Life Without Money : Wed 30 May

[love detective]

Why would you (or anyone else) want to behave in this sort of way? Why, in conditions where you would know that the stores would always be stocked with what you need, would anyone want to take any more than they needed? Surely you don't think that humans are "naturally" greedy, do you?

there's no way given the raft of energy, resource & environmental issues that the world faces today that any kind of society is going to have the means to create an abundance of every imaginable good so that 9 billion people will be fully satisfied in the entirety - so like it or not the 'stores' are never going to be always stocked with what you need (unless of course what you need is determined independently of you)

you've also got a somewhat idealised/utopian and overly determined notion of how consciousness is formed - to think that there will be no greedy people in this utopian society we're discussing is somewhat crude and overly deterministic. Today we live in one of the most greedy, neo-liberalised societies the world has ever seen and yet there are plenty of people who have characteristics that are the complete opposite of the society that produced them - there's nothing to suggest the same thing would not be the case in any other type of society.

In other words, in established and permanent conditions of open access to what they need people take only what they need.

yes, primitive accumulation and accumulation by dispossession never happened, we still have the commons, imagine thinking someone might try and take more than their fair share - you'll be telling me there won't be any racism or sexism or murder or crime in this great new society either next

This wouldn't be as bad as what happens now but I still don't like the sound of it (except perhaps if some temporary shortage occurs as through some natural disaster) as who is going to decide what an individual needs? In any event, you now seem to be envisaging "money like tokens" not just for "secondary markets" but for basic needs too.

This is where you keep missing the point - in a world that cannot produce an abundance, whether this idealised society uses money or not, there is going to have to be some restriction on access to what is produced - this is to ensure that the system itself continues to do what its objectives are. So this question of who gets to decide what an individual needs, is not connected to or relevant to the question of whether money like tokens or a direct allocation from the store is used. As that decision as to what an individual needs (or gets) would need to be made regardless - as it relates to something much deeper

Of course if you're just saying that there will be magically 9 billion fillet steaks produced every week and so on and there will be no problems with energy etc, then yes everything would be great and we could all get what we want and not have to worry about anything, but that's never going to be the case, it probably never was the case in the 19th century and its certainly not the case now

 

[phildwyer]

Access to use values would of course be on a basis of need not money, however this process would still need to be managed/controlled to make sure that the primary purpose of that society was fulfilled and sustained (i.e. ensuring people get what they need). One way of doing this is that people just get a direct allocation of use values, appropriate to their need, from some central distribution centre. Another way is that they get regularly issued with some kind of money like tokens, appropriate to their need, which they can then use to pick up what they need from chains of decentralised distribution centres (shops) at their own convenience. Either way there would still involve some kind of system to restrict access to what has been produced. And 'money like tokens' would still be used (in an ideal sense) even if people got a direct allocation of output, as their allocation would represent 'money like tokens' which would represent their total 'need' that they can then use to draw down their share of what they need.

God preserve us from the day this loon and his totalitarian fantasies have anything to do with determining what we need.

 

[SpineyNorman]

How's it any more "totalitarian" than capitalism? Most of us have little choice in what we consume anyway, don't really have much real choice - Tesco value vs Aldi - doesn't really matter cos it's basically the same stuff. And in the above system at least we'd be guaranteed a minimum amount. And on the one with central organisation of distribution - it's perfectly reasonable to say that the way this is done, what is distributed and at what quantities - in other words what constituted need - could be decided democratically and with scope for individual choice between different use values depending on taste.

The second one, with money like tokens, sounds far, far less totalitarian than capitalism to me, even without direct democratic control.

Or is this just a continuation of a grudge against ld?

 

[Jean-Luc]

Not really: usury was practiced on a whole new scale in Renaissance Europe, compared to Medieval.

That's what I said.

In the Middle Ages the dogma of the Catholic Church banned usury, defined as charging money for a loan. But not quite. Here's how RH Tawney put it in his classic Religion and the Rise of Capitalism:

No man, again, may charge money for a loan. He may, of course, take the profits of partnership, provided that he takes the partner’s risks. He may buy a rent-charge; for the fruits of the earth are produced by nature, not wrung from men. He may demand compensation - interesse - if he is not repaid the principal at the time stipulated. He may ask payments corresponding to any loss he incurs or forgoes. He may purchase an annuity, for the payment is contingent and speculative, not certain.

