Life Without Money : Wed 30 May

[love detective]

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?)

You repeatedly miss the point that the crux of the issue is not about money - you have the tail wagging the dog throughout this whole discussion

Do you want to have a go at responding to the main points in my post? Presumably you have an answer to them that does not contradict anything you've previously said here?

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

 

[Fuchs66]

Look if anyone here really wants to live without money I would love to help you out. Just send it to the bank account that I will gladly provide the details of and I shall guarantee it gets put to good use.

 

[Wilf]

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?

No, no it looks grand. In fact I'd like to sharpen up the manifesto:

Oh the buzzin' of the bees
In the cigarette trees
Near the soda water fountain
At the lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
On the big rock candy mountain

There's a lake of gin
We can both jump in
And the handouts grow on bushes
In the new-mown hay
We can sleep all day
And the bars all have free lunches
Where the mail train stops
And there ain't no cops
And the folks are tender-hearted
Where you never change your socks
And you never throw rocks
And your hair is never parted

 

[love detective]

underwater cities of gold

 

[imposs1904]

No, no it looks grand. In fact I'd like to sharpen up the manifesto:

Oh the buzzin' of the bees
In the cigarette trees
Near the soda water fountain
At the lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
On the big rock candy mountain

There's a lake of gin
We can both jump in
And the handouts grow on bushes
In the new-mown hay
We can sleep all day
And the bars all have free lunches
Where the mail train stops
And there ain't no cops
And the folks are tender-hearted
Where you never change your socks
And you never throw rocks
And your hair is never parted

no fillet steak in the manifesto?

 

[Wilf]

no fillet steak in the manifesto?

There's still some debate in the steering group, but so far I've managed to hold them to a vegan line. Our 'rational scientists' support me on this, so we'll only be dishing out free quorn. Yer money's no good here.

 

[Jean-Luc]

This is quite funny too:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

 

[imposs1904]

Yer money's no good here.

I've already forwarded it to fuchs.

 

[Wilf]

This is quite funny too:

In many ways it is - and perhaps 20% as naive as the stuff you are posting (inolved with? Come on, tell us). But at least Marx does have a theory of history and notion of agency.

 

[love detective]

This is quite funny too:

at least he didn't fanny around trying to make out money was the reason for the enslaving subordination of the individual

and also in the 2,500 odd pages of Capital he makes fleeting reference to a post capitalist progressive society only a handful of times - i.e. he focuses at the proper start point, how does our existing mode of organising society function, what are its fundamental & essential properties, what manifestations do they produce, what is the impact of all this both at the individual and social levels, and what would need to be obliterated if we were ever to move beyond that society

this is in stark contrast to this arse about tit stuff on money - that both totally misses the point about the fundamental essence of capitalist society and also pays no attention to the material process that would be required for any transformation of society to take place - it's like john rawls only worse

 

[butchersapron]

This is quite funny too:

Nice one Jean-luc - you've produced one of the bits of Marx that distinguishes between what he saw as socialism and what he saw as communism. Which he didn't ever do right?

 

[Jean-Luc]

This is even funnier:

The words Socialism and Communism have the same meaning. They indicate a condition of society in which the wealth of the community: the land and the means of production, distribution and transport are held in common, production being for use and not for profit.

Socialism being an ideal towards which we are working, it is natural that there should be some differences of opinion in that future society. Since we are living under Capitalism it is natural that many people’s ideas of Socialism should be coloured by their experiences of life under the present system. We must not be surprised that some who recognise the present system is bad should yet lack the imagination to realise the possibility of abolishing all the institutions of Capitalist society.

Nevertheless there can be no real advantage in setting up a half-way-house to socialism. A combination of Socialism and Capitalism would produce all sorts of injustice, difficulty and waste. Those who happen to suffer under the anomalies would continually struggle for a return to the old system.

Full and complete Socialism entails the total abolition of money, buying and selling, and the wages system.

