The Concept of Currency

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

All it takes is ONE person who is not honest, who has an oversized ego, who can think of ways to abuse the system, and you get Stalin, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Qaddafi (you know, back in his international terrorist, Carlos the Jackal-loving days).

Not sure about the "oversized ego" but anyone who advocates eliminating $$$ (including Jesus, if he existed) gets crucified. U mentioned Pol Pot, Castro & Qaddafi, three ppl who believed in eliminating money and got demonized.

There's a good book about Pol Pot's Cambodia, which eliminated $$$, by Noam Chomsky called "After the Catyclysm," which debunks all the demonizing propaganda about Pol Pot.

 

[Roger&Me]

Your example proves little. These prisoners all came from cultures with currency...of course they'd invent a new currency in its absence.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Do you know of any modern cultures that don't use a form of currency?

I'm thinking that basically any culture that still hasn't organized some form of functioning economy will be severely handicapped in many areas of advancement. Perhaps there are remote islands somewhere where people don't use currency; and that's cool with me. But I doubt it would be very much fun to live there. :D

But hey, if someone can think up a system where I can live a life with all the amenities and creature-comforts of modern society without having to worry about currency, I would be all for it. I do think that its a pipe dream, though, because how are you going to convince all the people who depend on the financial sector for their own welfare? In the absence of some massive paradigm shift, I really don't see it as a feasible option.

What would be cool, though, is some type of compromise. What if we kept currency, but we all adopted a more laid-back attitude towards the acquisition of consumer goods -- and worked to close the gap between the wealthy and the poor. This must come from the bottom up, starting on the individual level, though. And to be honest, that's probably a pipe dream too. I really only see capitalist greed increasing, and I don't think that things will change in our lifetimes.

 

[Obyron]

The reason they got demonized had nothing to do with the fact that they believed in eliminating money.

Noam Chomsky defended Pol Pot, and he also got unceremoniously slammed for it. One of Chomsky's assertions was that the executions under the Khmer Rouge numbered at most in the thousands. Even if that's the truth, and I don't believe it is by a long shot, he more than deserved the "demonizing propaganda."

It's the opinion of most people in academia that Noam Chomsky is a linguistic genius, but that he needs to keep his nose out of politics. The fact that his theories pretty much rewrote the books on linguistics do not excuse him of being a crank and a conspiracy nut when it comes to politics and foreign relations. This is somewhat similar to the way Hollywood actors or famous musicians try to parlay their fame into support for their political causes. Jane Fonda thought the Viet Cong were pretty harmless too.

 

[The_Idler]

Regardless of the fact that our financial systems and economies are based on the deceit and exploitation of billions,

despite the fact that the monetary systems were created, specifically to enslave entire nations to the will of all-powerful bankers,

and notwithstanding all these systems being perfect manifestations mindless exploitation and the inherent greed of humanity,

I have concluded that, as it would be unreasonable to expect them to crumble in the face of someone pointing out their true nature, in a horrified manner,
the best course of action, would be to utilize my nascent thorough understanding of the systems,
to facilitate my own efforts in raping this beautiful world for the greatest personal gain attainable.

 

[ebola?]

Roger and me:

That's a good point, I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Do you know of any modern cultures that don't use a form of currency?

If by modern, we mean contemporary...well, there was the temporary anarchist federation during the Spanish Civil War...to messy a case to tell us much.

You also have various isolated commune experiments...again, inconclusive, not too relevant.

If by "modern" you mean Enlightenment Europe, most feudal economic activity was launched sans currency.

It's the opinion of most people in academia that Noam Chomsky is a linguistic genius, but that he needs to keep his nose out of politics.

He's wrong on some political things but insightful on others. I mean, he held his own debating Foucault. . .

 

[Obyron]

He's wrong on some political things but insightful on others. I mean, he held his own debating Foucault. . .

Debating human nature in very philosophical and abstract terms, yes. Chomsky is a very intelligent guy, and I didn't mean to denigrate him. His ideas on political theory or a theory of human nature as valid as anyone else's. My point was more that when he speaks out on specific facts in the political world his biases seem to trump his intellect-- which is in no way unique to Chomsky. The guy is a self-described "libertarian socialist," and-- as every Freshman history student is taught-- you have to understand a person's biases and how they're going to impact the "truthiness" of what they say.