So, what was banned was only the certainty of being paid a pre-fixed sum of money for the loan. As Tawney pointed out, the very word “interest” derives from one of the ways of getting round the ban on usury.

Islamic theologians have proved to be just as a subtle as their end-of-Middle Ages Catholic and Protestant counterparts. Islam, too, allows partnerships as well as a number of other arrangements which allow the payment of a pre-fixed sum of money for advancing money. For instance: salam (“sale contract with deferred delivery”), arbun (“sale contract with a non-refundable deposit”) and murabahah (“deferred sale financing”). Arbun sounds the best

So, while Islamic banks do not borrow money on the money market, they can still make what are in effect loans which bring in money for them. In any event, Islam is not opposed to profits and profit-making since these are regarded as non-certain rewards for advancing money.

 

[phildwyer]

How's it any more "totalitarian" than capitalism? Most of us have little choice in what we consume anyway, don't really have much real choice - Tesco value vs Aldi - doesn't really matter cos it's basically the same stuff. And in the above system at least we'd be guaranteed a minimum amount. And on the one with central organisation of distribution - it's perfectly reasonable to say that the way this is done, what is distributed and at what quantities - in other words what constituted need - could be decided democratically and with scope for individual choice between different use values depending on taste.

The second one, with money like tokens, sounds far, far less totalitarian than capitalism to me, even without direct democratic control.

Or is this just a continuation of a grudge against ld?

Yes and no, to be frank. Obviously we have a beef but on my side anyway, it is entirely political. I don't like his politics at all. I strongly suspect that following any revolution directed towards the ends he advocates, these "central distribution centers" would soon be in the hands of a small group of highly organized fanatics. I doubt that under such circumstances the "system to restrict access to what has been produced" would be chosen by anything resembling democratic procedures, as you suggest it might.

I do agree with you that capitalism is a totalitarian system, in an economic sense at least. I think that very fact often causes anti-capitalism to take a totalitarian form, as the dialectical antithesis or mirror-image of its ostensible opposite.

 

[love detective]

That's what I said.

In the Middle Ages the dogma of the Catholic Church banned usury, defined as charging money for a loan. But not quite. Here's how RH Tawney put it in his classic Religion and the Rise of Capitalism:



So, what was banned was only the certainty of being paid a pre-fixed sum of money for the loan. As Tawney pointed out, the very word “interest” derives from one of the ways of getting round the ban on usury.

Islamic theologians have proved to be just as a subtle as their end-of-Middle Ages Catholic and Protestant counterparts. Islam, too, allows partnerships as well as a number of other arrangements which allow the payment of a pre-fixed sum of money for advancing money. For instance: salam (“sale contract with deferred delivery”), arbun (“sale contract with a non-refundable deposit”) and murabahah (“deferred sale financing”). Arbun sounds the best

So, while Islamic banks do not borrow money on the money market, they can still make what are in effect loans which bring in money for them. In any event, Islam is not opposed to profits and profit-making since these are regarded as non-certain rewards for advancing money.

Exactly. A child of five would understand this - send someone to fetch a child of five!

 

[goldenecitrone]

Exactly. A child of five would understand this - send someone to fetch a child of five!

As Marx once famously said.

 

[love detective]

famously

 

[Jean-Luc]

there's no way given the raft of energy, resource & environmental issues that the world faces today that any kind of society is going to have the means to create an abundance of every imaginable good so that 9 billion people will be fully satisfied in the entirety - so like it or not the 'stores' are never going to be always stocked with what you need

Who's talking about an abundance "of every imaginable good' -- apart from authors of econmics textbooks which say that scarcity will always exist because wants are infinite and that therefore we need money, prices, etc to allocate resources by priority (look at page 1 of any economics textbook)? You're just relaying their argument here. The real question is whether or not the world can produce enough to satisfy the likely needs of everyone on the planet. The evidence here is that it can -- we have the knowledge and capacity to do this, but this is being prevented by the fact that the world's resources are monopolised by capitalist corporations, states and rich individuals who only allow them to be used when there's a profit in it for them. Eliminate the profit barrier and we can end world poverty and the diseases associated with it and ensure that every man, woman and child on the planet has decent housing, healthcare, education, etc., especially with the elimination of the waste of capitalism (arms, advertising, competition and all the resources devoted to money counting).