It means the community must set itself the task of providing rather more than the people can use of all the things that the people need and desire, and of supplying these when and as the people require them.

Any system by which the buying and selling system is retained means the employment of vast sections of the population in unproductive work. It leaves the productive work to be done by one portion of the people whilst the other portion is spending its energies in keeping shop, banking, making advertisements and all the various developments of commerce which, in fact, employ more than two-thirds of the people today.

Given the money system, the wage system is inevitable. If things needed and desired are obtainable only by payment those who do the work must be paid in order that they may obtain the means of life. The wages system entails such institutions as the old-age pension, sick and unemployment insurance and widow’s pensions, or the Poor Law, and probably plus the Poor Law. These involve large numbers of people drawn from productive work to do purely administrative work. Thus useless toil is manufactured, and the burden of non-producers maintained by the productive workers is increased.

Moreover social conditions are preserved which are quite out of harmony with Communist fraternity. The wage system makes the worker’s life precarious. The payment of wages entails the power to dismiss the worker by an official or officials.

So long as the money system remains, each productive enterprise must be run on a paying basis. Therefore it will tend to aim at employing as few workers as possible, in order to spend less on wages. It will also tend to dismiss the less efficient worker who, becoming unemployed, becomes less efficient. Thus an unemployable class tends to grow up.

The existence of a wage system almost inevitably leads to unequal wages; overtime, bonuses, higher pay for work requiring special qualifications. Class distinctions are purely differences of education, material comfort and environment.

Buying and selling by the Government opens the door to official corruption. To check that, high salaried positions are created in order that those occupying them have too much to lose to make pilfering and jobbery worth while.

 

[love detective]

Jean-luc are you by any chance fucked in the head?

 

[butchersapron]

This is even funnier:

Not that funny tbh

 

[butchersapron]

This is even funnier:

She was much better when she was proclaiming Hailie Selassie to be a god. Great choice.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Jean-luc are you by any chance fucked in the head?

No more than Karl Marx or Sylvia Pankhurst. Love your style of arguing.

 

[Wilf]

From the world without money website:

If you can help financially, then please consider purchasing adverts for the Free World Charter on Facebook. It's very easy to set up and you can decide exactly how much you want to spend. You can use either of these two images here as your graphic.

Click here

 

[love detective]

No more than Karl Marx or Sylvia Pankhurst. Love your style of arguing.

It wasn't an argument, it was an observation

i've given up arguing with you as you seem to want to avoid addressing the difficult questions

 

[Jean-Luc]

i've given up arguing with you as you seem to want to avoid addressing the difficult questions

That makes two of us then:

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?)

Was this one too difficult?

 

[love detective]

generally in discussion its considered appropriate to answer the points made to you before advancing new questions - if they were too troublesome for your idealism then fair enough, but you could at least admit that

in answer to your questions though:

i) yes, as previously set out with regards to facilitating the smooth and equitable distribution of either recently produced or previously owned goods

ii) if this society is so resource abundant as you say it is then these will not be issues

iii) what would be the point of saving them? if you didn't have enough to get by or ended up with too much there would clearly be something wrong with the resource/use value allocation process of the society (which is a problem that would be faced whether electronic tokens were used or not)

iv) as above, with no need to save or lend why would there be a need for banks?

v) why would there be interest? interest, in capitalism, is primarily a form of distribution of surplus value or a means to appropriate value in the sphere of circulation. As such a society would not be based on such things why would interest exist?

Now, might you turn your attention to the 9 billion missing fillet steaks?

 

[Jean-Luc]

OK, I'll answer in due course (it's sunny outside). In the meantime you should find some of the answers as to how to organise the smooth allocation and distribution of resources and use-values in a moneyless, communist society in this pamphlet.

