this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
144 points (94.4% liked)
Asklemmy
45342 readers
558 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think if we eliminated money, we would just invent it again and call it something else.
Well yah. The alternative is barter and farmers only need so many cell phones and software developers.
No. Never has been.
Depends on what you consider "money" and what Mode of Production you have.
Anything you exchange as a representation or substitute for something else of value. I think communism would reinvent what I consider money but wouldn't use it as it's used under capitalism.
Some Communist theoreticians consider Labor Vouchers to be distinct from money, as they would be destroyed upon first use and serve more as a "credit" for labor, and would eliminate the concept of accumulation of money from labor exploitation and exchange.
I am aware of this. It's functionally no different than a dollar bill. The fact that I intend to melt down an axe after I use it to chop a tree down doesn't make it not an axehead. If I used that same axe to hack my neighbor to death, well, that's a completely different use. In the case of communist 'money', I think we would cease using money to kill our neighbor.
I don't understand how the issues of money persist if you can only earn LVs through labor, and can't be accumulated through Capital ownership. Why would you kill your neighbor?
I wouldn't kill my neighbor? Was that too complicated an example? I think that money, like an axe, is a tool that can be used differently in different contexts. 'Money' isn't the issue. How it's used is the issue, which is why I think we would invent it. You don't solve the 'issues' of an axe. You don't solve the 'issues' of money. Capitalism uses stand-ins for value to harm people, but I am not convinced it's an inherent trait of value stand-ins. I think LV's are money, so I think you think that is true also.
I'm asking what's wrong with money that carries over to LVs. Why is money an issue?
LVs would have their own problems-- if I do work for someone else, can they just create LVs to give to me? Do they get to create however many they want?
The answer is no in both instances, hence why labor vouchers are only sensible in a centralized and publicly owned and planned economy that has gotten rid of the necessity for small commodity producers.
Interesting. That could work. Feels a little draconian though.
How so?
Mostly that the central planning authority gets to decide which work is meaningful enough to get paid for
All work would be paid for. Volunteering to help someone out isn't the same as working a job, and moreover the need to volunteer would be minimized before such a system could take place to begin with.
All work would be paid for? Who decides what "work" is?
You'd get a job in the public sector, now the only sector. Various economic decisions are made at local, regional, global, etc levels by councils, planners, elected officials, etc.
Right, but I could not get a job unless it's first been created by the government. What if the government doesn't want to create a job that's necessary? What about jobs that aren't necessary, but are still desirable? If I have artistic skill, would I get an appropriate amount of work vouchers? Would skill factor in at all, or only time spent working? What is my invcentive to be efficient if skill is not a factor? If skill is a factor, who determines what "skill" is? Do we vote to make 10 furniture maker jobs and one "expert furniture maker" job with appropriate salaries?
You don't have to answer all of those, I'm mostly just saying that this would result in a LOT of centralized control, which would have to be handled with a large amount of nuance, and that deciding these things by vote isn't likely to work (see also, the most recent election).
"The government". Am I thinking of Anna L. Strong on the disconnect between people and "government" in western countries.
Ah, my point is that you seem to think yourself distant from the government. You don't take part in making decisions, some entity ("government") does.
Edit, yes I am, This Soviet World, "ON INTERPRETING A WORLD"
I figured using "government" would result in some disconnect, but I'm not sure what else I would call a centralized authority responsible for making and carrying out societal decisions.
Anyways, it doesn't matter if I'm part of the government. The issue remains.
Centralization is an inevitability as production becomes more complex and interconnected. Humanity will adapt and develop the necessary structures to support this, regardless of any individual's will.
Only if there's a viable path to transition to that state, and it's a stable state. It could also only be a local minimum. The effect you're describing is real, but there's no guarantee that it will lead to your proposed societal system, and furthermore there's no guarantee that the effect is deterministic and will necessarily lead to the same solution unless it is the only solution.
I never claimed there was anything wrong with money? As far as I thought, I was arguing that it was a tool so useful it would be reinvented if a society did away with it.
Sure, but I think it's an entirely different thing at that point even if it is used for distribution.
Seems like a big difference to me