you've also got a somewhat idealised/utopian and overly determined notion of how consciousness is formed - to think that there will be no greedy people in this utopian society we're discussing is somewhat crude and overly deterministic. Today we live in one of the most greedy, neo-liberalised societies the world has ever seen and yet there are plenty of people who have characteristics that are the complete opposite of the society that produced them - there's nothing to suggest the same thing would not be the case in any other type of society.

Here again you are reflecting the dominant ideology of existing society. Yes, today, greedy behaviour does make sense because each individual has to fend for themself and even those who have accumulated some wealth can never be sure that they might not loose it. Everybody is struggling not so much to become rich as to avoid falling into poverty. But this is not part of human nature. In the different circumstance of enough being permanently available behaving like this will not make sense. What you are in effect saying is that while you personally wouldn't behave in a greedy manner, it's "the others", who would therefore have to be disciplined by your "money like token" system (which itself would divert resources from satisfying people's needs).

 

[love detective]

i'll leave you to your simplistic idealised and aburdly utopian view of the future which in reality will be characterised by resource depletion, energy crisis and environmental catastrophe, wars and zero sum games. But don't mind them, things will be fine as long as we don't think about reality too much

The real question is whether or not the world can produce enough to satisfy the likely needs of everyone on the planet......The evidence here is that it can

In the different circumstance of enough being permanently available behaving like this will not make sense

I also agree that if everything was OK then everything would be OK - which is all your saying here. But this kind of ostrich like head in the sand view of the future is pure idealism, not particular befitting of a supposed materialist approach

You also seem to suggest that human wants are capable of not being infinite (in an attempt to get round the basic fact that scarcity will exist, even in the most progressive form of organising society). This is also absurd, humanity is (or should be) all about constant development and progress, it's this infinite nature of humanity's wants that drives humanity forwards, that distinguishes us from all other animals. More often that not this is negative progress through modes of organisation like capitalism, but to suggest that post-capitalism we will become animal like with static needs & wants is to deprive humanity of what makes it human. And all so you can continue to fit in this fuckwitted idea that the world will produce 9 billion fillet steaks every week

And it's a tedious argument from you that just because i don't agree with your extreme utopianism/idealism of the future that this means i'm just parroting mainstream ideas or the dominant ideology of the existing society (something which adds further evidence to what i said earlier about you having a somewhat idealised/utopian and crudely overly determined notion of how consciousness is formed )

Answer me this simple question though? If you agree that non-greedy people exist in, and to an extent are produced by, a society which is based on greed, why is the inverse of this something you write off as impossible? You justify this assertion on the basis that it would not make sense for people to behave like that, but we can equally say that it doesn't make sense for non-greedy people to behave like how they do in the greedy world we live in off today. Yes they may be doing this because they want to live in a different world, but this equally applies to greedy people in a non-greedy world

And i'm a greedy bastard by the way, so not sure where you got what you suggested about me in your last sentence

 

[Jean-Luc]

i'll leave you to your simplistic idealised and aburdly utopian view of the future which in reality will be characterised by resource depletion, energy crisis and environmental catastrophe, wars and zero sum games. But don't mind them, things will be fine as long as we don't think about reality too much

These are real problems, but that's where we differ. I think they are caused by capitalism and could be dealt with rationally and scientifically in a world in which the Earth's resources had become the common heritage of all humanity. You think they are endemic to the human condition and so something we've got no alternative but to adjust to, sharing the resulting scarcity and misery more or less evenly or unevenly. It's a pessimistic, misanthropic view I thought anti-capitalists rejected, though it's common enough amongst the Green movement. It also reflects bourgeois economics, defined in the 5th edition of Economics by Ralph T. Byrns and Gerald W. Stone:

Economics is the study of how individuals and societies allocate their limited resources to try to satisfy their unlimited wants.

