Money-free world
- This topic has 84 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:According to a short repoer on this in today's TimesQuote:Critics branded it a "Marxist dream" that would cost the country about £17 billion a year.
The things they say.
A universal Basic Income appears also to be a free marketeers dream http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/the-ideal-welfare-system-is-a-basic-income/
He's a clever old boy, ALB, ain't he? Ye ramble on for days (both of ye buggers are wrong incidentally) and he pokes in something to stop ye dead!
A legislative fiat declaring common property doesn't become a reality until structures on the ground exist to make common ownership a reality, and small proprietors and such firms as wouldn't be immediately changed by the Abolition of the wage-contracts would still exist: or would you send troops round to storm Bob's Greengrocers? So, for some weeks or months, the easiest thing to do is leave money circulating, while supply chain, decision making and infrastructural changes are made to create practical distribution for needs. Since hte bureacuracy for markets exists already, lets use that, rather than making a new one.So, those things that can quickly be made free access will be, housing, transport, etc. those things that are less important or more niche would continue to circulate with a dwindling supply of pretend-money tokens or somesuch. That way, the obstinate resistors have fewer places to resist obstinately.
KAZ wrote:He's a clever old boy, ALB, ain't he? Ye ramble on for days (both of ye buggers are wrong incidentally) and he pokes in something to stop ye dead!That wasn't me. It was Robbo. Anyway who are the buggers thou sayeth are wrong?
Quote:So, for some weeks or months, the easiest thing to do is leave money circulating…those things that can quickly be made free access will be, housing, transport, etc. those things that are less important or more niche would continue to circulate with a dwindling supply of pretend-money tokens or somesuch.Why we work and want money is not really for niche-market consumerism, although some of the hedonistic younger generation without responsibilites other than for themselves believes it is simply to furnish themselves with fashionable clothes and limitless supplies of alcohol and drugs, but rather food and shelter and transport – those goods you declare will be free (albeit, initially rationed to some degree) Where is Bob the Greengrocer going to acquire his fruit and veg – particularly those out of season. It is why i can fully agree with your statement "Since the bureaucracy for markets exists already, lets use that, rather than making a new one."We'll use the expertise of the socialists within Walmart, Tesco, Tyson and all the other transnationals. And the obvious place will be at the bottom of the pyramid – the distribution warehouses and the ordering departmentsI'm not convinced of this "weeks or months" I think it perhaps be a recipe for years and possibly decades unless there is a deliberate and purposeful campaign for change. I fear there exists a determinist mechanical breakdown model under the surface of this natural withering away of prices and money – i have to think that there requires human intervention to make change – as someone here says – stones don't make history. We require social activity to end capitalism.
Quote:We'll use the expertise of the socialists within Walmart, Tesco, Tyson and all the other transnationals. And the obvious place will be at the bottom of the pyramid – the distribution warehouses and the ordering departmentsYes, Bob the Greengrocer would soon find herself in direct competition with Supermarket supply chains where we could quickly move over to free access, but there still may be some farmers, small holders, orchards willing to supply her, and she still may be able to find some sort of luxury niche to survive a while longer until money itself actually dies out. As the monetary architecture dies out, and the means of legal redress for markets get closed down, she could stay in business quite a while.It would have to be a purposeful process.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A legislative fiat declaring common property doesn't become a reality until structures on the ground exist to make common ownership a reality, and small proprietors and such firms as wouldn't be immediately changed by the Abolition of the wage-contracts would still exist: or would you send troops round to storm Bob's Greengrocers? So, for some weeks or months, the easiest thing to do is leave money circulating, while supply chain, decision making and infrastructural changes are made to create practical distribution for needs. Since hte bureacuracy for markets exists already, lets use that, rather than making a new one.So, those things that can quickly be made free access will be, housing, transport, etc. those things that are less important or more niche would continue to circulate with a dwindling supply of pretend-money tokens or somesuch. That way, the obstinate resistors have fewer places to resist obstinately.Sorry but I am as puzzled as ever by this scenario of yours whereby money lingers on after the legislative fiat you refer to has been effected making the means of production, common property. Actually, long before we reach this point I doubt if there will be a person on this planet – at least one of sound mind – who will be unaware of the implications of common ownership – that it entails inter alia the elimination of money and wage labour . We will have been mentally, psychologically and organisationally prepared for the day it happens. And when it happens it will amount to little more than a kind of signal to facilitate or coordinate the changeover Far from having to send troops round to Bob the Greengrocer to enforce compliance, I suspect Bob himself would positively welcome the fact that he had no more feckin bills and onerous taxes to pay, Your scenario presupposes that folk will still need to have money to buy Bob's lettuces. Where are they supposed to get this money from if there is no more wage labour? Why would Bob need to charge his customers, if he gets his lettuces gratis from the farmer