Money-free world

[KAZ]

Bugger.

[KAZ]

In the sense of dang, there goes my theme.

[SocialistPunk]

KAZ wrote:

Socialism/ communism is not the same as the moneyless society. You started this discussion with that very admission. The abolition of money is a (probable) product not the aim. The Aim is stated before the D of P (I's so old school).I think the history of the evolution of the money meme in SPGB circles will have to be my subject. I have sent a great file to Mike Foster dealing with this but not sure if he intended anything but a display. Timeline: Off hand, late '60s, but was always tacitly understood.USP: It is not the complications of implementation but the geekiness of the concept of the abolition of money I object to. We put ourselves in the same category as Zeitgeist? Head geeks of Geek City. USPs are a capitalist concept rooted in the bourgeois ideology of marketing, catering to the lowest common denominator, accepting the derogatory notion of the eight second attention span.Socialism is simple but requires a certain amount of mental working out. Robbo might use the word cerebration. We make it over-intellectual at our peril. But over-simplification, the boiling down into a series of "thou shalts" (such as "thou shalt have no money") is far worse and is the cause of all the problems the Partly is currently experiencing.Jack Bradley: Alas not online. I can send you some stuff from the archives or scan it and ask someone to put stuff on the web. Technically it was (Enfield and) Haringey branch rather than individual activity. Surprised you don't know. You bin around yonks.

Hi KAZ,What you seem to be saying is, if we must to discuss this subject, keep it simple but not too simple. Have I got that right?

[rodmanlewis]

Rationing during WWII was caused by the deliberate waste of resources. After the war rationing continued so as to prevent Germany going through the same deprivations after WWI, which led to Hitler and WWII.What shortages are we envisaging? Housing we can do someting about: opening up "second homes" and hotels; converting office premises that have been used for socially useless work can be commandeered for temporary accommodation. Repairs to sub-standard housing can be addressed, with the profit motive gone.We have to reasonably assume that in the early days of socialism people will make do with the basics of life like food, clothing, shelter and medicine, and won't worry about "keeping up with the Joneses"! If people need retraining from producing tat to producing essentials, then that will be done.What we can't foresee is the "mood" of the people prior to the establishment of socialism, or the time factor involved, so we can't say when any or all of the above will start to occur.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 1) The Socialist road to Guilford runs up against the facts that state rules will exist in our way up until we get political power.2) I'm assuming a very rapid rise of the socialist movement, East Germany, or Podemos style, we could get to 30% of the vote fairly rapidly, within 8 years or so from take off.3) I'm discussing dismantling the market, and suggesting that while we do this piecemeal, it's better to just continue using money for those parts of the economy we can't immediately make free, as this is more effective than building the machinery of labour vouchers.  This is part of a fairly rapid transition.

Hi YMSNot  quite sure what 1) is about.  "State rules" may well continue to exist up until the democratic capture of political power but how would this prevent the expansion of non-market  activities/relationships any more than it would or could prevent the expansion of the socialist movement itself? Such activities exist and LETS type arrangements which people seem to go on about  are only a tiny fraction of this divrse non market sector.  The idea behind the Road to Socialism circular  (1986/7?)  to which you allude is that this sector is likely to expand in lockstep with the expansion of the socialist movement itself and that, moreover, it would likely become more and more explicitly influenced by the latter and in turn reciprocally feed into and facilitate the further  growth of this movement – a point that some critics of the circular back then completely overlooked and probably still continue to overlook.  But ever mind! My main criticism, however, is with your 3).  I just cannot see how this could happen.  You talk about continuing to use money for those parts of  the economy we can't immediately make free.  But where is this money going to come from? How are workers to acquire the wherewithal to purchase goods that remain for the time  being in the money economy?.  Are you envisaging the retention of wage labour in the short term much like Lenin did in his outline of "socialism" in which all workers would be employees of the state? As other people have also pointed out , labour vouchers and money are not the the only two conceivable means by which scarce goods can be rationed.  There are other ways of rationing and I have outlined one myself – the compensation model of rationing based on housing quality

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

What shortages are we envisaging?