 

[love detective]

sorry i didn't ask for you to post links to shit youtube videos and point me to dusty haired pamphlets and shite books

i've managed to respond to all your questions using my own words, why can't you

i asked a specific question, either answer it in your own words or admit that you can't

 

[Jean-Luc]

I'm back, as promised. Amusing as exchanging arguments and insults here is I do have a life.

Your reply shows that, since they won't circulate and would be cancelled on use, what you call "money like tokens" aren't money in the usual sense (nor in the sense of that "fuckwit" Karl Marx). They are consumption vouchers. So you too are advocating a moneyless society . But the question is which is more practical: free distribution and open access or issuing everybody with these non-circulating vouchers? The problem with your scheme is that it requires not only deciding how many vouchers should be issued to individuals but also what "price" to put on the goods made available for individual use (a huge, bureaucratic task). This is no easy calculation and if you get it wrong the vouchers could depreciate and/or a black market in some goods develop. I don't think it could last for any period of time but would sooner or later break down and real money re-emerge.

Now to your two questions which, if I remember, were (1) what if not enough can be produced and (2) will, during the changeover, those opposed to it be allowed open access to resources to oppose the changeover.

As to the first, I think the evidence shows that, with modern technology and the elimination of the artificial scarcity and organised waste of capitalism, it should be possible to very rapidly produce enough to satisfy the likely needs of everybody. In any event, this should be the aim, to be reached as soon as possible. It is possible that, right at the beginning, this might not be possible for all goods. In which case, there'd have to be some form of rationing. It would be up to the people around at the time at the time to decide. Personally, I'd favour some form of direct rationing by product rather than the general-purpose voucher system you seem to favour. But I can't see this having to last for long, nor to all goods. I would think most goods and services could be made free from the start (eg. transport, housing, utilities, laundries, restaurants (not necessarily serving filet steak every day), etc).

As to the second, I doubt it.

 

[Wilf]

I would think most goods and services could be made free from the start (eg. transport, housing, utilities, laundries, restaurants (not necessarily serving filet steak every day), etc).

Who would own these goods - and who would be doing the deciding?

 

[Jean-Luc]

Who would own these goods - and who would be doing the deciding?

The general pinciple of socialism/communism is that the places where useful things are produced and useful services are provided should belong to society as a whole (ie no individual or individuals should have ownership rights over them) with the day-to-day running being under the democratic control of those working in them and wider decisions being taken by the wider community. I would think LD would agree on this too.

 

[SpineyNorman]

As to the first, I think the evidence shows that, with modern technology and the elimination of the artificial scarcity and organised waste of capitalism, it should be possible to very rapidly produce enough to satisfy the likely needs of everybody.

You're having a laugh mate. As it stands we could probably produce enough food for everyone, provided people aren't bothered about having fillet steak etc. but with resource depletion - that is peak oil, peak gas, shortages of metal and other mineral deposits - we'll be lucky if we can even do that before long. We'll certainly never be able to produce enough consumer goods for everyone to have everything they want/need. When Marx was writing the idea of super-abundance made sense - we were nowhere near the earth's limits in terms of carrying capacity - but now, when we're already at the absolute limit in terms of hydrocarbons extraction, and these limits will reduce over time - it's not even on nodding terms with reality.

I doubt full communism can ever be achieved, there will always have to be some kind of rationing. The question is how is this done?

 

[love detective]

I'm back, as promised. Amusing as exchanging arguments and insults here is I do have a life.

Your reply shows that, since they won't circulate and would be cancelled on use, what you call "money like tokens" aren't money in the usual sense (nor in the sense of that "fuckwit" Karl Marx). They are consumption vouchers. So you too are advocating a moneyless society .

I specifically said they would circulate - but putting that aside, i've said from the very start that money like tokens which would have some of the features of existing money (e.g. means of access to use values) but not the features that money assumes under capitalism (e.g. ability to be used as capital, to 'earn' interest etc.)