Put short, I respect Chomsky, think he's an incredibly intelligent guy-- a genius definitely in linguistics--, and I think his theories are as valid as anyone's, but when he speaks on a black and white factual level about certain events, the bullshit flows freely from his mouth.

 

[The_Idler]

and btw,
currency is an inevitable consequence of various innate aspects of the behaviour of humanity.

That is, genetically, such behaviour that precipitates a need for currency is prevalent, to the point of defining most consequent cultures.

So, although some cultures regard its nature differently,
money is omnipresent and inevitably so,
because it is so convenient to work with,
in relation to the innate properties of most humans.

People "get" money.

If you don't believe in evolution (and so reject the genetic prevalence idea),
consider this:
In a large and complex society (that is, any human society, not confined to a tiny island),
if one proposed the concept of money to them, explaining what it is used for,
showing them how they would be able to easily obtain goods they needed, at any time,
and make worth of the services they could provide, at any time,
the system of which ALSO providing means to easily exchange between the two, at any time,
and explaining how, if there were two bakers in town, and the blacksmith only liked the bread of one of them,
the other could now actually obtain metal goods, such as a knife to kill the other baker,
ALMOST EVERYONE would agree that it would be a fantastic idea, and should be implemented immediately,
so that everyone can actually get some useful shit done at a reasonable rate.

 

[ebola?]

The guy is a self-described "libertarian socialist," and-- as every Freshman history student is taught-- you have to understand a person's biases and how they're going to impact the "truthiness" of what they say.

Indeed, but we all have these types of biases. For example, like Chomsky, I too am a 'libertarian socialist'.

My point was more that when he speaks out on specific facts in the political world his biases seem to trump his intellect-- which is in no way unique to Chomsky.

I think that his analysis of the media, Manufacturing Consent, is pretty well done. A lot of his assessment of foreign policy, particularly in terms of the cold war, is quite off the mark though.

when he speaks on a black and white factual level about certain events, the bullshit flows freely from his mouth.

A point of caution: there are no black and white facts. However, some things are clear bullshit.

currency is an inevitable consequence of various innate aspects of the behaviour of humanity.

That is, genetically, such behaviour that precipitates a need for currency is prevalent, to the point of defining most consequent cultures.

This holds little empirical weight. Most human cultures lacked currency. Most human cultures have also been paleolithic. It seems odd to deem a new invention as "stemming directly from human nature.

In a large and complex society (that is, any human society, not confined to a tiny island),
if one proposed the concept of money to them, explaining what it is used for,
showing them how they would be able to easily obtain goods they needed, at any time,
and make worth of the services they could provide, at any time,
the system of which ALSO providing means to easily exchange between the two, at any time,
and explaining how, if there were two bakers in town, and the blacksmith only liked the bread of one of them,
the other could now actually obtain metal goods, such as a knife to kill the other baker,
ALMOST EVERYONE would agree that it would be a fantastic idea, and should be implemented immediately,
so that everyone can actually get some useful shit done at a reasonable rate.

This is utterly unverifiable. You need a time machine, and even then, the closest things'd be Medieval Europe or China, both using currency, but not to its fullest extent.

I could turn your hypothetical on its head. A European feudal serf would accept your currency idea (having dealt in it sparingly in it before), but he'll still probably pay tribute to his lord in kind.

ebola

 

[The_Idler]

I just cannot understand how people could look at humanity,
and conclude that currency is not necessary and inevitable.


How does a computer get made, without currency?

For a society to function without money,
all production and consumption would need to be organized and facilitated by one organization, ie the government.
This is a situation most would find less desirable than production and consumption being controlled by demand and natural necessity.
Firstly, because the government has consistently proven itself not to be trusted in such situations.
Secondly, because it is not safe to allow the existence of an entire society to depend so completely upon one organization, which has often shown incompetence and negligence in the past.

Hence, currency was invented, accepted and now continues to persist, throughout human society.

 

[ebola?]

