Money

So why do socialist countries need money?
Why don't they use labor vouchers or no money at all?

Attached: maxresdefault (3).jpg (1920x1080, 166.83K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch32.htm
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch33.htm
reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/imper.htm
youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch32.htm
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch33.htm

well isn't any calculation problem they may have had in the past solved by cybernetics anyways?

Tankies are afraid to bring about socialism

I just found out paul cockshott is advocating for the abolishing of money.
I doubt many people here have taken the time to read towards a new socialism.(neither have i)
Otherwise there'd be no ☭TANKIE☭s here.

anarchists are incapable to bring about socialism

Attached: Anarkiddies BTFO eternally.webm (1920x1080, 5.06M)

o…kay…?…

I just read the part where he said he advocated for abolishing money and a mix between democracy via sortition mixed with referendums.

socialism = wage labor

You know im amazed that someone like paul cockshott who goes into detail get so little exposure while jacque fresco who just shows pie in the sky ideas do.
It must be the cinematography.

We need high-quality propaganda. The problem is we don't have billionaires funding hundreds of thinktanks like the right does.

Someone that could explain cockshott's ideas in simple terms would be a good start.

Nonsense Stalinist textbook, Socialism is not an distinct mode of production from Capitalism & Communism

...

I mean he does that perfectly well on his own imo. His videos aren't challenging for beginners i don't think

illiterate

nonsense retarded comment

indicating that the running costs of the banks are only partly met by their
trading income. This means that only some of the labour employed by the
banks goes towa…

Attached: images (5).jpg (300x168, 6.85K)

Attached: empty.png (750x871, 218.93K)

Attached: 000.jpg (408x230, 15.49K)

They don't need money, and they shouldn't. All socialist countries should use labor time accounting.

they don't, read marx

Reminder that Cockshott himself says that the DPRK is socialist and supports the Syrian government against western imperialism.

Attached: 8d0d91ca4fcec953c596206413b62b1507e63660038ece27af560bce100f0330.png (879x454 246.87 KB, 44.94K)

Paul Cockshott literally thinks imperialism don't real, he's a revisionist hack

It's not revisionist to acknowledge that the conditions in 2018 are different from 1918. Last time I checked, the British empire no longer exists, the French empire no longer exists. Ditto Austro-Hungary, Russia, Germany, etc. The people doing the exploiting in the 3rd world are the bourgeoisie of those various countries who often sell products and goods to the developed world. They have their own states and their own ruling classes.

Just because neocolonialism looks different superficially than old-colonialism doesn't mean it lacks the universal characteristics of colonial oppression, the bourgeoisie in countries like Ghana and Bangladesh are comprador bourgeoisie and feudal landlords, who oppress the proletariat, peasants, and the would be national bourgeoisie in these countries.

It's not appearances that have changed, it's the entire dynamic. Cockshott wrote,

As Luxemburg had argued, imperialism had its origins in the fact that capitalist commerce could not penetrate non-commodity producing societies by purely economic means. Extra-economic coercion was required to separate the producers from their means of production, tax them, and force them into the market economy. That demanded gunboats, armies and Governor Generals in plumed hats. But once precapitalist economies had been destroyed and the market set in their place, the paraphanelia of imperialism was obsolete. The normal process of capital accumulation could continue without it,

Whilst imperialism is dead, international finance and multinational firms go, of course, from strength to strength. Banks based in Tokyo, London and New York extract billions in interest payments on sovereign debt each month. But this does not mean that Japan, Britain etc, exploit third world countries. That is to abandon all class analysis. The capitalist classes of Japan and Britain participate in the exploitation of workers and peasants in the third world - but the working classes of the Old Industrialised Countries gain nothing from this. Far from being a bribed labour aristocracy, their own subjugation to capital becomes more complete, threatened as they are, with their jobs being moved to the Newly Industrialised Countries.
reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/imper.htm

Jesus Christ. You think the bourgeoisie in developing countries are oppressed?

Because they suck.

Perhaps he has altered his position on that since 1995.

Attached: cockshott assad.png (1080x743 350.19 KB, 216.99K)

You do know that the DotP is a transitional stage?

wtf I like him even more now.

are you saying a centralized economy still has to rely on capatilist forms of value determination to function. hmmm i wonder why

In the early Soviet Union the utopianists said there should be no money in a socialist society and the realists said that they needed money to distribute goods. Lenin then came up with a brilliant compromise, the USSR would have money, but only some people will have it.

