1. Are socialists suggesting that we should do away with money and revert to barter?
No, we are not. Both money and barter are forms of exchange. Exchange is only possible when there is private property. In a society in which all wealth is owned in common there will be no property to exchange and there will therefore be no need for money or barter. When you get dressed in the morning you do not sell your clothes to yourself, nor do you barter them for some other possession, for you cannot exchange that which is already yours. In socialist society there will be free access to all social wealth because men and women will commonly own the means of production and distribution.2. Without having to pay for goods and services will people take more than they need?
Why should they? As long as there is enough wealth to provide for everyone (and the potentiality already exists), people in socialist society will take freely to satisfy their self-determined needs. There will be no need to take more than you want because tomorrow you will be able to go back and take more. Socialism will not come into being without conscious socialists and such people will appreciate the importance of reasonable co-operation. If, for example, there is a shortage of a particular resource in socialism, they will have to co-operatively and democratically ration that which is available. The so-called greedy man is an invention of capitalist anthropology: a worker is said to be greedy if he wants more than his wage packet can buy him.3. Is the price system the best way of allocating resources?
Look around and see. The world is abundant in resources, yet poverty is the lot of the majority. The buying and selling system, based on production for profit, is economically inefficient from the point of view of those who produce the wealth. Socialism means free access to all wealth and production solely for need. This will mean that in a socialist society bread will be produced simply so that people may eat it, and not for sale on the market with a view to profit.4. Without wages or salaries, who will do the dirty work?
In society which can land men on the moon and fire missiles across the face of the earth to within inches of a target, the technology certainly exists to do away with much of the unpleasant labour of society. Instead of research into more and more sophisticated killing machines socialism will devote resources to improving productive efficiency from the point of view of both the wealth producer and the wealth consumer. Work in socialism will be based upon voluntary co-operation and not the coercion of the wages system. The division between work (enforced drudgery) and leisure (when your time is your own) will be ended by socialism.5. Instead of advocating a world without money, shouldn't socialists be campaigning for a fairer distribution of money?
To expect "fairness" from an inherently unequal is a form of utopianism which has diverted the working class movement for far too long. Under capitalism wealth ownership is concentrated into the hands of a small minority of the world's population. These are the people who have plenty of money. Most people can only obtain money by selling their mental and physical energies to an employer for a price called a wage or salary. You will never get rich by working for money. The only way for the working class to get rich is by getting rid of the money system.SC
Reprinted from the June 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard
Further Reading:
Socialism as a Practical Alternative Marx: Money Must Go
Absolute rubbish in my opinion, and I consider myself to be left-wing.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way any of that will ever be possible when you put human nature into the equation. I am sorry but human beings are inherently greedy and jealous. It is in our nature to compete and I do not believe that any of what you said is plausible. It would be good but just not possible because like it or not, some people will want more than others, some people may want less, some people may want the same. There will always be conflict when it comes to possession of any kind and that is completely unavoidable. The system you are proposing would only work if everybody was into fairness and co-operation and that will never be the case because not all humans are like that and not all can be educated in that way either. I feel that because of the reality of today's world, what we need is a balance between economy and social standards of well being and even that will be/is hard enough.
What do you mean "human beings are inherently greedy and jealous"? Prove it! You won't be able to because all the scientific evidence about "human nature" points to our behaviour being determined by the sort of society we are brought up in and live in not by our genes. In fact, our particular genetic make-up permits us precisely to adapt to a great variety of behaviours. Behavioural flexibility, adaptability, educatability, that's our nature.
ReplyDeleteIn Italian: Un Mondo Senza Denaro – 5 Domande
ReplyDeleteArguments of the sort used by Sean are always put to us Socialists without them even caring to examine scientific rationale behind them.
ReplyDeleteSure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support Sean's position (which only confirms that greed and the sort are conditioned under Capitalism), but really people, what is the SCIENTIFIC proof as to innate human nature (nature that is independent of any outside influences)?