I just cannot understand how people could look at humanity,
and conclude that currency is not necessary and inevitable.

Why not? Are we using different definitions of "inevitable"?

For a society to function without money,
all production and consumption would need to be organized and facilitated by one organization, ie the government.

Why would this be? I would argue that the most viable socialisms won't be spear-headed by nation-states. Maybe production and consumption could be organized through decentralized networks aimed more directly at individual and community-based needs.

This is a situation most would find less desirable than production and consumption being controlled by demand and natural necessity.

I don't think that capitalist markets do this.

Hence, currency was invented, accepted and now continues to persist, throughout human society.

I think that this is empirically false. Currency appears to have been invented to facilitate economic gain for smaller segments in various societies, rather than to combat the ills of centralized economic planning. Hell, all this went on mainly before the very existence of nation-states.

ebola

 

[Obyron]

Currency is just an abstract way to quantify value and simplify barter without having to DIRECTLY exchange the fruits of your trade for those of another.

It seems like a lot of people in this thread are indirectly criticizing the effects of globalization, and not currency itself. The logistics of international trade demands that middle men skilled at facilitating that trade are going to get rich from it. That doesn't make bankers the devil. Cars demand mechanics, computers demand IT guys. These people are not to blame just because the Laws of Thermodynamics demand that things break. They are actually there to help you.

If people are so determined to practice collectivism, let them go form one. I want no part of it. If you want to experience a socialist, money-free society, go live on Zendik Farm for a few months, and let me know how you like milking goats.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Pol Pot eliminated $$$ for about three years and was really getting on-track when Vietnam invaded on X-mas eve. What they had in Cambodia was a civil war, not genocide. Pol Pot emptied the cities of "parasites" because all the canals, dikes etc. were "secretly" and illegally bombed by U$A (the bombing was one of the indictments in Nixon's impeachment) . . . many villiages were wiped out by U$ B52's . . . those were the real killing fields.

I also just got a book about East Germany's experiment/debate with eliminating money but never read it . . . just skimmed through.

If we eliminated money, people would need something to do . . . they just can't sit around doing nothing . . . there's an innate desire in people to do something creative, constructive. Those who don't have that inclination turn to mind-numbing drugs (like H, which is a stupifyer) or alcohol. I'd say, let 'em kill themselves like the crack addicts, who will set an example for children NOT to follow.

The heros in a moneyless society will be the ones who put in their share of work. I once calculated, useing detailed statistics of employment in the U$A, eliminating all the "unnecessary" jobs like banker, bookkeeper (we'll still need some), cashier, salesmen etc. and figured half of the agriculture workers produce feed for animals or raise animals (I'm vegetarian and can live off cattle & pig food = Corn, sorghum and soybeans.)

Conclusion was, if everyone did their share of grunt work in Agriculture, construction, factory etc. we could do all the work necessary to support ourselves in as little as four or five years . . . after that U could go to school or do whatever U wanted.

^^^ Zendik farm is still around?! I visited Twin Oaks & Steve Gaskin's Farm and was very impressed.

 

[The_Idler]

no, you misunderstood.

i didnt say that money exists FOR these reasons.

capitalism DOESNT completely solve those problems,
and it DOES exist for the betterment of a small section of society,
but it continues to exist because people THINK that it IS the perfect system for encouraging efficient production, and that it DOES exist for the betterment of all.

and if you compare it to a hypothetical situation, involving no currency,
most people would agree this is true (relatively).


for example, please explain how we could produce PCs, or the right amount of ball point pens or the little S shaped bits of metal in the back of bras,
without money.
when you explain the mechanics of some other, "better" system of production,
then we can discuss the inevitability of money.

Until then, money is the best, because that is what we all use now, to great effect.
If there was something that much better,
why aren't there governments implementing it right now?

 

[Obyron]

Conclusion was, if everyone did their share of grunt work in Agriculture, construction, factory etc. we could do all the work necessary to support ourselves in as little as four or five years . . . after that U could go to school or do whatever U wanted.

Where would your teachers be? What would be the state of science, the arts, pretty much EVERYTHING? The people I'm going to school to learn from have been swinging a mattock for the last five years.

