Thomas More and Abolition of Money
- This topic has 19 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In an article in today's Times on the Green Party's proposal for a "citizens income" , Philip Collins, their chief leader writer (and Blair's former speechwriter) claims:
Quote:It was Thomas More, in his Utopia of 1516, who first suggested the idea of a basic income, paid as a right of citizenship to all.I always thought that on the island of Utopia money was completely abolished so that any idea of people being "paid" a monetary "income" wouldn't make sense.
On checking I see that right at the end More's traveller says:
Quote:the use as well as the desire of money being extinguished, much anxiety and great occasions of mischief is cut
off with it, and who does not see that the frauds, thefts, robberies, quarrels, tumults, contentions, seditions, murders,
treacheries, and witchcrafts, which are, indeed, rather punished than restrained by the seventies of law, would all fall off, if money were not any more valued by the world? Men's fears, solicitudes, cares, labours, and watchings would all perish in the same moment with the value of money; even poverty itself, for the relief of which money seems most necessary, would fall. But, in order to the apprehending this aright, take one instance:-"Consider any year, that has been so unfruitful that many thousands have died of hunger; and yet if, at the end of that year, a survey was made of the granaries of all the rich men that have hoarded up the corn, it would be found that there was enough among them to have prevented all that consumption of men that perished in misery; and that, if it had been distributed among them, none would have felt the terrible effects of that scarcity: so easy a thing would it be to supply all the necessities of life, if that blessed thing called money, which is pretended to be invented for procuring them was not really the only thing that obstructed their being procured!
It is for this, not for proposing any pathetic scheme for a basic income, that More has been held in high regard by socialists.
Earlier the traveller had described the use the people of Utopia put gold and silver to:
Quote:They eat and drink out of vessels of earth or glass, which make an agreeable appearance, though formed of brittle materials; while they make their chamber-pots and close-stools of gold and silver, and that not only in their public halls but in their private houses.This, no doubt, is from where Lenin got his idea that in socialism public urinals would be made of gold (not that the Bolsheviks could or did do this, but then they weren't establishing socialism only state capitalism).
Yay! Go Tom! Great point!
Great!
atheists are despised (but allowed) in Utopia, as they are seen as representing a danger to the state: since they do not believe in any punishment or reward after this life, they have no reason to share the communistic life of Utopia, and will break the laws for their own gain. They are not banished, but are encouraged to talk out their erroneous beliefs with the priests until they are convinced of their error. Raphael says that through his teachings Christianity was beginning to take hold in Utopia. The toleration of all other religious ideas is enshrined in a universal prayer all the Utopians recite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(book)
Karl KautskyThomas More and his Utopia(1888) PART ITHE AGE OF HUMANISM AND OF THE REFORMATIONIntroductionChapter I. THE RISE OF CAPITALISM AND OF THE MODERN STATE1. Feudalism2. The Towns3. World Trade and AbsolutismChapter II. LANDED PROPERTY1. Land Hunger – Feudal and Capitalist2. The Proletariat3. Serfdom and Commodity Production4. The Economic Redundancy of the New Nobility5. The KnighthoodChapter III. THE CHURCH1. The Church in the Middle Ages – its Necessity and Power2. The Basis of the Papacy's Power3. The Overthrow of the Papal PowerChapter IV. HUMANISM1. Paganism and Catholicism2. Paganism and Protestantism3. Scepticism and SuperstitionPART IITHOMAS MOREChapter I. THOMAS MORE’S BIOGRAPHERS1. Roper and Others2. Erasmus of RotterdamChapter II. MORE AS HUMANIST1. More’s Youth2. More as Humanist Writer3. More on Education and the Position of Women4. More’s Relation to Art and ScienceChapter III. MORE AND CATHOLICISM1. More’s Religiosity2. More an Opponent of Clericalism3. Mores Religious ToleranceChapter IV. MORE AS POLITICIAN1. The Political Condition of England at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century2. More as Monarchist and Opponent of Tyranny3. More as Representative of the London Merchants4. The Political Criticism of Utopia5. More Enters the King’s Service6. More’s Contest with Lutheranism7. More in Conflict with the Monarchy8. More’s DownfallPART IIIUTOPIAChapter I. MORE AS ECONOMIST AND SOCIALIST1. The Roots of More’s Socialism2. The Economic Criticism of Utopia3. The Economic Tendencies of the Reformation in EnglandChapter II. THE MODE OF PRODUCTION OF THE UTOPIANS1. Exposition2. CriticismChapter III. THE FAMILIES OF THE UTOPIANS1. Description2. CriticismChapter IV. POLITICS, SCIENCE, AND RELIGION IN UTOPIA1. Politics2. Science3. ReligionChapter V. THE AIM OF UTOPIAThomas More and His Utopia https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1888/more/index.htm
Dave B wrote:atheists are despised (but allowed) in Utopia, as they are seen as representing a danger to the state: since they do not believe in any punishment or reward after this life, they have no reason to share the communistic life of Utopia, and will break the laws for their own gain. They are not banished, but are encouraged to talk out their erroneous beliefs with the priests until they are convinced of their error. Raphael says that through his teachings Christianity was beginning to take hold in Utopia. The toleration of all other religious ideas is enshrined in a universal prayer all the Utopians recite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(book)Yes, well, More was a Catholic, you know. But this does not call into question his views on money.
