? Revolution Day? Coming to power? Why not quote the Money Abolition Clause of the Socialism Enabling Act? Frankly, the precise method of distribution can only be worked out at the time, in the light of real life experiences, which will take place during the revolutionary process.
I was raising questions that may affect the style of our message, Kaz. I think it is a valid question.It relates to my oft-repeated suggestion that we could benefit from a propensity to be more descriptive in our projections. Who want to buy a pig in a poke…To paraphrase Andrew Neil …we are what we say we are on the tin…but shouldn't we also add ingredients to the name I remind you of one of my options in my original post that perhaps reflects your own concerns.
Quote:Or is our best bet is to present socialism in our propaganda in its fullest ideal state and leave the details of actual implementation to the generation that has that task? In other words, don't complicate our message and keep it simple.Actually, Von Mises himself in his Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth conceded that socialist society could survive "for a time" using the calculations (of what resources to use to produce things) inherited from capitalism. This from section 2:
Quote:For a time the remembrance of the experiences gained in a competitive economy, which has obtained for some thousands of years, may provide a check to the complete collapse of the art of economy. The older methods of procedure might be retained not because of their rationality but because they appear to be hallowed by tradition.He thought that if this continued for any longer period it would lead to economic chaos and the collapse of socialism. Maybe but we're only talking about a relatively short period at the very beginning of socialism. "For a time" would suffice until socialist society applies better ways (which we can assume will already have been worked out) of organising the production and distribution of goods and services that don't reflect what happened in the days when monetary calculation prevailed.
KAZ wrote:Am I the only one slightly alarmed by the tone of some of these comments? Revolution Day? Coming to power? Why not quote the Money Abolition Clause of the Socialism Enabling Act? Frankly, the precise method of distribution can only be worked out at the time, in the light of real life experiences, which will take place during the revolutionary process.Well, we are committed to acheiving political power, as a socialist movement, and we won't be able to effect some of these changes until the political machinery of the state is in our hands, and converted from an instrument of oppression into THE agent of emancipation.The main point is that we don't need some overraching bureaucracy and nationalisation to take control of the economy as a revolutionary class, we can simply let the market continue to operate while we turn over significant sectors of the economy to social use.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.