At least Jesus, that most prominent scapegoat of all imaginary characters, only advocated turning SWORDS to plowshares, not abaci, bunsen burners, microchips, musical instruments, literary works, dramatic scripts, and all the other things intelligent men and women devote themselves to.

What if I don't want to be an indentured servant, and trade 5 years of field work and serfdom for my freedom? What if I don't want to be one of Hitler's Jews or one of Pol Pot's starving "brothers," forced to do work for which I have no training, about which I know nothing?

Cambodia was well and truly fucked under Pol Pot long before the Cambodian-Vietnamese war. Acqaint yourself with some history books. You can keep your Year Zero. I'll pass on being "repurposed" as a "depositee" and forced to dig my own mass grave. Even Amnesty International, that bastion of liberal leftist thought, estimates the death toll under the Khmer Rouge at 1.4 million people.

Isn't it a funny coincidence how, in every single country that's taken over by RADICAL socialists-- not your basically agreeable, European-style social democrats-- but truly radical socialists like what's being advocated here, the purges always follow? Hope that you're not one of the "unproductive" people in "irrelevant" occupations when these kinds of idiots take power.

Reform before Revolution. There are four boxes to be used in the defense of freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, the ammo box. Please use them in order.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Where would your teachers be? What would be the state of science, the arts, pretty much EVERYTHING?

Just 'cause there's no money doesn't mean ppl will not do anything . . . like I said above, ppl have a natural tendency to wanna do something creative/constructive. From what I hear from school teachers around Tucson (and in the statistics of declining graduation rates), high-schools today are mearly places for kids to go while their parents slave to pay off their 30-year mortgages.

What if I don't want to be an indentured servant, and trade 5 years of field work and serfdom for my freedom?

Then sit on ur ass, masturbate and watch TV. In a moneyless society, very few ppl are necessary to produce all the necessities. Have fun paying off ur 30-year mortgage, $lave!

Cambodia was well and truly fucked under Pol Pot long before the Cambodian-Vietnamese war. Acqaint yourself with some history books.

It was fucked worse under Lon Nol, who U$A supported. IMO Cambodia is in worse shape now that it was before Vietnam invaded.

U insult me with ur comment, "read some history books." I consider myself an expert on Cambodia.

 

[Obyron]

U insult me with ur comment, "read some history books." I consider myself an expert on Cambodia.

Actually I quite agree with that page, though only for the last segment with the comments from Bruce. You have read Chomsky's book on Cambodia. This no more makes you an expert on Cambodia than reading Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" makes me a theologian.

Please do not consider this an appeal to authority. I have a degree in history. My two main areas of focus were The Enlightenment, and the Cold War-- specifically issues relating to the US Policy of Containment. I'm sure you can see where this overlaps with the history of Pol Pot's Cambodia. I am not an expert on Cambodia. It is entirely possible that you have read more about the Khmer Rouge than I have. However, your statements about the consequences of the Pol Pot regime-- specifically as relates to the death toll-- are as offensive and inhumane as those made by any Holocaust denier. It is my firm belief that you are wrong.

I had two whole paragraphs written about bias in historical authorship, with examples like Livy, and an explanation of how, while the initial Vietnamese reports of the death toll were biased too high, Chomsky's numbers are biased far too low. Both sides have something to gain from pushing their numbers. I deleted it all out of disgust, and because it bored me just proofreading it. I am not going to convince you that you are wrong, and you're never going to convince me that you're right, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[ebola?]

no, you misunderstood.

i didnt say that money exists FOR these reasons.

My misunderstanding...sorry.

it continues to exist because people THINK that it IS the perfect system for encouraging efficient production, and that it DOES exist for the betterment of all.

and if you compare it to a hypothetical situation, involving no currency,
most people would agree this is true (relatively).

I don't think that people usually think of there being any alternatives. Asking about life without capitalism is often appears akin to asking about life without mitochondria.

for example, please explain how we could produce PCs, or the right amount of ball point pens or the little S shaped bits of metal in the back of bras,
without money.
when you explain the mechanics of some other, "better" system of production,
then we can discuss the inevitability of money.