By the way, I view religion as far less of an obstacle to socialism than patriotism. As Kautsky points out, More`s and Erasmus` opposition to the break-up of medieval christendom via the emergence of national states was precisely what humanism meant; not its distortions today. Nationalism (patriotism) is by far a greater obstacle to the spread of socialist awareness today than religion can be – excluding fundamentalist fanaticism – and it`s hard to see socialism ever gaining ground among the modern proletariat precisely because of proletarian patriotism!
ALB wrote:In an article in today's Times on the Green Party's proposal for a "citizens income" , Philip Collins, their chief leader writer (and Blair's former speechwriter) claims:Quote:It was Thomas More, in his Utopia of 1516, who first suggested the idea of a basic income, paid as a right of citizenship to all.I always thought that on the island of Utopia money was completely abolished so that any idea of people being "paid" a monetary "income" wouldn't make sense.On checking I see that right at the end More's traveller says:
Quote:the use as well as the desire of money being extinguished, much anxiety and great occasions of mischief is cutoff with it, and who does not see that the frauds, thefts, robberies, quarrels, tumults, contentions, seditions, murders,treacheries, and witchcrafts, which are, indeed, rather punished than restrained by the seventies of law, would all fall off, if money were not any more valued by the world? Men's fears, solicitudes, cares, labours, and watchings would all perish in the same moment with the value of money; even poverty itself, for the relief of which money seems most necessary, would fall. But, in order to the apprehending this aright, take one instance:-"Consider any year, that has been so unfruitful that many thousands have died of hunger; and yet if, at the end of that year, a survey was made of the granaries of all the rich men that have hoarded up the corn, it would be found that there was enough among them to have prevented all that consumption of men that perished in misery; and that, if it had been distributed among them, none would have felt the terrible effects of that scarcity: so easy a thing would it be to supply all the necessities of life, if that blessed thing called money, which is pretended to be invented for procuring them was not really the only thing that obstructed their being procured!It is for this, not for proposing any pathetic scheme for a basic income, that More has been held in high regard by socialists.Earlier the traveller had described the use the people of Utopia put gold and silver to:
Quote:They eat and drink out of vessels of earth or glass, which make an agreeable appearance, though formed of brittle materials; while they make their chamber-pots and close-stools of gold and silver, and that not only in their public halls but in their private houses.This, no doubt, is from where Lenin got his idea that in socialism public urinals would be made of gold (not that the Bolsheviks could or did do this, but then they weren't establishing socialism only state capitalism).
ALBAny idea as to where in More's "Utopia", Phil Collins gets his idea of a basic income for every citizen?
SocialistPunk wrote:Any idea as to where in More's "Utopia", Phil Collins gets his idea of a basic income for every citizen?No idea. Throughout the second part of Utopia, where the traveller describes how things are organised on the island, it is quite clear that it is a society without money (except for external trade). People produce for use not for sale and don't have to pay for what they need to live. They either have free access to it or are supplied with it free. There is no question of them being supplied with money to buy what they need. As Kautsky puts in in his book Dave B mentions, "They themselves have no money" and.
Quote:We have seen that the Senate of the Utopians consists of delegates from the various communities; it is this representative body of the nation which organises production, estimates the needs which it is to supply, and divides the labour produce according to the results of these statistics. the local communities are not commodity producers, exchanging their products for those of other cimmunities. Each one produces for the whole nation. The nation, not the local community, is also the owner of the means of production: above all the land.I can't see how any other interpretation is possible. Read Book II and judge for yourself. Book I is also an interesting criticism of economic conditions in England at the time (when people were being driven off the land to make way for sheep farming to produce wool for export):http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/more/utopia-contents.htmlI've emailed both Collins and the editor. When/if they reply I let people know.
