Money Missing?
Money make's the world go round. No money, no go. Can we doubt such sayings, being used to the power of money, either missing or enjoying it?
But if we think so, we are mixing up economical and social experiences. Since most of us have too less money, or even none, we should consider, if we really couldn't do without. Is life indeed depending on money? I refuse this idea, and I even call a system dangerous if it's based on this concept. Is a social system really to be controlled by money's sake, or shouldn't it rather depend on life's development? Shouldn't vice versa life be ruling money, if not getting rid of it after all? But if so, how could do any serious or advanced economy without money?
Money is a social relation, expressed in numbers. The figures will tell us, how much value might get mutually exchanged. According to Ricardo, Smith and Marx, value is the amount of common labour, put into an exchangeable product.
I know there are other theories of value as well, but I don't appreciate them. The reason is, that labour needs to be exchanged, since division of labour occurred. When labour becomes exchanged, it needs to be measured, to make a bargain just or fair. So, if labour wasn't measured by money, we necessarily would engage another common measure of labour. Since we don't use another one, money itself must be this measure of labour. Finally, if value was something else than labour's amount, money would contradict itself when measuring labour. So, no way out, money counts value, because it counts the amount of common labour put into a commodity.
Money is not a mere habit of individuals, who prefer this or that and meet to exchange it, like mathematical models are suggesting. Any habit must be ruled by some ideas. If we ask, what kind of idea can rule our exchange of goods, we'll find justice. An unjust exchange will not take place, as long as the engaged partners act on their own will or ideas. So we have to find out, what makes an exchange just or fair. Something inherent or adherent must be equal or comparable in all exchanged goods. Now we ask, what might be comparable in all possible exchanges. It must be something equally contented in all goods, since everything only adherent might remain or fall off. The only thinkable answer is labour, because only labour is as common as goods are. Only labour can be put into all possible goods, and vice versa, labour needs to be put into every product, to make it a commodity after all.
Since ideas can only work with thinkable answers or concepts, also preferences of individuals are controlled by nothing but labour, as soon as they shall be compared for an exchange. Or, in short, even having a habit, no one will be a fool just for this reason. But I will not deny that some are fond of the idea, to make a habit out of cheating. Still, it should not become the base of an economic theory, because cheating cannot change the sum of the exchanged values or labour. Earnings on the one side can't be else than the loss on the other side, while their sum stays constant. Even worse for the theory of preferences, what's getting exchanged, must already exist. Value by no means can be created by mere exchange, but must have been created before, namely by labour.
Money itself is certainly not an accumulated good or value any more, since gold backing was finally abandoned by Richard Nixon. Bank accounts consist of nothing but figures, showing credit, which is a claim on future payments of debtors. If too many debtors go bankrupt, the claim turns out worthless. This will be called a bank- or financial crisis. The claim is gone, not the money, which has never existed. It ever had been nothing but a promise, a credit, a believe in the other one's loyalty. A paper Dollar will bluntly tell us this hard news with its imprint “in God we trust”. Maybe Nixon remembered that God was much more trustworthy than gold, when it already had been spent on certain adventures in Vietnam.
Thinking in social terms or historical stages, money probably stopped being useful, harmless and joyful after all. Facing financial industry and it's remarkable conduct, money might turn out to be a severe system failure. In modern times even war seems to be a true companion of financial strategies and other economic battles, since money and power join forces and are merging their executive staff. Several other theories of war reasons are suggested, offering conflicts of belief, religion, tradition, culture, politics or conduct and so on. But I think, if war was not for money, money simply would stop war.
So according to my view there is much reason to proof any possible alternative. Still, to suggest doing without money, seems to oppose all economical theory or understanding ever gained or challenged till now. Need not money enable each and every exchange of goods?
If money rules our social relations, namely our labour and its division, money is a tool of ruling us by ruling our labour. If money is a tool, it can be replaced by another one. But which tool could be a better one to rule our labour? I'm suggesting, that's just us. If we start ruling us, we might do it most likely better than money. But how does it work?
We can use bargains to control the exchange of goods. A barter economy can rely on contracts, and these contracts can replace money. They can work as if being money, with a very crucial difference, which is, bargains must not become money themselves. Contracts must not be exchanged, must not be sold or merchandised. For this reason contracts need to stay strictly personal. The partners can be juridical persons like unions or associations, but all engaged persons need to stay bound to the signed bargain.
This circumstance has some meaningful economical consequences.
The first one is, such a bargain cannot turn to capital. Production and trade are not done for profit any longer, but only for goods. This way labour gets rid of foreign command, it stops being heteronomous. The contract partners can decide on their own about their work, and about life conditions too. Otherwise a bargain will not come to existence.
The second advantage is, the contract partners can decide, which exchange is useful to them or not. Labour and exchange can become controlled directly by the necessities of life. If both sides agree, both can start production and trade without any profit, even including some calculated or temporary losses. This way production and trade get rid of the economical law of value. Instead of barter value, the practical value will take control over labour.
This will not be a loss of capital or money, like liberals might claim, since capital or money are not involved. This will neither be a loss or destruction of labour, since labour can only be done or not, it cannot be lost or destructed. Instead of staying idle, many of the now unemployed can start production and trade. The power of money will be replaced by the self-government of the involved contract partners.
The third and probably most important advantage is, that closed barter circles can start and work without any money at all. To close a barter circle, all partners must get what they want, demand and offer must meet. This can be arranged by a barter-bank, or on a bigger scale, by local or regional governments. So poor villages, regions or countries can start production and trade accordingly to their bargains, as soon as a circle gets closed.
This way another economy can arise, doing without money. It can raise no money or profit, it can only achieve a common subsistence. But it can get rid of hunger, unemployment and poverty. All we need is labour, from which we got plenty of. And this economy will not experience overproduction along with waist of goods or labour, because the contracts are balanced before production starts at all. Prices, as well as their rise and fall, will stop to matter. Markets and exchange will both remain, but will become domesticated by the contracts. This way economy will bend to common volition, to a policy ruled by life's requests and demands.
But how to feed the workers? How to supply them with housing, clothing, schools and hospitals?
To become closed, every barter circle must start with nourishment. The workers not only need to feed themselves along with their families, but also surplus workers, who will not work in agriculture, but in other sections of economy.
This first condition asks for land. Since there is most likely none available, it asks for a change of agriculture. While industrial agriculture keeps creating and growing slums, the soil gets spoiled and erodes. To avoid both, I suggest garden cultures known as “Permaculture”. This method is based on a rich biotope of selected plants, mutually preparing the soil for better growth. No fertilizer or pesticides are allowed or necessary, this way no money is requested. Such garden cultures can provide as much food per hectare, as high tech industrial agriculture does. Another important difference is, that many hands are required for manual harvesting, while planting and breeding is done by very few people, once the lined patch mounds are dug.
So if a farmer has some areas of land useless for money crop, he can lease it to jobless workers, who will pay him with part of their fruit, and free labour in addition. The fed surplus workers can start similarly with poor craftsmen or local industries, and will help harvesting on time. This way a barter circle becomes closed right at the start. It can develop by doubling its members each period.
Barter circles can also work with local currencies. Wörgl in Austria was a famous example in history, but it was stopped by law admitting only a national currency. Argentine was another successful example after going bankrupt and stopping debt servicing. So we learn, economy is ruled by power, it's an object of politics, while devotion of free capital market is a facade.
Considering this, politics and economy must walk hand in hand, if we want to make them our own. Barter circles will need the support of GOL or similar associations.
Copyright © UsRulingUs 2013