That's your starting point (and that of all defenders of capitalism) but it's not mine.

this fuckwitted idea that the world will produce 9 billion fillet steaks every week

I don't know whose idea this is but it's not mine. But I have heard it used many times to suggest that there is no alternative to the present system.

 

[youngian]

The Bank of England has almost abolished interests rates to the banks (in Japan it is zero). Many people therefore are asking the question as to what would happen if they cut out the middle man and gave the loans directily to businesses and public sector projects.

 

[love detective]

That's your starting point (and that of all defenders of capitalism) but it's not mine.

No, this is my starting point:-

Rubin/Perlman best sums up for me what political economy in general and marx's political economy in particular is about:-

"Political economy deals with human working activity, not from the standpoint of its technical methods and instruments of labor, but from the standpoint of its social form. It deals with production relations which are established among people in the process of production."

In terms of this definition, political economy is not the study of prices or of scarce resources; it is a study of social relations, a study of culture. Political economy asks why the productive forces of society develop within a particular social form, why the machine process unfolds within the context of business enterprise, why industrialization takes the form of capitalist development. Political economy asks how the working activity of people is regulated in a specific, historical form of economy.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your crap with a response

 

[Jean-Luc]

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your crap with a response

... simplistic idealised and aburdly utopian view ... this fuckwitted idea ... extreme utopianism/idealism.

I see you can dish it out but not take it.

Fredy Perlman was a good bloke but I think you'll find that he stood for a society in which money would not exist. As did Marx and, I imagine, Rubin. Pity none of them are around to reply to your rejection of this perspective on the grounds of "scarcity" and "infinite needs". A couple of chapters, by Anitra Nelson, in the Life Without Money book explain that Marx stood for a moneyfree, socialist society.

 

[love detective]

Marx also stood for making derogatory comments about jewish niggers - so should I just because I find his analysis of existing capitalist social relations useful?

I presume you have some vested interest in this book given how religiously you're sticking to the incorrect idea that money, not wage labour and the capital/labour relation, is the root of the problem

 

[Jean-Luc]

the incorrect idea that money, not wage labour and the capital/labour relation, is the root of the problem

I never said money as such was the root of the problem (remember, there's no point in abolishing the pope but retaining catholicism?). The root of the problem is that the means for producing useful things are monopolised by a privileged minority and used to produce things for sale with a view to making a money profit for them. And the solution is to make these means of production the common heritage of all so that we could produce things directly to satisfy people's needs and not for profit as today.

How could the wages system be abolished without at the same time abolishing money? They are both signs of the same basic social productive relationship of a minority monopolising the means for producing useful things and the rest of us having to work for them for money to buy the things we need. Or are you saying that if we were paid in "money like tokens" instead of present-day money that would mean the abolition of the wages system?

Here's another case for a moneyfree world:

 

[love detective]

The root of the problem is that the means for producing useful things are monopolised by a privileged minority and used to produce things for sale with a view to making a money profit for them. And the solution is to make these means of production the common heritage of all so that we could produce things directly to satisfy people's needs and not for profit as today.

Couldn't agree more

I never said money as such was the root of the problem

If you agree money is not the root of the problem why is the solution that you are backing called a 'life without money' - why is the solution focussed on something that you admit is not the root of the problem?

How could the wages system be abolished without at the same time abolishing money? They are both signs of the same basic social productive relationship of a minority monopolising the means for producing useful things and the rest of us having to work for them for money to buy the things we need.

In your first paragraph you gave a (passable) description of capitalism and why it should be abolished. Here however you equate capitalism (i.e. wage labour, etc.) with money as though they are two sides of the same coin (lol) and assert that the existence of money must signify the existence of capitalism. Money has been around for thousands and thousands of years yet capitalism has only been around for a few hundred, so how can you say that money, in terms of money in and off itself is a sign/manifestation of the same social relationship as capitalism? Something that existed for thousands and thousands of years is somehow a sign/manifestation of a social relationship that has only existed for a few hundred years? How does that work then? And what where did it manifest from in the thousands of years of its existence before capitalism existed?

Sure the way money is used under capitalism and the form money takes (money as capital for example) gives it a character which reflects the social relations of capitalist production. But this is no different from lots of other things which predated capitalism and will continue to exist when capitalism is gone (whatever system replaces it)

Or are you saying that if we were paid in "money like tokens" instead of present-day money that would mean the abolition of the wages system?

