Who said “abolish money”?
- This topic has 17 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yesterday (11 September) on the LBC Radio on question time style programme Cross Question, in answer to the question as to whether Labour really was a socialist party one of the panel, the Tory MP Alex Burghart, said that when he stood against Jeremy Corbyn in the November 2015 general election at a hustings the “SWP candidate” called Bill said socialism meant the “abolition of money”.
The Labour MP John McDonnell suggested that it sounded more like the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) than the SWP.
Actually of course it was neither of them but was our candidate in that election Bill Martin. Interesting, though, how some mainstream politicians do remember what our candidates say at hustings.
The broadcast can be heard here. The question about the Labour Party not being socialist is the first one after the second break about 30 minutes into the programme. Burghart’s comment is about 10 minutes later.
I certainly never said we would ‘Abolish Money’ I was always careful to say the need for money.
Interesting levels of brand penetration the SWP have that that is where his mind goes; also, not McDonell says ‘not the socialist party’.
It was nice to hear Burghart use our favourite Benn quote about the Labour Party.
Correction from Alex Burghart on Twitter/X here: https://x.com/alexburghart/status/1834316758708019218
Just realised why McDonnell thought it might be the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist/Leninist). The CPB-ML is a party in the Maoist tradition and “Abolish Money” wouldn’t have conjured up in his mind another Maoist Pol Pot in Cambodia under whose rule money was supposed to have been abolished.
Hence the importance of Bill’s point that we don’t stand for the abolition of money but for a society in which money would no longer be needed.
Today the CPB-ML is an anti-immigrant and British nationalist party which neither wants to abolish money nor a society in which money would not be needed.
For the record, the result of the election in November 2015 was:
Jeremy Corbyn Labour 29659
Alex Burghart Conservative 8465
Caroline Russel Green Party 5043
Julian Gregory LibDem 3984
Greg Clough UKIP 1971
Bill Martin Socialist 112– ALB
It was May 2015; Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party by November.
(. . .)
I read in a history magazine that during the Russian civil war (after the revolution) the Bolsheviks tried to abolish money (which inevitably ended in disaster). Also, the USSR (under Stalin) tried to abolish religion. This shows that these so-called Marxists (Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot) did not understand Marxism, because (as already mentioned) Marxism is about abolishing the *need* for money & religion.
I fail to see the logic here, “Hence the importance of Bill’s point that we don’t stand for the abolition of money but for a society in which money would no longer be needed.”
Surely the abolition of the wages system would also entail the abolition of money?
I’m with Brian here. The abolition of the wages system entails the abolition of money. It’s not a logical inference but a political consequence.
The abolition of the need for money also entails the abolition of money. To say otherwise suggests that money will have some sort of function in socialism.
“To say otherwise suggests that money will have some sort of function in socialism.”
That doesn’t follow.
Money exists because of a certain kind of social relation. Once that form of social relation is ended money ceases to be. There’s no need to add the extra step of ‘abolishing money’ – such a concept is superfluous when it comes to socialist revolution.
Of course the abolition of the wages system entails the end of the need for money. Isn’t that precisely the point that Bill was making?
We don’t want to simply “abolish money” and leave the rest of capitalism intact with wages being paid in kind. We want to see the end of the minority class ownership of the means of life which obliges the rest to work for wages. Once class ownership is replaced by common ownership the wages system ceases to exist as does the need for money.
I can’t see what this argument here is about. In saying that the abolition of the wages system entails the abolition of money Brian is saying the same as Bill — that the abolition of the wages system ends the need for money. Nobody here is saying that the abolition of the wages system does not entail the abolition of money.
So, money is not abolished it “ceases to be”. Fine, you go on saying that and I will call for the abolition of money.
The bit which you say doesn’t follow refers to the abolishing the need for money entailing the actual abolition of money. And that most certainly does follow.
Isn’t this similar to the arguments about “abolishing the state”?
I.e:
1. Money and the state cease to exist as a consequence of something else happening first – the abolition of private property and the institution of production for use.
2. Something can cease to be without it being “abolished”. And in reverse – you can’t “abolish” something which no longer exists.
This is just a question of language, and all that matters is which phrasing gets the idea across most clearly – and the answer to that could be different in different contexts.
I think this does matter: “we will abolish money” does sound a bit like we’re going to do some sort of decree of state getting rid of it. We could talk of abolishing buying and selling, but that has overtones of force and preventing people from doing that: that’s why I think the focus should be on the need, you won’t need to buy or sell, we’ll work together to provide for everyone. It strikes me as a more positive tone.
And, yes, some states have abolished money from time to time, usually through hyper inflation or general collapse.
I think the comparison with ‘abolish the state’ is apt, just getting rid of the actual state won’t rid us of state thinking or behaviour, we need to build the alternatives so that state behaviour becomes unnecessary and unwanted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.