The socialist countries didn't have money really. Rubles were basically food stamps but for more commodities. You couldn't legally convert them to other currencies or buy property with them. Wealthy people in the USSR and allies had foreign currency that they could use in special shops, on the black market, or in places like West Berlin.

Cuba has two currencies, a convertible one used for foreign goods and a non convertible one for eggs and milk and shit.

No, it fetishizes labor time and considers all labor equal. Doing a desk job for 80 hours a week is much easier than moving boxes around for that long. Society should be incentivized to eliminate work, not increase hours.

Why don't you actually read something? Start with Critique of the Gotha Program and then read Towards a New Socialism.

You got this the wrong way around. Any decentralised industrial system will inevitably have to engage in commodity production and therefore require money.

How about a certificate?


No.

Attached: Energy_Certificate.webm (450x360, 4.26M)

Energy credits are just a more retarded version of labour credits.

A centralised system doesn't need to be a top-down authoritarian system. What the IWW advocates is essentially a centralised system.

I don't even think we would need vouchers or certificates for a long period. ☭TANKIE☭s talk about needing a transnational period of state tyranny, I think the people need to be that organization. Like learning to swim. I think it's likely we'll need these voucher/certificates once the dollar crashes. Anything that gets us away from an accumulative merit token. Eventually even these training wheels ought to be removed

Really? How's that work?

Attached: Qu-Rudolf Rocker.jpg (850x400, 79.03K)

I agree for the most part, I think some degree of state power beyond a workers militia would probably be necessary (for example a small standing army), but such a thing needs to remain small and limited in scope and size (and be disbanded when no longer required).

Like Paul Cockshott, I'm pessimistic about the time required for transition to the higher phase of communism, but I think we should definitely start transitioning in that direction as soon as possible by increasingly allocating things on a needs basis. Housing, education and healthcare should be provided free of charge immediately, and over time other things like basic foodstuffs and other essentials could be rationed free of charge (it's important that they be rationed in the absence of price otherwise shortages will tend to occur). I'm unsure whether changes in attitudes and behavior are enough with regard to work and consumption are enough to allow the complete establishment of the higher phase, or whether a sizable increase in productivity will be required (automating production to the point that people would happily volunteer to do the small amount of remaining work).

Because they advocate forming one big union that also form the basis for industrial organisation in a communist society. The various branches and industries elect (temporary?) delegates to multiple levels who and charged with organising production according to the desires and needs of the workers in the different branches of industry. While this isn't centralised control in the manner of the soviet union (top down management), it acts as single cohesive planned system, a kind collective, bottom up centralisation (or as I said before: "effective centralisation". Maybe there's a better word to use to describe such a thing, but my point was that it isn't "decentralised" in the manner of a commodity producing society, where various entities act without regard for the collective needs of people.

I might say more about this later, but I have some things I need to do for now.

Jesus Christ, I really need read my posts before I hit the reply button. For some reason 8ch won't let me delete the post so I guess it's just gonna have to stay like that.

Don't delete your posts, coward.

I was gonna repost it, after i removed the errors.

They don't.
Bureaucratic and/or technological limitations?
Otherwise they should.

It's okay. I do the same.


Anyone who's a crack shot or whatever should join the defensive leagues as necessary. As things progress and peace breaks out, they'll retire their guns.

Transitionary periods would play out in patches. Good practices will travel quite easily in this communications age, which is why I think it would be a relativity short time. The revolutionary period would need to sweep up at least 40% of the population and when they see how it works the percentage would increase. The following generation wouldn't know the old way but through horror stories and archival footage. One generation.

That all sounds like syndicalism really. Lots of little centers. Say the medical profession would have a big meeting with all the various councilor heads. There's no need for them to elect some head of them all.

I'm in it for the end goal of full liberation. Full liberation means full liberation from money and work. We shall no longer have to work to eat or choose between work or death. End money and end work.