Coincidental David Harvey
Quote:Q. So let utopian visions run riot. You're one who talks about utopian desires and how we need to express them. Express them!A. Well, I think one of them is abolish the exchange-value structures. And, of course, the exchange-value also rests on something called money. And money is a great corrupter, as we know, of our desires and our needs. We spend a lot of time worrying about money, desiring money, wanting money, and then you think to yourself, "This is stupid." You know, this is not a good life to become fetishistically focused on how much of this money . . . I mean this is crazy. Thomas More suggested a moneyless economy. And he then said, in a moneyless economy you would sleep very well at night. And I don't sleep very well at night, so I'm looking forward to a moneyless economy where we can all sleep very well at night.And then as the song goes…he goes and spoil it by saying
Quote:Is there a way where we on the left can construct an alternative monetary system, which is actually much more democratic and much more socially constructed?The full interview can be found here:http://truth-out.org/news/item/28879-looking-toward-a-moneyless-economy-and-sleeping-well-at-nightThe title of the interview ("Looking Toward a Moneyless Economy … ) itself is indicative of how the idea has spread but, as you say, he spoils it by what follows. We've discussed here before his "funny money" proposal (that what is needed is an "oxidisable" money, by which he means money that cannot be accumulated but can only circulate). There's also a criticism of his views on this (and other matters) by the London Wine & Cheese Appreciation Society here:http://truth-out.org/news/item/28879-looking-toward-a-moneyless-economy-and-sleeping-well-at-nightThe give a source for his funny money theory (which he hints at at the end of the interview):
Quote:But if you had a money form that dissolved, that is oxidisable, we would end up with a very different kind of society. You would have a money form that would aid circulation but that would not facilitate accumulation.David Harvey on Platypus panel Radical Interpretations of the Present Crisis (1'55"19), 14 November 2012Still, just be raising the possibility of a moneyless society he is lending credibility to the idea.
On ‘SPGB moneyless socialism’ there has been a radical shift on Revleft over the last couple of years, for which Robbo and a few others have played no small part I think. Eg, and it is an “eg” there have been many of these; Join Date: Nov 2013Location: BritainPosts: 61Tendency: Marxist-Leninists 31stJan 2015January 2015, 08:48t January 2015, 08:48 I've been recently describing socialism (by which I mean the SPGB type) as a society where everything is free and all work voluntary. Organisation: sympatiser, ICL-FIPosts: 3,135Tendency: Orthodox Trotskyism There is no "SPGB type of socialism"; for most of us, socialism is defined by the socialisation of the means of production, the abolition of money and the market, voluntary labour, conscious planning of production, and statelessness. And to be fair, I don't think the SPGB claims their conception of socialism is in any way unique. http://www.revleft.com/vb/work-voluntary-t192171/index.html Also the post 1918 bolshevik state capitalism and Lenin’s pre 1917 stageist debates are also dead; as are the Stalinists. how do you put stuff in quote boxes????????
I think by the way that that book on Thomas More’s Utopia was in its own right an interesting early Kautsky ‘tour de force’ on theoretical Marxism and almost worth a read just for that. After 1888 and by 1924 Kautksy seems to have put aside the ‘Leninite interpretation’ of the “…….other form of Socialism without money ………. what Marx described as the second phase of communism: each to produce of his own accord as much as he can, the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs. For this purpose money would not be needed.” Eg “If the institutions of price and money continue to exist under a socialist mode of production, and if socialist prices are grafted on to the historical form of price, it would also be necessary to adhere to the historical form of money, and to retain gold as the money commodity. Actual gold need not be used. As measure of value, only an imaginary gold is necessary, or rather the value of gold. In order to calculate how many gold marks will constitute the price of a pair of boots, no gold mark need be in actual existence. As a means of circulation, money can of course only serve when it is actually on the spot. But even here, the natural form of gold coins may be dispensed with to a large extent, and replaced by paper promises to pay.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm Kautsky’s reference to the ‘Leninite interpretation’ may have been related to; V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New "Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale." But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm I have always thought that Kautsky’s criticism of Lenin’s self confessed Bolshevik state capitalism was somewhat muted and restrained because in theoretical effect (aside from stagiest backward country and democracy etc) it was economically too close to Kautsky’s own post 1920 model of ‘state socialism’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.