co-operative? And why would Bob need money anyway if his little greengrocer store is not going to go "bust" and Bob can satisfy his own needs without any kind of quid pro quo payment in the new society? None of this makes any sense. You refer to the existing supply chain and the current system of "market bureaucracy" that we could make use of. Yes indeed but we need to be aware of what it is about the current system we need to make use of and what we do not need to make use of, come a socialist society. Businesses today , like giant supermarkets , operate two parallel systems of accounting – one is accounting in money prices, the other is calculation in kind. It is the latter that a socialist society will make use of, the former can be dispensed with completely. Calculation in kind is the bedrock of any kind of large scale society and it goes hand in hand with a distributed network of suppliers and distribution points that interact with each other essentially via a self regulating system of stock control. There is no other alternative set up to this in a socialist society – absolutely none. Now it might be that this whole vast distributed network will have to be reconfigured and rationalised in places come socialism. So far example, it is probable that we will see far less of the kind "coals to Newcastle" type phenomena we see today and that there will be a distinct shift towards more localised forms of production in socialism. But whatever the case , it is clear that such a network already exists and that we can immediately make use of it when socialism is implemented and then adapting it as we go along But what is equally clear is that we will have absolutely no use for money accounting at any time in a socialism, not even for a short time after your legislative fiat. In fact, I would argue that long before that legislative fiat, money accounting will have succumbed to a downward curve as social trust in this institution diminishes with the rise of revolutionary socialist consciousness everywhere. How for example, would it be possible to make long term investment plans on a capitalist basis, if it is become more and more apparent that there is no long term for capitalism to look forward to and that its demise looks increasing imminent?
1) It's your legislative fiat, not mine. I wouldn't propose any such thing, I'd only suggest making wage-labour contracts illegal.2) Lets assume Bob the Greengrocer doesn't welcome socialism, and is part of the 40% of voters, lets be optimistic, who oppose socialism.3) I'm talking about a sudden emergence of a strong socialist movement, at Podemos like speed, so eight year time frame.
Young Master Smeet wrote:1) It's your legislative fiat, not mine. I wouldn't propose any such thing, I'd only suggest making wage-labour contracts illegal.Hhmmm. Well I had always understood the Party case to be that once the socialist movement had captured democratic power, the means of production would become common property, if you like, by legislative fiat. Am I wrong in that and, if not ,are you dissenting from this position? In any event , declaring "wage labour contracts illegal" is also a kind of legislative fief except that it is not as comprehensive as declaring the means of production common property. Also if wage labour contracts are declared illegal from what source do people get the money to buy commodities in the money sector of this post capitalist economy?
Young Master Smeet wrote:2) Lets assume Bob the Greengrocer doesn't welcome socialism, and is part of the 40% of voters, lets be optimistic, who oppose socialism.If a majority of people – 50-60% are enthusiastic about socialism – I would suggest that would mean most of the remainder if not overly enthusiastic about it, would be prepared to go along with it. Very few would be actually hostile and opposed to the idea by the time we have an actual majority of socialistsIf Bob the greengrocer falls in the last category well then I can only respond – what could he do about it? Pretty much nothing as far as I can see. We socialists today are in a similar situation, We intensely dislike capitalism but we are a tiny minoroty and there is pretty much nothing we can do about this situation at the moment. The possibility of doing something only comes when we are much bigger. That is what the old Guildford Branch circular you referred to earlier was about
Young Master Smeet wrote:3) I'm talking about a sudden emergence of a strong socialist movement, at Podemos like speed, so eight year time frame.This assumes that the sudden emergence of a strong socialist movement will somehow catch people unawares and leave a section of the population still with bitterly hostile views towards socialism which the socialist movement will have to accommodate such as in ways you siggest.I don't think think it will happen like that, Podemos lets be frank here is just an opportunist reformist organisation that taps into the same core values and ideas that sustain other political organisation like PSOE or IU or Ciudadanos or even the PP. I see the growth of a strong socialist movement as a zero game. We will grow at the expense of those who endorse a n anti socialist point of view and who will be opportunistically be drawn towards a socialist position in a bid to head off the movement espousing such a position. In any event, the growth of the socialist movement will incrementally modify the whole social climate which in turn will make people progressively more susceptible to socialist ideas
I am arguing common ownership will happen through political action, but not by a simple declaration of common ownership, but repeated pratical steps. Podemos is just one example, the Eastern Bloc is another, these things come quick, there may be many years of gettign 10% of the votes or something, but breakthrough would be a relativly short processes.Bob could turn to terrorism, or simply obstructionism, sabotage, etc. from a position of strength. The worst thing Bob could do is force us to use force against her.Lets not forget we're looking for an orderly transfer.As for where people would get money from: I've listed a few, but the main one would be workplaces transformed from contracts of service into partnership agreements.
