Question: What is the relationship between Timebanks.org and Socialism or communism etc? What is the name for this economy.

[Anonymous]

One of the Time Value Exchange currency programs in current operation is Timebanks.org , which lets people trade time in a community. they seem to be using a lot of communistic or socialistic phrases in their promotional material that sound a lot like what you guys here at SPGB say and your phrases.  So what do you think of TimeBanks.org?  too someone like me who isn't schooled in academic political theory this timebanks.org looks like what I understand communism to be.  Can anyone explain to me the difference between a Timebanks.org time/value sharing economy and Capital Value trading economy and a communist of some flavor economy or a socialist economy if one exists that you have in mind or the closest thing to an economy by whatever word you use.

TimeBanks are growing in popularity in america and they've already created micro exchange economies in long beach and elsewhere with hundreds of part time participants.  If people continue to adopt timebank hourly exchange and leave the capitalist market what would our society look like?  Although it's unlikely and overly hopefull, what if a timebanks economy grew to rival the power of the capital property exchange economy?  If all that happend and the people here at WorldSocialism.org and SPGB found in 10 or 20 years you were living in that society with a choice between participating in two economies, how would you feel about it?   

 

Here's the "what we're about" page for consideration.   http://timebanks.org/what-is-timebanking/ 

[DJP]

Communism or socialism would be the community as a whole producing what the community as a whole needs and requires. It wouldn't be individuals exchanging goods and services on the basis of labour time, which is pretty much the situation we have already.Things like time banks might be worthwhile for some people within the context of Capitalism, but they are not an example of socialised production.

[Anonymous]

@DJP,thank you for your reply. that was worth my time to read and more.  Let me pay you back by writing some question I'd like your opinons on.. . . So the other part of the question is what if large volume of public spent large amounts of their time with timebanks instead of regular work employment.  Is that something a socialist would approve of and encourage or disaprove of and discourage?  What would Marx say if he read a newspaper story with the headline "50% of american economic activity is exchanged in timebanks"?  Wouild he laugh or sigh or get angry and throw the paper into the toilet? Also, what would the transition from capitalism to socialism look like in newspaper headlines assuming socialist have newspapers in their post socialist future.  How wouild that compare to the newspaper headlines in a transition from timebanks economy to socialism?  . . . can you spend 5 minutes reading, reasoning, and writing a response to either of those two questions for me. if they're just stupid questions can you spend 5 minutes trying to guess what I meant and rewrite my dumb question into a smart question for me to learn how to ask better questions.  thanks. 

[Bijou Drains]

Perhaps you should look up the failure of the "lets" model which enjoyed a similar moment in the sun, in the U.K. Similar ideas have been put forward by the "Social Credit" movement in the 1920s and 30s. Your "radical new ideas" are nothing of the sort. There is a historic archive of our movement taking on these ideas and exposing their weaknesses. I suggest you examine the articles we have on line, which show just how the previous examples of the concepts you have rehashed were doomed to failure, just like yours.Whilst these ideas are, in my opinion, indicative of workers starting to question the contradictions of capitalism, sadly they are not an indication that workers have reached an understanding of the contradictions of capitalism. And by the way I don't want any time back from you as payback for my reply. The whole concept of Socialist Society as envisaged by Marx and taken forward by the SPGB is based on the absence of exchange.I suspect that you understand the fundamental difference betweeen the system of society we are fighting for and the bizarre kind of quasi barter system which is essentially what you are putting forward. But just to make it clear, we are a Party who have based our 112 year history on our "Declaration of Principles". These are not empty historical phrases, but are a set of common aims which all SPGB members understand and agree with and are the principled basis on which we have built our movement. Perhaps you should read them, then maybe you will understand that our movement and Party is fundamentally opposed to the outdated and demonstrably foolish ideas you put forward.

[ALB]

Here's what we said about LETS schemes in their heyday (before most folded):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1994/no-1084-december-1994/lets-abolish-money

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Here's what we said about LETS schemes in their heyday (before most folded):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1994/no-1084-december-1994/lets-abolish-money

thanks. I've read your link.  It misses some key points I've been making repeatedly.  But I don't think you want to hear about it. So just know that I've read your link arguments and said "I already knew that and clearly if you think this is what I'm proposing you do not undersand what I'm proposing."  But I think this isn't the place to discuss it anymore and people here have already closed the book on further consideration of time value exchange system engineering as relevant.  I do appreciate your finding the link for me though and I thought it was well written and worth my time to read.  