I'm not really sure because i don't know how things stand – on a world scale.Once more i think we are being a bit parochial in the debate. We face a planet where there is a shortage of things – albeit an artificial one. We'll have an immediate task of re-distibution which may mean re-directing what we have to those in more need. Pieter Lawrence when addressing the issue argued that before we reached a steady state economy of zero-growth, there will be a period of very active growth to address the problems of poverty and lack of resources across of the globe. "First, there would have to be urgent action to relieve the worst problems of food shortages, health-care and housing which affect billions of people throughout the world.Secondly, longer term action to construct means of production and infrastructures such as transport systems for the supply of permanent housing and durable consumption goods. These could be designed in line with conservation principles, which means they would be made to last for a long time, using materials that, where possible, could be re-cycled and would require minimum maintenance.Thirdly, with these objectives achieved there could be an eventual fall in production, and society could move into a stable mode. This would achieve a rhythm of daily production in line with daily needs with no significant growth. On this basis, the world community could live in material well-being whilst looking after the planet."For sure there are many interim ad-hoc improvisations that can be made to mitigate some shortage problems. For sure, there may be various degrees of gradual substitution and repllacement on  unsustainable climate changing technology. But perhaps socialism will arrive when we have no such luxury as time and dramatic change would be called for.  The last comment is the most pertinent – the psychological one – would a people who had strived and struggled for socialism so determinedly and doggedly sabotage it by imposing individualistic/sectional  demands upon the social system. I think not.    

[Socialist Party Head Office]

In answer to Socialistpunk (if he is not being totally sarcastic) – yes. In relation to money not simply "thou shalt have no money" (which leads to the sort of fruitless and embarassing bureaucratic speculations in this thread) but (if necessary and when prompted) "when the workers as a class control the means of production there will be no need of money – you do not need to buy what you already own". A product, not an aim. A question: As some of the main thinkers and writers in the Partly, do you honestly feel happy with all of the things which have been written here?

[Socialist Party Head Office]

Sorry the above should have been from KAZ

[robbo203]

I do not understand this strange reluctance to speculate, to write recipes for the cook-shops of the future as Marx put it.  People who object to this kind of exercise misunderstand its purpose. It is  NOT to arrive at some collective formalised position on the nitty gritty of what a future socialist society would entail. We are not futurists in that sense and of course it is up to the people at the time to determine the details of the society they have brought into being. But that is not the point of the exercise.  I think it was Pieter Lawrence who said that if we don't engage in this kind of exercise, we cede the future  to those who simply seek to retain the status quo.  If we don't put flesh on the bones of the idea of what kind of society we hope to bring into being we end up with a lifeless skeleton, an empty and hollowed out shell of vapid dogmas and insipid generalities,  What we  should be doing instead is to constantly relate the present to future possibilities, to critically and creatively engage with current developments in a way that highlights the huge relevance of our socialist goal to the society we live in in the here and now.. I suspect part of the problem has to do with the very nature of a party organisation. The temptation is always to arrive at some  kind of collective offically endorsed position which because it goes through a process of formalised and being voted upon, inevitably  conveys the impression that what has been decided has  been set in concrete for all time.  Understandably enough,  people reject this not wishing to be hemmed or constrained by a viewpoint that may prove hopelessly outdated in a few years time let alone by the time we are ready to implement a socialist society.  Technological developments in the field of telecommunications, for example, could radically impact on the way we could go about making decisions and thus profoundly influence the particular detailed blueprint for a socialist society that we carry in our heads But be aware of the huge risks of throwing out the baby with the bath water,  There needs to be some compromise between the strictures of party bureaucratism  and the essential creativity of  speculating even where this runs the risk of being proven unfounded or outmoded. Unless you stimulate people's creative juices and excite their imagination about a socialist alternative you are just not going to get enough of them to rally around the cause of making that alternative a reality.  It is not for no reason that the stock response of the newcomer to socialism is …"its a nice idea but…"   

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I do not understand this strange reluctance to speculate,

Once more, Robbo, i have to exclude myself from your criticism. 

Quote:

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

 And in another post

Quote:

I think we can imagine various scenarios and speculations that do not demand we are shoe-horned into fixed pre-determined futures.

And my emphasised passage echoes your own caveat

Quote:

It is  NOT to arrive at some collective formalised position on the nitty gritty of what a future socialist society would entail.

KAZ compares us with the geeks of Zeitgeist who seem to be tackling the problem of translating the technical and productive potential into future possibilitiess. To be honest, even though Zeitgeist is little known, i would put money on it that globally they are better known than we in the WSM. So do i dare say it – they are doing something we aren't. If cook-books aren't to be endorsed, why were so many on the forum interested in the News From Nowhere radio-play…why bother with it. Perhaps because it did serve some constructive purpose and also showed that one criticism that blueprints often made that they are easily redundant by time —- but that they can also be updated and modernised to fit new times. Which reminds me of rationing since somebody said no mention of mobiles in the News From Nowhere adaption – won't cell phone be in temporary short supply as we humanise the conditions in the Congo where coltan is mined?