Socialism is a transitional stage to get to communism. You wont be able to do away with all of capitalist structures in one go unless you want to fuck over the entire population. Money in a socialist society has several key functions, with the main one being a store of value and a way to measure increases in productivity of labor. Leon Trotsky has a great bit on this in "The Revolution Betrayed"

"Money cannot be arbitrarily "abolished", nor the state and the old family "liquidated". They have to exhaust their historic mission, evaporate , and fall away. The deathblow to money fetishism will be struck only upon that stage when the steady growth of social wealth has made us bipeds forget our miserly attitude toward every excess minute of labor, and our humiliating fear about the size of our ration. Having lost its ability to bring happiness or trample men in the dust, money will turn into mere book keeping receipts for the convenience of statisticians and for planning purposes. In the still more distant future, probably these receipts will not be needed"

Trotsky goes on to explain the usefulness of money in a socialist society.

"The nationalization of the means of production and credit, the co-operativizing or state-izing of internal trade, the monopoly of foreign trade, the collectivization of agriculture, the law on inheritance–set strict limits upon the personal accumulation of money and hinder its conversion into private capital(usurious, commercial, and industrial). These functions of money, however, bound up as they are with exploitation, are not liquidated at the beginning of a proletarian revolution, but in a modified form are transferred to the state, the universal merchant, creditor, and industrialist. At the same time the more elementary functions of money, as measure of value, means of exchange and medium of payment, are not only preserved, but acquire a broader field of action than they had under capitalism"

To sum it up, basically money will exist till the point that there is abundance in society and inequality becomes almost non-existent. As soon as the questions of scarcity are defeated by a planned socialist society, then we will begin to see a withering away of the power of money till it becomes nothing more than a receipt, if even that.

Trotsky a shit. A SHIT!

Or alternatively we could abolish money in favour of labour vouchers as marx suggested, and in doing so abolish commodity production long before we reach some hypothetical point of "abundance".

Marx isn’t God. The USSR tried labor vouchers under war communism and it miserably failed, they had to retreat back to a money system that people were used to using. Again, socialism is a transitional stage and money will still be needed to enable the state to make appropriate investments and direct resources in an effective way. It makes no sense to do away with that system entirely when it would produce undue chaos. Questions of inequality and scarcity must be dealt with and when those problems are solved, the need for money will eventually wither away

...

I really hope that's the case, but I can't help but feel it's going to be more drawn out than that.

It basically is, though it has both marxist and anarchist origins (there was a bit of factional drama in the early IWW as a result).

This is all well and good at a local level, but at regional, continental and global levels you're going to need a degree of delegation in order to be able to coordinate administration of resources. Much in the same way that you can't have all the workers from a given industry in a city all attend a meeting together, you can't have all the council heads from all factories of a given industry meet at a global level. Pics related.

Attached: IU2.jpg (674x436 84.67 KB, 79.81K)

Yes, as is the history of socialism. Socialists recognize that labor is the source of value. Socialists also recognize that labor is equal, equality of labor being one of the things socialists have always strived for.
Yes, which only labor time accounting can do. I don't think you understand labor time accounting, there is no incentive to increase hours. It gives us the ability to decrease hours as productivity rises. It is the only way to see labor time directly and have conscious ability to choose labor saving production methods.
Actually read Marx. You think these didn't cross his mind when he advocated for labor time accounting?

This is just anti-socialist nonsense. The abolition of money, again as always been an immediate goal of socialists. Marxists have always advocated for labor time accounting. Just because the USSR was not technologically and industrially able to implement labor time accounting doesn't mean that socialists shouldn't advocate for its use in a socialist state. Scarcity is a non issue. Labor time accounting deals with scarcity, and way better than money can. Without properly valued goods supply and demand of goods will never be in equilibrium. This was a noted problem in socialist countries and is directly solvable by labor time accounting.

Well yeah. Since it's likely to happen in patches. I mean one generation fro a place that embraces it.

That's what I was saying. People in charge of distribution now would just continue to distribute, improve or modify it by proposing things to committees. But this is the only level of government needed. If a big decisions needs made, voting or electing delegates would be made easily enough.

Ah, it seems I misunderstood you. My bad.

No. It gives people equal access to society's wealth for the purpose of personal consumption based upon hours worked.
The point of labor credits isn't to increase total hours worked.


But scarcity as such has nothing to do with replacing money with labor credits. What allows for the elimination of money is the development of technology that facilitates centrally allocated (or, distributed) goods and services. Things like electronic banking, debit cards, and so on - this is what makes it possible to abolish money and replace it with something else. Economic development under capitalism in many ways can already do the things you're talking about with regards to scarcity and production.


