• ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Blatantly untrue. The state controls the monetary policy and can restrict capitalism through lack of available currency. No force is needed. Barter opens up communal valuations of labor to set a price for a person’s time based on what they can personally contribute. Want to hire someone to rewire your house? Better have equivalent skills or time to compensate the electrician.

    Capitalism has conditioned people to think that violence is the only alternative to it.

    • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Barter opens up communal valuations of labor to set a price for a person’s time based on what they can personally contribute.

      Soo… money?

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Barter is the model we are given for a non-currency centric society… It is also not how money less societies work. In a general sense the most common purely non-market socialist societies of the past and present (Communism alocates resources and property on a more rigid basis of “need” as artificially determined by an authority ideally (ideal being the operative word) democratic in nature, socialism just holds specific properties or services as common trust and can be split into multiple ideologies based on what should be considered public trust) had more like a running tab where people aren’t really keeping track of how much they are benefiting.

        Like if I come over and ask you for some of the wheat you’re growing you’ll probably say yes because we’re neighbours and I helped you build your house and will give you a share of my apple harvests later on. If all of our group keep supporting each other this way and helping each other out we can get everything we need. People do still notice and socially reject shirkers in these systems but it is more like you recognize their stingy behaviour over a longer period. There are still theives who take things they are not welcome to and there does exist a sense of personal property. Trade straight across for roughly equivalent goods still has a place in these societies but in a limited way for people they don’t see very often or people they have cause not to trust to hold up their end.

        Barter still frames things in money centric (though technically not capitalist) veiw of labour. That it sounds inconvenient is largely the point. It’s vaguely propagandist to give you nothing to imagine but a society obsessed with personal ownership of all property that is individualistic in nature.

        Not to say that the end goal gor socialists is to revert to these systems. Market socialism basically combines capitalist systems into a blended system as most socialists agree that there are advantages to capitalism worth keeping around, just that unchecked it’s a monster that partitions off what should be held in public trust to parties who erode the public good for personal gain that never fully returns to the system.

      • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. In the example, an electrician is skilled and can provide their skills and experience to your project - but they have a project of their own that they need help with. Unfortunately he wants help converting an old car into an EV, which you don’t have experience in so you become unskilled labor for his task. An hour of skilled labor would be worth several unskilled labor hours, in this example, but that value conversion wouldnbe determined by the local community.

        No money, just being helpful until the project is done.

        • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It sounds like an interesting idea, but it has a few drawbacks I think. A quick example: If you wanted to move to another city, you may not want to keep every piece of furniture and instead “sell” it. You could just gift them to your neighbors or the next person moving in but you paid for it with vouchers and you don’t want to waste the hours worked after all. How would you get rid of the furniture while still keeping its value? With a currency it’s trivial - just sell it. But you can’t really do this with vouchers, since they can’t be transfered by design. You could perhaps trade it, but what if no one has anything you need?

          And that’s ignoring the glaring privacy issues of a centralised, personalised labor voucher system. Sure, it prevents fraud but it also allows the government a lot of insight into your life.

            • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know, just because you don’t struggle doesn’t mean you don’t want to keep the value of something you worked for. And the value of the furniture (or any product) would be determined by the voucher cost. Something costing a lot of vouchers will be seen as valuable because it takes a lot of time and effort to acquire it.

              And I would say there’s quite a lot of privacy you’re able to achieve, it’s just not the default. I live in a country where cash is still the default, often times you’re unable to pay with card at all. Plus, there are a few ways to pay anonymously online using certain crypto currencies - although this has a ton of drawbacks and is mostly used for illegal purposes.

            • Cynoid@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you go by the definition of money : “The primary functions which distinguish money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.” (Wikipedia, but it’s a workable definition).

              It’s a medium of exchange, because people can use them to buy things. It’s a unit of account, because it will be used as a metric for economic calculation (ie accounting). It’s a store of value too, because people don’t have to spend it at a particular time. And the “standard of deferred payment” part is also fulfilled, as it quantify the work-time debt society (or simply a company) owe to a worker.

              I honestly fail to see what difference you are trying to make.

                • Cynoid@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Meh, this distinction seems largely artificial to me. Modern fiat money is already created and destroyed through use of debt, and I hardly think that’s what communists think of. And a strict “non-transferability” would beg the question of why would the “productive forces” (companies, cooperatives, or whatever) try to do produce things if they can’t accumulate value based on consumers spending preferences (which is an issue which happened in the USSR).

                  Even worse : if vouchers don’t fulfill the roles people want, you’re still going to have a kind of informal money (gasoline, tobacco, seashells, etc… as said above), just with vouchers in parallel.

                  That being said, I never had much respect for Marx’ political theories, so I would totally understand if you wanted to drop the point.

    • kamenoko@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Common currency has existed since civilization began for an excellent reason: what you just wrote. The goal of communism is to make sure people aren’t unduly exploited for their labor by a ruling class.

      There are aspects of human society where some ideologies make more sense than others. Adherence to communism or capitalism exclusively is antithetical to a healthy society.

      Sincerely, A mostly socialist

    • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And how would this hypothetical communist but not authoritarian state enforce its will? Polite suggestions? Strongly worded letters? Do you honestly think the wealthy and their allies will just throw up their hands and let them have it?

      • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The same way capitalism does: not participating in the system would cause the loss of home and no prospect of food, water, electricity, or any other service that would require payment as prescribed by the system. No overt force needed - the realization that the rest of their life would be a struggle of their own making will be enough, just like it is today.

    • SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If there’s no force, there would be nothing stopping “alternative” currencies from emerging (crypto).

      Government not always controlled the monetary policy, and it does it only through force. Without it things would quickly revert to its “natural” state, and we would have some sort of Agorist system

      • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re determined for forceto be used when there is just no need for it. If people and services use alternative currency then that’s fine, it will be just like Bitcoin and crypto today where a handful of people put their money into it but ultimate adoption will be few and far between. Right now is like a golden age for crypto and where can you spend it? Very specific places - none of which don’t provide shelter or power for living.

        Try using only crypto to live and see how that goes for you. Again, no force is needed. Social pressure will solve the outliers when they see how much extra work their own lifestyle is compared to everyone else. If those outliers wish to struggle, go for it. They will be rewarded with the same lifestyle as everyone else, just work way harder for it.