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

Not  quite sure what 1) is about.  "State rules" may well continue to exist up until the democratic capture of political power but how would this prevent the expansion of non-market  activities/relationships any more than it would or could prevent the expansion of the socialist movement itself? Such activities exist and LETS type arrangements which people seem to go on about  are only a tiny fraction of this divrse non market sector.  The idea behind the Road to Socialism circular  (1986/7?)  to which you allude is that this sector is likely to expand in lockstep with the expansion of the socialist movement itself and that, moreover, it would likely become more and more explicitly influenced by the latter and in turn reciprocally feed into and facilitate the further  growth of this movement – a point that some critics of the circular back then completely overlooked and probably still continue to overlook.  But ever mind!

Landlords can still evict, fiduciary duty will still dominate directors of firms, pension firms will be regulated by the government, LETS would still be taxed in pounds, steel firms would still be run by the market sector, not and non-market sector.  Yes, we'd have all the free wicker baskets we could ever want from the non-market sector, but the farmers wouldn't be giving over their food for nowt.

robbo203 wrote:

My main criticism, however, is with your 3).  I just cannot see how this could happen.  You talk about continuing to use money for those parts of  the economy we can't immediately make free.  But where is this money going to come from? How are workers to acquire the wherewithal to purchase goods that remain for the time  being in the money economy?.  Are you envisaging the retention of wage labour in the short term much like Lenin did in his outline of "socialism" in which all workers would be employees of the state?

Savings, UBI, dole, lottery, although profit sharing is more likely.  As  also said, this is very much a transitional measure as we cut down on the market parts of the economy, we'd leave people free to trade.

robbo203 wrote:

As other people have also pointed out , labour vouchers and money are not the the only two conceivable means by which scarce goods can be rationed.  There are other ways of rationing and I have outlined one myself – the compensation model of rationing based on housing quality

That woiuld require a hideous bureaucracy.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Savings, UBI, dole, lottery, although profit sharing is more likely.  As  also said, this is very much a transitional measure as we cut down on the market parts of the economy, we'd leave people free to trade

 Sorry but I still don't get this.So the socialist movement captures political power through the ballot box,  The means of production are formally brought into common ownership, Yet you are still envisaging a role for profit sharing as a transitional measure..  How is that possible  on the basis of common ownership?  In fact, how can the "market parts if the economy" even exist if the means of production are owned in common.  This doesn't make sense YMS – unless what you are suggesting is that instead of declaring capitalism abolished the socialist movement would give rise to  a socialist government to oversee the gradual demise of capitalism and its market and to administer the various measures  you mention,  In which case how can we be sure that this government will carry out its pledge to "cut down on the market parts of the economy",  Whats to say it wont do a U turn and bring back privatisation, say?.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

That would require a hideous bureaucracy.

 No I don't think so .  In fact the bureaucracy involved would be rather less than which is required to administer council tax under capitalism.  Council tax involves the banding of properties into 7 or 8 different bands according to their calculated capital value. Of course "capital value" will not be the operative criterion in a socialist society but there is a checklist of physical  criteria which can be applied to enable assessors to place any property within one of several bands.  My suggestion is that a rationing system for non free access goods be organised  around this banding system,   Remember that an assessment of housing stock is something that would have to be carried out anyway whether or not you link this with a rationing system I think if anything is gonna require a hideous bureaucracy it is the very measures you propose such as a UBI or profit sharing

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry but I still don't get this.So the socialist movement captures political power through the ballot box,  The means of production are formally brought into common ownership, Yet you are still envisaging a role for profit sharing as a transitional measure..  How is that possible  on the basis of common ownership?

Because we can do what we want with out common property.  Like a family Monopoly set.

[ALB]

According to a short repoer on this in today's Times

Quote:

Critics branded it a "Marxist dream" that would cost the country about £17 billion a year.

The things they say.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry but I still don't get this.So the socialist movement captures political power through the ballot box,  The means of production are formally brought into common ownership, Yet you are still envisaging a role for profit sharing as a transitional measure..  How is that possible  on the basis of common ownership?

Because we can do what we want with out common property.  Like a family Monopoly set.

 Why?  What would be the point of having "profit sharing" if it doesnt meaning anything and, indeed,  couldnt mean anything if you actually had common ownership of the means of production. Its like saying we could have  private property in the means of production because in socialism where these means were commonly owned we could "do what we want with them".  Except if you actually did have private property as opposed to pretending to have provate property you would no longer have common property.  You would have reverted back to capitalism….

[Author]

Posts