As far as I'm aware the USSR never implemented any kind of labor voucher system, although they did try (allegedly) to eliminate money for a time but lacked the material basis to do so. In any event, this is no argument against labor vouchers since the period of war communism happened during a time of collapse and civil war.
Not necessarily, but I won't argue semantics here…
…unless society already has the material basis to allocate labor and products more-or-less centrally, in which case money serves only to obscure the relationship between labor and its product.
Like I said before, questions of inequality and scarcity have nothing to do with the task of abolishing money. This task depends wholly on the level of development of one's economic and social organization and not "scarcity" of material goods. Once society has reached a certain level of organisation it will be able to allocate labor and products like a typical capitalist enterprise already does on an internal basis.

This is true. Capitalist mega corps already function in this way. Their handling of resources is centralized.

TLDR; the reason why money has remained is communism is the same jewish banking scam as capitalism

Attached: 330px-Bakunin2.jpg (330x444, 27.47K)

Because without money where is the incentive for great minds to put their great minds to work for the betterment of their society and by extension the world? You've already handicapped them by stealing most of their earnings to redistribute to lazy people, by taking away all money the intelligent people won't be able to shine whatsoever.

Attached: 1530662637240.png (543x443, 19.25K)

Attached: cornicopia brain.png (625x773, 142.89K)

Here's an interesting video about the subject
youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc

Tesla was a great mind that died in poverty, but is that not real capitalism you absolute faggot?

One could say Soviet rubles were halfway between money and labor vouchers as described by Marx. As you point out, one could not buy means of production with them. But one person could give them to another.

A very decentralized socialism is indeed under constant threat of being pulled back to capitalism. The fetish for decentralization and spontaneity is the dumbest thing about the current western left.

That guy proclaimed that fiat money would never work.

Do you mean by that something like a ration book for food items? That's not what labor vouchers are.

2/10
You get a couple of points for making me respond I guess.


Labour vouchers.

not an argument. have fun reputing it. pro tip: you can't

He died in a fancy hotel room from a heart attack he got because he ate steak at Delmonicos every day. His ashes were put in a guilder spherical urn. Wtf are you talking about

Tesla was a vegetarian you liar.

Guess I better convert to anarchism then. :^)

I think you're talking about capitalism here
Perhaps look up "Rich Kids on Instagram" to see the real parasites

SSEEEEXXXX

Attached: 30fb73cdf9b63af256b70f7a2e5491a8.png (896x1267, 356.68K)

sex is tha way

Attached: 88ewicsjinf11.jpg (695x702 490.05 KB, 788.47K)

Marx called for the abolition of judaism. Lenin cracked down on it, and had the synagogues closed and their contents confiscated. Stalin had zionists executed.
Of course, it's no surprise that petit-bourj reactionaries such as yourself would gravitate towards the vulgar antisemitism of Bakunin.
In reality, you don't care about capitalism or how it exploits non-jewish workers. You just want to crack down on organized labor by appealing to tribalism.

Not really. I like organized labor and there were a lot of mistakes made by the Nazis cozying up to industrialists. The corporations are on the left's side now anyway (sans economics) so there's no reason to believe that would repeat itself. See the crackdown on fascists on several platforms and corporate promotion of deeply triggering and problematic poz.

Attached: quote-in-the-course-of-history-periods-of-capitalism-and-socialism-alternate-with-one-another-heinrich-himmler-110-79-86.jpg (850x400 79.54 KB, 63.21K)

anti- W hite poz that is

You really are retarded.

God, Goebbels and Himmler were such piece of shit LARPERs.

Seeing economics as something entirely separate from society is a defining feature for fascists. This, above all, is what makes fascism such a retarded worldview and why calling it in any way socialist makes no sense whatsoever.
It's no surprise that historically their parties could accommodate everything from anti-capitalists to hayekians. Ethno-nationalist unity negates every contradiction in the economy.

Sorry to break it to you, but you are the establishment with your anti- White agenda. You're not any kind of revolutionary. Your views differ little from Burger King's HR department.

How the fuck is my agenda "anti- White"?

