File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-04-05.230, message 48


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 ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005