Okay. Something like a gift economy would be easiest to conceptualize. First-off, I think that the economy would need involve more localized networks than we have now for this to be workable. First, all of the firms involved in turning rocks and petroleum into computers, for example, would need to communicate to one another about how many parts they need from one another. Firms in our economy do this. Next, the finalized computers would need be delivered to a depot where people and organizations who need computers get them. In sum, people freely produce and share the fruits of their labor.

Now, we need institutional mechanisms to calibrate production and consumption. An economic community would need to distribute information about which firms lack sufficient labor, failing to meet demand for their products. Conversely, firms who are too bloated, producing unused goods would need to inform other economic actors too. Individuals within this economic community would need to try to pick jobs that need more people. For particularly undesirable jobs, the community can decide to provide special rewards, like fewer working hours, access to greater consumption, etc. That, or undesirable jobs could be rationed out equally (such jobs tend not to require much training). Goods that remain scarce (in the coloquial sense, not the neoclassical economic sense) could be rationed.

All of this would need to be decided upon by the 'community', including social norms about consumption-levels, hours of work, etc. Free riders would need be 'kept in line' through completely diffuse, decentralized social pressure. People would also need to tolerate a certain level of free-riding, if they're going to be happy. To the extent that such social pressure is insufficient, this type of system would not work.

I see something like this developing only out of extremely protracted social revolution, involving struggles and transformations from numerous angles, through numerous tactics. There would need be fundamental cultural changes if this is to work. I also see some sort of 'transitional' period of market socialism as likely.

If there was something that much better,
why aren't there governments implementing it right now?

I believe that this is because:
1. Governments work primarily to benefit elite classes and internal bureaucrats.
2. Social revolution entails chaos, uncertainty, and suffering. People tend not to be willing to wage revolution unless they're pushed against a 'wall'.
3. The status-quo arrangement before us appears natural, making alternatives more counter-intuitive to think about and just plain less likely to occupy our minds.

Where would your teachers be? What would be the state of science, the arts, pretty much EVERYTHING? The people I'm going to school to learn from have been swinging a mattock for the last five years.

They'd be. . .teaching, researching, etc. the majority of their time, participating in some subsistence labor for the minority of their lives. This sounds fairer to me than assigning some talented individuals unskilled, rote work.

Isn't it a funny coincidence how, in every single country that's taken over by RADICAL socialists-- not your basically agreeable, European-style social democrats-- but truly radical socialists like what's being advocated here, the purges always follow?

This says more about autocratic leadership and the dynamics of government as such than it does about socialism itself.

ebola

 

[The_Idler]

^ you pointed out all the problems that would be encountered,
while attempting to construct a PC in a world without money.

now you have acknowledged the problems, which are the obvious logical implications of having no currency,
please explain how these could be overcome, with a system not involving money, which would do so more efficiently, than a system based upon currency.
Please remember to take into account human nature at all times.

I want to know this in detail,
because I've never heard of a plausible, no-money model of a productive, modern economy.

This is possibly part of the reason that "Asking about life without capitalism is often appears akin to asking about life without mitochondria."
Whether or not there ARE alternative, workable possibilities,
most people have never heard of them.

So, just one example of a tiny fraction of such a system,
exactly how would a computer end up in usable form in the house of someone who desires and deserves one, without the use of tokens of value?
Remember, this system must be simpler than any involving money.
Unfortunately for you, the present systems, involving money, are pretty damn simple, hence their widespread acceptance.

 

[neonads]

I think the fundamental change needed would be a complete loss of the primitive brain that controls urges such as mating (and thus courting, competition and dominance), fight/flight, hunger/thirst, physical maintenance, love, hate, fear, contentment etc. It is these 'urges' that drive us to immorality because they exist without a verbal framework and work 'behind' reason.

They also keep us alive during uncertain events (i.e. almost all) and to remove them would be to remove our individual personalities. Jungian archetypes? Gone. We would actually be the philosophical zombies of the Hive Mind required to produce and given resources with which to do it. Veritable cells of the larger entity without a clear definition of it's supra-environment. I'd go so far to say we would cease to be conscious as we know it now.

 

[IGNVS]

money is evil

and guns kill people too 8)