The "establishment" has always been "anti'white" you simpleton.
Not even during the heyday of "scientific racism" did "white" capitalists give a fuck about this tribalist crap, except when it came to lining their own pockets. (Through imperialism, wars of aggression and exploitation of workers at home). Hell, the enslavement and debasement of "white" workers by "white" elites goes back thousand of years.
Rome had slavery of "whites", as did the Greeks, the Vikings, Russia and most of Europe.
I'd accuse you of peasant/slave morality, if you weren't such an obvious petty bourj reactionary.

I get it though. People like you - members of (or children of) the small managerial/business owner class - are terrified of proletarian solidarity.
You can probably see how times are changing and how small proprietors - always aspiring to be the next Musks and Bezos's - are on the decline. Crushed under monolithic power of Big Business™ (I.e. vanilla capitalism).
You're already feeling the pressure. And not just that, but in face of this you see the growing proletarian masses slowly looking out for their own interests. Against the hopeless promises of the "end of history" and all the trappings of neoliberal ideology.
As a (would-be) parasite you instinctively know that they're after your class as well. And nothing has the piss running down your legs as the moment when workers unite - regardless of creed, breed, tribe or race. Because when racism and tribalism disappear. There remains class warfare.

Christ. What a bunch of loathsome creatures you are. Pathetically clinging to the rotting vestiges of artisanal-yeoman capitalism.

The "establishment" has always been "anti'white" you simpleton.
Not even during the heyday of "scientific racism" did "white" capitalists give a fuck about this tribalist crap, except when it came to lining their own pockets. (Through imperialism, wars of aggression and exploitation of workers at home). Hell, the enslavement and debasement of "white" workers by "white" elites goes back thousand of years.
Rome had slavery of "whites", as did the Greeks, the Vikings, Russia and most of Europe.
I'd accuse you of peasant/slave morality, if you weren't such an obvious petty bourj reactionary.

I get it though. People like you - members of (or children of) the small managerial/business owner class - are terrified of proletarian solidarity.
You can probably see how times are changing and how small proprietors - always aspiring to be the next Musks and Bezos's - are on the decline. Crushed under monolithic power of Big Business™ (I.e. vanilla capitalism).
You're already feeling the pressure. And not just that, but in face of this you see the growing proletarian masses slowly looking out for their own interests. Against the hopeless promises of the "end of history" and all the trappings of neoliberal ideology.
As a (would-be) parasite you instinctively know that they're after your class as well. And nothing has the piss running down your legs as the moment when workers unite - regardless of creed, breed, tribe or race. Because when racism and tribalism disappear. There remains only class warfare.

Christ. What a bunch of loathsome creatures you are. Pathetically clinging to the rotting vestiges of artisanal-yeoman capitalism.

Actually what I fear is the White-hating, poz-promoting corporations that are unpersoning us from every platform there is. Ya know, the same corporations that agree with you: "Exterminate the White race". Try to be coherent next time, doofus.

Because money is a useful tool and is more time tested than speculative ideas like labor vouchers or in-kind calculation.

Since when do walls post on imageboards?

Contrary to petty "identity" struggles, socialism is about material interests. Not about whether some capitalist pig remotely resembles you.
This is what I don't get. The "race" of corporate owners is irrelevant. It has no bearing upon whether you're exploited or not as a worker. Nothing changes.
Only a would-be parasite cares about insipid crap like that, because they think power comes from race. Instead of racism being just a way to prop up and justify existing class relations. That's why "minority" petites are so high on "diversifying" boardrooms: They don't care about capitalism, they just want in on the game.

Corporations aren't "exterminating" the white race. Instead capitalism is breaking down communal barriers by globalizing labor markets and supply chains.
"White" or "Black". Workers have always received the short end of the stick. Over the past two centuries (and before), just as today.
As communists we aim for the abolition of capitalism - including wage labor and private property under international corporations.
But in your racist petty bourgeois mindset abolishing the foundations capitalism (Which are also the foundations of racism) is the same as "anuddah shoah". Because you're just another (aspiring) parasite who think being "white" gives you a free card or makes you deserve it.

Annudah shoah == White-Genocide

this is true
labor vouchers may be only an idea at this point, but in-kind calculation already happens in capitalist firms whenever they have to decide how to allocate resources, labor, and machinery.

Wow it's almost as if you don't have supplies you end up losing a war. Who would have thunk it.

Attached: pls.jpg (356x374, 66.55K)