Can you stop making up stupid stuff and suggesting that I have said them

Here's another case for a moneyfree world:

Despite what it's called and how it articulates itself, it seems more like a case for a non-exploitative world where use values are not produced as commodities using wage labour and instead are produced through a common ownership of the means of production and distributed according to need (or in times of shortage, i.e. in the weeks where 9 billion fillet steaks for some reason can't be produced, some form of equitable distribution). Money in this kind of world would not be in contradiction with those principles, in fact it would probably be very useful in ensuring those principles were adhered to.

By the way, you avoided my question about what vested interest you have in this book?

 

[phildwyer]

That's what I said.

In the Middle Ages the dogma of the Catholic Church banned usury, defined as charging money for a loan. But not quite. Here's how RH Tawney put it in his classic Religion and the Rise of Capitalism:



So, what was banned was only the certainty of being paid a pre-fixed sum of money for the loan. As Tawney pointed out, the very word “interest” derives from one of the ways of getting round the ban on usury.

Islamic theologians have proved to be just as a subtle as their end-of-Middle Ages Catholic and Protestant counterparts. Islam, too, allows partnerships as well as a number of other arrangements which allow the payment of a pre-fixed sum of money for advancing money. For instance: salam (“sale contract with deferred delivery”), arbun (“sale contract with a non-refundable deposit”) and murabahah (“deferred sale financing”). Arbun sounds the best

So, while Islamic banks do not borrow money on the money market, they can still make what are in effect loans which bring in money for them. In any event, Islam is not opposed to profits and profit-making since these are regarded as non-certain rewards for advancing money.

You seem to be suggesting that the medieval and Islamic prohibitions against usury are somehow invalid because they were/are routinely evaded. As I said to BA the principle that usury is sinful--which is universal to virtually every system of morality except our own--is important, regardless of how often it is followed in practice.

In any case, it isn't really true that usury was widely practiced before the discovery of America. And interest wasn't exempted from moral opprobrium until well into the C18th, around the time that the concept of the 'economy' began to take form, providing an arena in which ancient ethical critiques of avarice and usury could be suspended.

 

[Wilf]

These are real problems, but that's where we differ. I think they are caused by capitalism and could be dealt with rationally and scientifically in a world in which the Earth's resources had become the common heritage of all humanity. You think they are endemic to the human condition and so something we've got no alternative but to adjust to, sharing the resulting scarcity and misery more or less evenly or unevenly. It's a pessimistic, misanthropic view I thought anti-capitalists rejected, though it's common enough amongst the Green movement. .

As well as being utopian, this shows an uncritical approach to Enlightenment science as a way of solving problems. Even if a planet of 9bn threw off capitalism, questions of resources, wants and needs wouldn't become simply 'the administration of things'. There would still be scarcity and, in terms of the environment, growing problems when you try to increase production. There would still be different perspectives, politics and interests (theoretically interests would no longer be linked to class, but still interests none the less). Also, in a tightly packed, urbanised planet there would still need to be complex planning, interlocked systems and sophisticated ways of transmitting preferences. Getting rid of capitalism gets rid of a systematic bias that runs the planet in the interests of a few, but it doesn't get rid of the problems of running a society. Neither does it inherently, change human nature. Might create scenarious where people are more likely to avoid anti-social routes, but it doesn't reconstruct whole personalities.

 

[Jean-Luc]

If you agree money is not the root of the problem why is the solution that you are backing called a 'life without money' - why is the solution focussed on something that you admit is not the root of the problem?

Basically, I suppose, because the idea of a moneyfree world is easier to get across than talking about a world without "commodity fetishism" or "value" or "wage-labour/capital relationship". It's a sort of shorthand to be more easily understood, to get the basic idea over more easily, like the video did.

Money has been around for thousands and thousands of years yet capitalism has only been around for a few hundred, so how can you say that money, in terms of money in and off itself is a sign/manifestation of the same social relationship as capitalism?