But the question is which is more practical: free distribution and open access or issuing everybody with these non-circulating vouchers? The problem with your scheme is that it requires not only deciding how many vouchers should be issued to individuals but also what "price" to put on the goods made available for individual use (a huge, bureaucratic task). This is no easy calculation and if you get it wrong the vouchers could depreciate and/or a black market in some goods develop. I don't think it could last for any period of time but would sooner or later break down and real money re-emerge.

The problem of what to issue to individuals will arise whether money is used or a direct allocation from the 'store' is used. You continually slip back into this argument even though you don't realise it applies regardless of whether money like tokens are used to aid the distribution of use values to those that need them or not. This is because, like it or not, scarcity will still exist in a non-capitalist society.

Now to your two questions which, if I remember, were (1) what if not enough can be produced and (2) will, during the changeover, those opposed to it be allowed open access to resources to oppose the changeover.

As to the first, I think the evidence shows that, with modern technology and the elimination of the artificial scarcity and organised waste of capitalism, it should be possible to very rapidly produce enough to satisfy the likely needs of everybody. In any event, this should be the aim, to be reached as soon as possible. It is possible that, right at the beginning, this might not be possible for all goods. In which case, there'd have to be some form of rationing. It would be up to the people around at the time at the time to decide. Personally, I'd favour some form of direct rationing by product rather than the general-purpose voucher system you seem to favour. But I can't see this having to last for long, nor to all goods. I would think most goods and services could be made free from the start (eg. transport, housing, utilities, laundries, restaurants (not necessarily serving filet steak every day), etc).

So in your ideal utopian world, you'd have some central body deciding exactly what use values people would get issued. There would be no capacity for choice in this world. You'll get what you're given and that's it is it? Just because concepts like freedom & choice have been hijacked and contorted by neo-liberalism, it doesn't mean the base ideas should be chucked out. This is the kind of situation where your blinkered binary view of money (i.e. money is used in capitalism so it must be completely bad, can't have it in a progressive/non-capitalist society) gets in the way of actually properly thinking about how such a system could work (not that thinking about it does any good, it's all irrelevant).

So if I like Coffee and don't like Tea and someone else likes Tea and don't like Coffee. But we all in your rigid stalinist system get given a ration of coffee & tea - what does this imply? Either one portion of both coffee and tea goes to waste, or the people with excess tea/coffee have to devise amongst themselves some method of exchange in a direct barter method so that they simply get the use values they desire. Or do you mean that this central body would keep that much information on us all so that they knew exactly what we liked and didn't and would distribute accordingly? That would mean the 'state' (which it would be) would keep more information on us than they do at the moment, hardly a progressive development, and also a huge bureaucratic task, something you seemed adverse to above, but now call for here a few sentences later.

Whereas on the other hand if people were simply issued their electronic tokens they could use them to draw down the tea and coffee that they needed directly. Making it a much more efficient means of distributing use values to those who want them and not to those who don't. And also allowing people to be treated like adults in allowing them to decide what they want to do with their share (or equivalent) of society's product. The signals that would be sent by the usage of the tokens in acquiring use values, could also form part of a democratic market system where the signalling effect of these tokens would feed into future production plans, to make sure the right amount of things were produced and distributed to the right places at the right times (as much as this could be possible of course given resource constraints etc.)

As for your general idea that everything that would be required/wanted could be provided purely by getting rid of the (considerable) waste that capitalism creates - well this has been done to death a million times before. Your assertion does not reflect any kind of reality and all you're saying is that if everything was OK then everything would be OK

As to the second, I doubt it.

So you agree there would need to be some restriction of access to the output of society - something you jumped up & down about me stating that this would be required earlier in the thread - have you changed your mind about that now then?

 

[Jean-Luc]

What has genuinely surprised me about this discussion is that the attacks (and the mocking) on communism as a moneyfree world of abundance have come not from open supporters of capitalism but from critics of capitalism.