[jondwhite]

Is it Owenism named after Robert Owen?

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Here's what we said about LETS schemes in their heyday (before most folded):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1994/no-1084-december-1994/lets-abolish-money

Thank you for that valuable link that was more than worth my time reading.  I think the author makes some good points, but is stuck unable to think outside the capitalist framework of capital value.  However, a lot of the problems mentioned in the LETS critique have been discovered and confirmed by timebanks.org. solutions have been found and they have a book on what they call co-production call the "no more throw away people.".  I'm reading the book now, but it tells how timebanks.org encountered some of those problems and what they learned and how they solved those problems.  Some of the problems mentioned in the critique of LETS seem to still be present in timebanks such as the problem of pooling resources to produce large works.  I've attempted to address those problems with my universal values exchange system protoocols.  Other problems mentioned in the critique such as "this is no better than real money" are clearly wrong as the author admits in advance that the peopel using it might not have access to "real money".  Finally the author completely ignores and doesn't seem to understand the fundamental difference between how time as a digital curency works compared with property as a base unit for digital currency.  I would certainly agree that the authors arguments are valid for a mere replacement capital value digital currency.  But for a time value digital currency, things change remarkably. this should be obvious to you and everyone in the forum because it's impossible to separate the means of producing hours from the individual. For comparison only select people, mostly in banks, have the means to produce money. as a simple failure indicator for the critique of LETS, by worldsocialism.org . . . if this critque were correct then bitcoin would not exist.  since bitcoin does exist, this critique is contradicted by reality. So the critique as a whole is flaws, but may contain bits of wisdom that are correct and get misinterpreted or mixed with false assumptions or reasoning to make the whole conclusion false. 

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

Is it Owenism named after Robert Owen?

I'm not an expert on time banks or Robert Owen.  But I goggle and find a very long academic paper on the subjects together.  https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1439279965&disposition=inline  after skipping to the bit about using the find feature and typing in "ownen" i got some analysis, it looks like timebanks are a better and later evolution of LETS and Owen's ideas.  Timebanks.org seems more focused on practical day to day operations and moral values than LETS schemes in general.  Timebanks specifies certain organizational structures and values to prevent past failure modes, and seems moderately successfull in it's approach. Timebanks are growing in popularity, so that's different than the original Owenism as practical measurable way of comparing the two. I think given the limited understanding of the forum members between how time exchange works and how capital exchagne works, that "owenism" is probably the closest description to time banks the average uniformed commenter here would understsand.  So I'll provisionally say thank you for mentioning "Owenism" and I can call this "owenism" for the purposes of talking down to the commenters here and explainign things to their limited understanding as best possible. 

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

Communism or socialism would be the community as a whole producing what the community as a whole needs and requires. It wouldn't be individuals exchanging goods and services on the basis of labour time, which is pretty much the situation we have already.Things like time banks might be worthwhile for some people within the context of Capitalism, but they are not an example of socialised production.

@DJP,Thanks for the repliyCan you provide a link top a list of requirements to determine if something is under the defintion of "socialised production".  I want  a test of like 5 or 10 items that I can look at and check off to see if something is socialised production.  or possibly just a list of what particular requirements for meeting the term socialized production are missing from timebanks.  I get the feeling people here disagree on the list and possibly that it might contain impossibilities making it a self contradiction. If you include abstract ideas in your list like "no personal property" then perhaps a test to determine if there is personal property would be helpfull. exactly how you define personal property without refering to property itself would be valuable to me.  presumably socialist in a post socialist revolution society would still need to talk about capitalism historically and since they don't have property or ownership, then they would have to explain the concept of property to others.   I'm stil looking for a practical example of how socialist in a post-socialist revolution coordinate their activities and decision making to build something like a road and plan where it should go.  So far all I hear is "there will be no need for that in socialism." which is pretty much just waving of hands and distracting from the "no answer" truth.  Answer's like "they'll do it with community" are also not usefull unless you define the exact mechanism.  I'm looking for something like. . . in order to build a bridge in socialist production these are the steps to follow. . .1) conduct a survey about the cost of the bridge by asking experience and qualified bridge builders.2) conduct a survey about the need for the brindge by asking. . .3) plan work hours and budget4) etc. . .p.s. I know these above are probably wrong cause that's what I always hear here.  so think of them as guides for what kind of answer I'm looking for from you and not as an answer I'm trying to convince you of. 

[Author]

Posts