Fair question. Money in previous societies was only marginal and these were private-property societies and buying and selling, through the medium of money, is an exchange of ownership rights. On the other hand, money didn't exist in past societies which were not based on private or class property. Capitalism is a society where money touches everything. Any and everything can be bought and sold and so has a price, in particular people's working skills. Capitalism is where money really comes into its own and dominates our lives as if was an uncontrollable force of nature. I suppose it is possible to imagine a hypothetical non-capitalist society where money would still be used, but this wouldn't be a society based on the common ownership of resources since common ownership rules out buying and selling between separate owners (since these don't exist) and money as a medium for this. Buying and selling is replaced by giving and taking (what one 19th socialist summed up as "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs").

Can you stop making up stupid stuff and suggesting that I have said them.

Ok, but, in using the "greedy person" argument to justify restricting people's access to what they need because some people would abuse this and take too much, you overstated your case. Because this would have to mean that nobody could have free, open access to anything, not to public transport, not to health care, not to phone calls, not to the internet, not to utilities any more than to a filet steak every day.

 

[Wilf]

'A free world can be created through technology and by abolishing money' - without any reference to capital, social relations or power - Just plain embarrassing.

 

[stuff_it]

Weirdly enough I am better off financially living as I do now with not much money or prospect of any soon as I have to be a lot more careful.

 

[love detective]

Basically, I suppose, because the idea of a moneyfree world is easier to get across than talking about a world without "commodity fetishism" or "value" or "wage-labour/capital relationship". It's a sort of shorthand to be more easily understood, to get the basic idea over more easily, like the video did.

I think if you have a desire to see a transformed society, and hope to do so in a democratic and inclusive manner, to treat people like they are incapable of understanding the real reason why existing society needs to be changed is not a great starting point. What else should be kept back from people in this quest? What else should be retained and discussed only amongst a clever cloggist vanguard?

And even taking your argument on its own terms (even though i completely reject such an approach), I don't even think it's an easier thing to get across. The idea of a world without money is probably a harder concept to grasp immediately than a world that still has money but this money is issued in amounts that are sufficient for everyone to satisfy their needs, wants & desires (or at least issued in a fair & equitable manner if output is not enough to meet everything)

I suppose it is possible to imagine a hypothetical non-capitalist society where money would still be used, but this wouldn't be a society based on the common ownership of resources since common ownership rules out buying and selling between separate owners (since these don't exist) and money as a medium for this.

Sorry but this is absolutely garbage. You are conflating productive property and personal propert/possessions. To say that a society that used some money like tokens in order to facilitate the smooth & efficient distribution of the output from society's productive assets in a fair & equitable manner and based on need, is incompatible with a society which is based on common ownership of the means of production is absurd. I really don't think you've thought this through at all.

Ok, but, in using the "greedy person" argument to justify restricting people's access to what they need because some people would abuse this and take too much, you overstated your case.

Face it, if society is not able to produce enough to satisfy every human beings wants & needs (which it won't be), then access to the output of society will have to be restricted. This issue will be faced whether money is used or not. Likewise to suggest that some care & oversight would not be required to make sure the system is not gamed so that greedy individuals (who will still exist, despite your see no evil, hear no evil outlook) can satisfy their greed, is also absurd. To not have such a system of oversight would risk undermining the foundational basis and ongoing existence of the society you are supposedly in favour off.

You seem to be suggesting that me pointing towards these basic facts, which would require some kind of addressal in this utopian society of yours, means I am some kind of reactionary who supports capitalism and the status quo. People need real world solutions to real world problems (which incidentally none of this utopian dreamy stuff from both you and by extension me comes even close to doing), not this ostrich like head in the sand utopianism where everything is predicated on everything just being fine, so no need to think about anything, it'll be grand.

Humour me with a consideration of these two scenarios though:-

1) The month or so after your glorious new society is ushered in on a world wide basis. Society would still largely be geared up to produce on existing capitalist lines in terms of what is produced and in which locations. At this point in time say 6 billion people would like a fillet steak for their tea on the weekend as it's been a hard few weeks revolutionising and they now apparently live in a society where capitalism doesn't exist so all their needs & wants are to be met. 6 billion fillet steaks don't exist though. 6 billion fillet steaks are requested though. What does this society do? According to you there would be no need to restrict access to society's product as we are no longer in a capitalist society and the need to restrict/limit access to society's output doesn't need to happen anymore. Problem is you don't have 6 billion fillet steaks this week (nor will you the next, or the next etc..). Now assuming your not Jesus, then there is no way you are going to square this circle. No matter how you word it, this situation would require society to come up with some way of restricting access to ensure that at least what was produced was distributed fairly & equitably over time and as much according to need as is possible.