I specifically said they would circulate

My apologies for misunderstanding you, but that makes your scheme worse : if your tokens circulate they would be money and all the problems associated with money would arise (hoarding, saving, lending, borrowing, stealing, counterfeiting, depreciation, inflation, etc, etc).

So in your ideal utopian world, you'd have some central body deciding exactly what use values people would get issued. There would be no capacity for choice in this world. You'll get what you're given and that's it is it?

No, not at all. What you have overlooked is that I was talking about how to deal with the exceptional case of the shortage of some goods, as might be the case right at the beginning or as a result of some big natural disaster. In such a temporary emergency, direct allocation of what there is would seem to be the obvious solution. Since any shortage would only prove to be temporary what would be the point of going to the trouble of designing, printing and distributing plastic cards? In normal circumstances, I would imagine people would do what you envisage -- choose Tea or Coffee or whatever according to their individual choice -- except that they could leave the store without having to hand over vouchers or swipe a plastic card.

if people were simply issued their electronic tokens they could use them to draw down the tea and coffee that they needed directly. Making it a much more efficient means of distributing use values to those who want them and not to those who don't. And also allowing people to be treated like adults in allowing them to decide what they want to do with their share (or equivalent) of society's product. The signals that would be sent by the usage of the tokens in acquiring use values, could also form part of a democratic market system where the signalling effect of these tokens would feed into future production plans, to make sure the right amount of things were produced and distributed to the right places at the right times (as much as this could be possible of course given resource constraints etc.)

But why couldn't what people actually took under conditions of open access also be used as signals as to what to produce or keep on producing?

all you're saying is that if everything was OK then everything would be OK

All you are saying is everything won't be okay because you've swallowed the ideological justification of capitalism that money is necessary because resources are scarce and wants infinite. The point at issue is whether or not the resources, the technology and working skills exist to provide enough to satisfy the likely needs of everybody on the planet. I say "yes", you say "no" and so defend rationing. You don't even hold out the possibility of humanity ever being able to get beyond having to use money.

 

[Wilf]

What has genuinely surprised me about this discussion is that the attacks (and the mocking) on communism as a moneyfree world of abundance have come not from open supporters of capitalism but from critics of capitalism.
.

This is a communism you want governments to bring in, yes?

 

[Jean-Luc]

When Marx was writing the idea of super-abundance made sense - we were nowhere near the earth's limits in terms of carrying capacity - but now, when we're already at the absolute limit in terms of hydrocarbons extraction

You're wrong about the "absolute limits" of hydrocarbon extraction. Even way-out doomsayers admit that there are enough coal deposits to last for centuries (not that burning them would be the most rational way to use them; they could be better used as raw material for plastics). And there are alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear power and solar power (which has hardly been tapped yet), let alone wind power, tidal power, geothermal energy, etc.

Actually, with regard to Marx, it's the opposite to what you say. When he was writing in the 1860s and 1870s technology was, though immensely productive compared with what went before, relatively backward compared to today being based on coal and iron. The electric motor and the diesel engine were unknown; transport was by steam locomotive or horse-drawn carriage; houses and streets were lit by gas. The thirty years following Marx's death saw the electrification of industry, the invention of the internal combustion engine, the coming of radio and other technological developments which clearly showed that the problem of production had been solved, that the knowledge to finally conquer scarcity had been acquired. Since then of course there's been plastics, nuclear power and electronics, with nanotechnology and genetic engineering on the horizon.

Here's how the technological prospects are summed up in a recent book:

Humanity is now entering a period of radical transformation in which technology has the potential to significantly raise the basic standard of living for every man, woman and child on the planet. Within a generation, we will be able to provide goods and services, once reserved for the wealthy few, to any and all who need them. Or desire them. Abundance for all is actually within our grasp.”

OK, the authors think this is going to happen within capitalism. They're wrong, but it does show what could be done if we had a world in which the Earth's resources were the common heritage of all Humanity instead of the monopoly of rich individuals, corporations and states they are today.