After reviewing evidence produced by Science (and nothing other), our contention is that human nature is one of adaptation. Show us any scientific study that points to any inherent need for competition (such as a competition gene) and maybe we will start thinking otherwise.sq
Human nature actually tends towards social co-operation. Hunting tribes, families, friends, work relations, businesses, towns, cities. If it wasn't then everyone would be living by themselves in a hut, in the middle of nowhere, killing each other for their hut and not much would have gotten by. I share my money around, my mates share their money around. Even people I don't know share around things. You get clothe banks and people asking for a ciagrette from you. I think that anyone who aruges humans to be greedy are probably socially damaged individuals, who can't relate properly to the real world. Much like the BTK killer and Hitler. Ya catch my drift?
ReplyDeleteYeah, people share a cig or their old clothes, great. But I'm pretty sure that "people living in huts and killing one another" is a pretty anthropologically sound description of the last 100-whatever-thousand years of human history. It's not as if there was this great utopia of happiness and then all of a sudden the Medicis were born and all went to shit.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself to be a fairly reasonable person. But if there is a shortage of something, I don't want a ration, I want my fill. What is socialism going to do to me? Probably put me in a field and shoot me in the head. Or re-educate me. At any rate, the remedy will very likely be worse than the original condition.
Perhaps the better answer really is trying to find a more effective means of distribution of resources. They really are limited after all. But who cares if there are rich and poor? That can't be a problem. Are we going to saw off the legs of a tall man and sew them on the short? The problem is the size of the disparity, not the existence of disparity at all.
Sean and Mark ,
ReplyDeletethere is a counter argument which is that people aren't selfish or greedy enough . That it will indeed be a Socialist society that will satisfy individual egos.
See the Situationist tract
The Right to be Greedy
'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each.'
I don't have time today to read through all of that, but I must admit that I am a bit perplexed at how everyones greed will be sated in a world of limited resources. And I'm also a bit unclear on how those resources are going to be replenished in a world full of people who could just as easily consume from the stockpile as produce into it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that scott's argument is really the other side of the coin that carries sean's in that while sean (seemingly) uses anecdotal evidence to support his views that people are inherently greedy, scott uses the same method to say that humans are really naturally social. The thing is random series of events happen to different people at any given time and this affects their thinking. Sean's past dealings with people might have not been very positive, and this reflects his view that people are out to get whatever they can, while scott's previous social dealings are just the opposite, and he in turn thinks highly of people in general.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I prefer the Scientific method of proving things, as londonsocialist and ajohnstone do by citing authoritative articles to support their views. Science and academia bring independently adduced evidence and third party analysis to things, and so are more authoritative then mere references to "how one's mates are".
Mark , who has said that we are working for a society that is one of limited resources . It is a world of abundance that we struggle for . See our criticism of economics
ReplyDeleteEconomists Not on this planet
I suppose that I understand the goal of abundance, but it just isn't realistic at all. It is a simple fact that of any given resource only X amount exists on this planet (or the universe, presumably). Perhaps there are better ways to distribute what resources there are, or to make them last longer, but we can't simply materialize infinite resouces merely because it is a morally superior option.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I believe that this divide of opinion regarding human nature is really one of scale. On a small scale, in a family, church, or small town, everyone can act quite egalitarian. However on a larger scale--city or nation--that breaks down. People are strangers, and strangers don't much care for one another. This explains the whole history of human inter-tribal, -national, etc warfare. We can make people get along better with strangers, we can teach them, and so on, but it may well be impossible to comletely knock out that indifference.
In order for such a theory to be realized there must be a societal consensus that adhere to a value system that that will allow such economic systems to work. This talk of jealosy and greed are not feelings that can be proved to be innate or can they? no they cannot! Much of these feelings are not "evil" in my opinion, but they do have terrible consequences as we historically have witnessed and read about. Feelings of jealosy and greed are largely results from dominant value system that are reinforced absoloutely everywhere. These systems have come in the form of feudalism, capitalism, monarchy, aristocracies et al. Change toward a world without money is achievable but will likely be at a pace that is unfavorable to your desire to see such world. However, we all contribute through conversation, the many forms poltical activism, to a better world that can be inevitable, unless we give in to the subhumans that control this earth.
ReplyDeleteWow a world without money, it appears we are thinking along the same lines, but differ only in how best to accomplish it.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered doing away with money from a perspective of creating an economy where it is NOT required, i.e. TRULY not required ?
Robotics & Artificial Intelligence together can ELIMINATE ALL HUMAN JOBS, and MONEY in one fell swoop, there will no longer be a connection between consumption and production, HUMANS will be EMANCIPATED from the MACHINERY of ECONOMY ONCE and FOR ALL, and we believe only ROBOTICS and AI can accomplish this. Be see below.