2) In the same week, there's a lot of dispossessed capitalists still roaming around. They'd quite like to get their hands back on some of the wealth they've lost. They also know that there's shortages as society is not producing enough to satisfy society's wants (and in all likelihood it never will), so they know if they could get some stuff and stockpile it to create even more shortages they could get themselves in a strong position by having a load of stuff that people really wanted. So under your world, you'd support their right to rock up at some food distribution centre and take all the fillet steaks that had been produced. Because, man, it would be reactionary like to try and stop them wouldn't it.

How long do you think such a society would last before it descended into chaos and reverted back to some kind of capitalist social relations (or worse) to ensure some level of stability?

Have you really sat down and thought through any of this?

Also you still refuse to answer my previous question - what is your vested interest in this book?

 

[love detective]

'A free world can be created through technology and by abolishing money' - without any reference to capital, social relations or power - Just plain embarrassing.

If you abolish money now i guarantee you will get an underwater city

 

[Wilf]

These are the people who did the film:
http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en/more

It is apparently the next step in 'human evolution' and they see it being adopted just by individual nations at first. After that the UN may well take it up:

The first step in implementing the Charter is promotion and awareness.
These principles can only be adopted when they are seen, understood and supported by a sufficient number of people. When enough people see the Charter and accept it as the next logical step in human evolution, change will come about automatically. Politicians and people of influence will have no choice but to accede to the will of the people.... It won't take long until people begin to realise that their neighbour is no longer their competitor; that everything they own and use has an environmental cost; that acting together as a community - and not only for oneself - is infinitely more productive and rewarding.
It may happen that the Charter will be first adopted in a single country or bloc of countries that is naturally resource-rich and self sufficient. (Australia and the South Seas would be a good example) Once other countries see it working, they would be quick to follow.
Perhaps in the interim, a special provision for 'money-free' status in pioneering countries could be applied through a body like the UN, to maintain and protect the borders of such 'free zones' until no longer necessary.

1. 2. 3.

 

[phildwyer]

Capitalism is where money really comes into its own and dominates our lives as if was an uncontrollable force of nature.

Precisely correct. Capitalism is when money is treated and behaves as though it were part of nature (phusis) as opposed to custom (nomos).

Living things that are part of nature can reproduce: this is their distinguishing characteristic. So when money is regarded as a part of nature, it appears to reproduce autonomously, without any human intervention.

Once it has acquired the defining feature of life, money inevitably acquires its own interests, which generally conflict with the interests of all human beings, including those who putatively possess the money.

And so we see that the problem is not money (a token of exchange will obviously be necessary in any conceivable society) but usury.

 

[phildwyer]

Also you still refuse to answer my previous question - what is your vested interest in this book?

Spare us your tinpot interrogator act.

 

[love detective]

 

[Jean-Luc]

The idea of a world without money is probably a harder concept to grasp immediately than a world that still has money but this money is issued in amounts that are sufficient for everyone to satisfy their needs, wants & desires (or at least issued in a fair & equitable manner if output is not enough to meet everything)

That puts the issue facing critics of present-day society rather well: either redistribution of money or abandoning it altogether? Either mend it or end it? I see you place yourself firmlyl in the first camp, but just how like money are your "money like tokens". Do they circulate? How will depreciation and inflation be avoided? Can they be saved? Will there be banks? Will there be interest (or are you with Phildwyer on this?)

 

[Jean-Luc]

These are the people who did the film:
http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en/more It is apparently the next step in 'human evolution' and they see it being adopted just by individual nations at first. After that the UN may well take it up:

But what is your objection to: their goal of a moneyfree world of abundance or their rather (well, extremely) naive view of how to get there? Would you agree if they advocated it be introduced by a world working-class revolution or mass democratic action or something like that?