Quote:workplaces transformed from contracts of service into partnership agreements.I well understand that another term once used for socialism was cooperative commonwealth – which combined your own view and Robbo's into one definition.But again i fear the potential time-scale of this orderly transfer (transition).Just what do we do when those partnerships(coops, i think is the more common word for such unless you thinking of the partnership in John Lewis Partnership) begin competing against one another for existence with one another? Another thought is how close is this to the Guildford Road that as the revolution nears such organisations will be increasingly in operation. Are you and Robbo now in agreement? I fear we are getting very close to Richard Wolff and Gar Alperovitz in suggesting something much less than socialism as our practical baby-steps politics.I see the rise of workers and community councils more as weapons in class war that do actively dispossess the ruling class than simply just an emerging means of administration and as we do have some empirical historical evidence to go by, these act as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and begin the process of socialisation of production and consumption which in some cases abolished money and wages. The mom and pop corner-shop, i think, as YMS does, can be ignored as having no or little impact on the social changes taking place. But in the developing world, it is not the industrial-scale farms that provide food as it is in the UK and elsewhere but small family-owned farms the mom and pop small-holdings catering for the immediate market of the district.Are we being to Euro-centric and parochial by not discussing how (for the want of a better word because i technically don't think they are) – the peasants are involved in socialism? Didn't Luxemburg have something to say on the issue that could be thought of as a less than a libertarian policy?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Are we being to Euro-centric and parochial by not discussing how (for the want of a better word because i technically don't think they are) – the peasants are involved in socialism? Didn't Luxemburg have something to say on the issue that could be thought of as a less than a libertarian policy? [/quoteA peasant is not just someone who works on the land.I recall that during the 1956 uprising in Hungary farmers joined in by bringing food into the towns until the Russian authorities clamped down on the whole thing. Presumably they were confident that the workers' actions would succeed. It would be reasonable to assume that when we are on the cusp of socialism, then workers would start co-operating with each other to satisfy each other's basic needs without having to look down the barrel of a gun.alanjjohnstone wrote:I see the rise of workers and community councils more as weapons in class war that do actively dispossess the ruling class than simply just an emerging means of administration and as we do have some empirical historical evidence to go by, these act as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and begin the process of socialisation of production and consumption which in some cases abolished money and wages.One other thing we can do, other than ban wage labour contracts, is compel companies to have charters, constitutions, and social goals (essentially changing all of them into charities/social enterprises), and convert existing share holdings into mere debt, this could provide the framework for the rapid elminiation of commodity relations in the supply chain.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The mom and pop corner-shop, i think, as YMS does, can be ignored as having no or little impact on the social changes taking place. But in the developing world, it is not the industrial-scale farms that provide food as it is in the UK and elsewhere but small family-owned farms the mom and pop small-holdings catering for the immediate market of the district.Exactly, so, they stay around, using part of the dwindling money supply, until such time as they can form co-operatives of their own, or are outcompeted by co-operatives: but, lets not forget the massive lands of the co-operations fall into our hands through the process described above, they are not broken up, but used collaboratively.Engels on peasants:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/
I have been following this thread for some time and have been quite as appalled by YMS's "practical steps" as by Robbo's free access fetishism. So I was overjoyed to see the mention of "workers' and community councils" by AJJ (to which the correct Party response should have been a vigorous and merciless attack rather than yet another 'practical step'). How else will the cooperative commonweath (love that term) actually be achieved? This is social revolution we are talking about. Not some bureaucratic rearrangement of economic procedures or gradual accumulation of passive measures both with the aim of the institution of super-consumerism (beer for nothing and your chips for free). Once again, I am convinced that I am in the wrong organisation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.