TEAM INFINITY is planning to team with SIMULEX's technology to prototype and fine tune TEAM INFINITY's WAGELESS ROBOTIC ECONOMY.
http://TeamInfinity.com/TRANSFORMER_WAGELESS
The Age of Recreation via the
Emancipation of Humanity from the Machinery of Economy
via the ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY
* Want more Free Time ?
* Realize that Robots & Computers can do ALL WORK
* Know it is possible today, spread the word !
* Let Robots be Robots, and Humans be beings !
Believe it ! Expect it ! Demand it ! from your Leaders TODAY !
Just suppose, "saving" jobs that are not fit for humans, is NOT HUMANE, just STUPID
* Any job a Robot can do is beneath a human's dignity....
* Start REALLY CARING for your Fellow Humans, TODAY !
* DEMAND a WAGELESS ROBOTIC ECONOMY from your LEADERS TODAY !
* Free your fellow humans to be beings, & you will, of course, free yourself too !
* Many of your LEADERS & the POWER CLASS Think of YOU and your CHILDREN as FLESHBOTS, to be harvested and used to "run" THEIR GAME, you know, "Human" Resources, JUST another resource, like coal, oil etc.
* Let them know that you and yours deserve the leisure they enjoy, and that REAL ROBOTS, not HUMAN ROBOTS should do the "work" to run the "show", EXPECT, ACCEPT, DEMAND NOTHING LESS !!
Just Suppose, and, Ask yourself the following questions:
* The robotic network is up and running, do we pay the robots for their work ?
* The geo-thermal power plants producing FREE electricity are up, who do we pay for the electricity to power the robots & everything else requiring power when power is free ?
* The robots are up, out & about, collecting & processing raw materials into other robots & everything else, who do we pay to collect & process raw material & distribute finished products these same robots will make & distribute ?
* The Computer systems are up and running, who do we pay to make the decisions they will make ?
* To anwser these questions become part of the freight train of thought & action as revolution known as:
MAGNA CARTA 5.0©
The Age of Recreation via the
Emancipation of Humanity from the Machinery of Economy
via ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY
http://TeamInfinity.com/TRANSFORMER_WAGELESS
Quote: "After reviewing evidence produced by Science (and nothing other), our contention is that human nature is one of adaptation. Show us any scientific study that points to any inherent need for competition (such as a competition gene) and maybe we will start thinking otherwise.sq"
ReplyDeleteCompetition is a form of adaptation. When it snows, I compete against the snow for warmth. When I am hungry I compete against my hunger to hunt for food.
Word-play and twisting the language is all you have to offer.
Quote: "Realize that Robots & Computers can do ALL WORK. Know it is possible today, spread the word! Let Robots be Robots, and Humans be beings! Believe it! Expect it! Demand it! from your Leaders TODAY!
Ok so we go From Star Trek to Darth Vader to NOW the Matrix???
Is this what our utopian Government Education and Teachers Unions are producing these days? LOL
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"When I am hungry I compete against my hunger to hunt for food."
ReplyDeleteErm, the fridge or the larder?
quote: "Erm, the fridge or the larder?"
ReplyDeleteI do not compete with a refrigerator for food. That is where I put the food once I've gained it to make it last longer in case that pesky thing called hunger strikes again.
Though you might want to start developing a robot-frig that fights off fat people from taking too much food. There is your million dollar idea. Good luck. Don't worry about writing me a check.
Excellent post! I believe a world without money will soon be inevitable. Sean seems to think humans are inherently evil, but that's based on current conditions that happen to require money, thus irrelavent to what could be accomplished in a world without money.
ReplyDeleteI think we'll even find that Socialism and any other form of order will also become irrelavent in a world without money. There is no need for anyone to lead us as long as we share a technical objective that can't be misinterpreted.
Money is a drug the more you get the more you gotta have.Some of these people are so hooked they fear the loss and fight to stay hooked. Get rid of money and you get rid of every problem this world has. How can you people not see this, it is so clear. What you people see like laziness and lack of motivation etc. is caused by this monetary system, this is not who people really are. They see and have given up and I don't blame them. Every man for himself is a horrible way of life.
ReplyDelete