Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 23:09:30 GMT From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org> Subject: M-I: LOV - abolishing money Generalising from past experience, I think it is quite possible we will not resolve this dispute. Various parties have done a great deal of work and are totally convinced of their own reading of some complex passages in Marx, Frankly with no ill will I think we have to consider with each post how much there might be to be gained by a further one. Lew replies politely and incisively enough to raise some hopes. He asks again for my evidence. I have pointed out Marx's own reference in Capital Vol 1 to the passage in Critique of Political Economy that criticises the naivety of John Gray in advocating labour vouchers in place of money. Marx argues that in trying to accomodate his simple idea, Gray has to make one adjustment after another until, surreptitiously, without confronting capitalism directly or considering how that confrontation might come about directly, Gray is proposing a reform that assumes capitalism can vanish. Now whatever the difficulties of making general observations >from one or two sentences of Marx criticising other texts, The Critique of the Gotha Programme could not be clearer that socialist society will have many features of capitalism even after the expropriators have been expropriated. Sad but true. In particular the abstractly equal bourgeois (civil) right will give equality to people who are unequal, and therefore its effect will be unequal. That is because commodity exchange will still prevail. And in commodity exchange, goods are exchanged roughly in proportion to their exchange value, which is not the same as their labour content, because it is the abstract social labour time, and not the concrete labour time that is relevant. In some situations the producers of certain commodities may have some advantages of more accessible raw materials, greater strength or skill in their labour power, more efficient means of production, yet they will be able to exchange their commodities for others of similar exchange value, for which people have worked harder than them. The Slovenes could prosper vis a vis the Macedonians. So the law of value prevails in this phase of socialism. Sad but true. And how will commodities be exchanged? Some no doubt by barter. But if we are assuming a great expansion in the availability of wealth, it is unlikely that barter could be sufficient. Some by gifts and other gestures of mutual reciprocity, (not to be ignored). But with an increasing volume of commodities one has to assume an increase in a medium that represent approximately exchange value. (Necessarily *approximately* because exchange value does not have a precise magnitude in reality because of the approximate nature of socially necessary labour time. What medium can express that exchange value? It could be bags of coffee or American cigarettes, but the trend appears to be for increasing digitalisation. It is common now to carry credit cards in the advanced west. Increasingly exchange is taking place without the transfer of "cash", whether in the form of metallic or paper promissory notes. We may soon have the opportunity all of carrying smart cards, which not only contain our medical history and genetic susceptibilities, but also our credit worthiness, and the latest information on the flow rates in and the flow rates out of our credit worthiness. We could have credit forecasts, like weather forecasts incorporating in element of fuzzy logic, but valid for ninety percent of cases for 5 days hence. Because of the greater flexibility in handling calculations we may soon be able to live surrounded by a bubble of financial potentialities, as well as vulnerabilities. But it will still be money. Marx's formulas are deliberately abstract about the future, and I fear one of the problems is that Lew is studying them as if they were concrete. But if we are to discuss what the concrete developments might be, perhaps the scenario I have sketched is one in which quantitative shifts could reach the stage of a qualitative one, in which people would once again relate more in terms of their human relationships, because the variety of use values available would be so great that there would be possibilites of every one purchasing something, even if they could not compete to have absolute equality. But as far as we are concerned in thrashing over the Marxist texts the important thing politically is that Marx emphasises the need for a historical period to take place. The flavour in the writings looks to me like at least several decades, and there is no reason why it should not be several decades, before the springs of abundance flow so readily that we can transcend the present phase of an intensification of commodity exchange. I must ask Lew therefore to crisp up about his political perspectives. If I have speed read inappropriately, it is only valuable to be corrected. But I understand him to have argued that money should have been abolished within 10 years of the Bolshevik Revolution. And that the abolition of money should be on the agenda now in the West rather than the discussion of labour time chits. What does he really think? By "sectarian" I definitely do not mean views opposed to my own by definition. One of the best possibilities for learning on this list is to meet a sustained and committed opponent. I meant sectarian in the special sense in which Marx referred to sectarian socialists in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The groups and circles who have a pet idea that they wish to impose on the concrete reality that goes on before our eyes. >>The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented or discovered by this or that would-be universal reformer.<< That does not mean I am opposed to discussing reform. I am very much in favour of discussing reforms for their short term pragmatic possibilites and their long term significance. For example citizens basic income. But not in terms of an abstract principle. And until Lew comes down >from calling for the abolition of money as a sectarian abstract principle in Marx's sense of the word we wont meet. But it would be an advance if Lew would say what one or two specific reform he would like to see the new Labour Government implement which would move two millimetres in the direction of real socialism. (Or if he just wants to dissociate himself from Blair, what two reforms would be introduced by a socialist government in Britain consisting of a coalition elected under proportional representation in which Arthur Scargill was in the ministry with the power to take the decision. That thought experiment may be one way to address the concrete issue, so long as we do not get bogged down in it being a thought experiment. My intuition is that we will not solve this dispute. But Lew said: >>if you want to discuss how we get from "here" to "there", I'll gladly participate. << Suggestions might move us on from disputing readings of Marx, even if we wish to return to them later. I am unclear from Neil's comment whether Lew wishes to argue from an SPGB position and if so I have largely forgotten what it contains and will need reminding. Except in so far that it is very reasonable and very idealist. Chris Burford London. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005