Smash Cash - Abolish Money!

The Socialist Party is against all forms of capitalism whether private, state or self-managed. In its place we want a classless, stateless and moneyless society based on solidarity, co-operation and the principle ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ - a truly libertarian  society. Socialism has got nothing to do with state control of the economy, nor for that matter with workers owning their own factories and exchanging products with other workers. Socialism is the abolition of all forms of the state, exchange (buying and selling) and property - including "collective property". In short it is a moneyless. classless, stateless world community.

In socialism the community is expected to distribute and allocate its social product – the members of the community are expected to produce for the common pool and to consume from the common pool, without exchanging their produce among themselves. There is no room for selling and buying or seller and buyer. The existence of money does not fit into the picture of a socialist society. In a communist society all the world’s resources will be for the free and common use of everybody to satisfy their needs - like air today. This is incompatable with the existence of any form of money because for things to be bought, sold or bartered, they have to belong to one part of society alone (individual, company, workers collective, state, etc.), this presuppose non-owners being denied free access. As the Left Communists Amadeo Bordiga asked "for how is property to be defined if not by the exclusion of the other from the use and enjoyment of the object of property?". So even if the bosses were kicked out and workplaces run along collective lines, the continued existence of exchange would act as a barrier to satisfying human needs. It is not a question of transferring property titles but of the simple disappearance of property. There will be no exceptions to this rule. Buildings and land will no longer belong to anyone, or if you like, they will belong to everybody. The very idea of property will rapidly be considered absurd. Anti-capitalism is not workers managing the economy in place of capitalists  but the abolition of ourselves as a class. Non-owning bosses taking the place of owning ones is no more anti-capitalist than a management buy-out. The role of the personification of capital persists, in the firm bought out by its management. This is because capitalism is a mode of production not a mode of management. Therefore anti-capitalism has to go beyond opposition to those who manage it to opposition to the social relations as such as the abolition of wage labour.

Socialism has nothing to do with the former USSR or present-day Cuba or North Korea. These are capitalist societies with only one capitalist – the state. Socialism is where our activity – and its products – no longer take the form of things to be bought and sold. Where activity is not done to earn a wage or turn a profit, but to meet human needs. As there will be no division between owners (state or private) and workers with the means of production held in common, decisions can be made democratically among equals. As production is not for goods to be sold on the market, there are no market forces to pit different groups of workers against each other or compel economising on environmental impacts. We will work only as long as we decide is necessary to produce the things we need at an intensity we are happy and healthy with, not how long the boss demands of us according to the norms of the labour market.

Many people think that socialism sounds like a good idea but doubt it would work in practice. The principle concern most people hold as to whether a socialist society could exist without the implicit threat of destitution, enforced by the wage system, is that people would work and produce. However, there is ample evidence demonstrating that we do not need the threat of destitution or starvation hanging over us in order to engage in productive activity. For most of human history, we have not had money or wage labour, however necessary tasks still got done. In hunter-gatherer societies, for example, which were overwhelmingly peaceful and egalitarian there was no distinction between work and play.

Even today, huge amounts of necessary work is done for free. In the UK, for example, people carry out unpaid care work or carry out voluntary work at least once a month. Almost every useful type of work you can think of is also done by some people for free, not as "work" for wages, demonstrating that they are not strictly necessary. Growing food, looking after children, playing music, fixing cars, sweeping, talking to people about their problems, caring for the sick, computer programming, making clothes, designing products… the list is endless. Phenomena like the free software and open source movement, too, demonstrate how collective organisation for a socially useful goal can be superior to production for profit. And that people don't need wages to be motivated to produce. Studies show that money is not an effective motivator for good performance at complex tasks. People having the freedom and control to do what they want how they want, and having a constructive, socially useful reason for doing so is the best motivator.

Socialism is not  a future ideal, it is the living embodiment of our present day struggle. In socialism goods will be freely available and free of charge. The organisation of society to its very foundations will be without money. ‘Needs’ as in ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’ are self determined, encompassing everything from the physiological to the psychological to the social, and everyone has an equal right to have their needs met.

And without the profit motive, any technological advancement which makes a work process more efficient, instead of just laying workers off and making those remaining work harder like happens at present, we can all just work a little less and have more free time.

Once more, the point is that money is only useful in a society still dominated by private property and commodity production. If everything was held in common what would be the point in money? Money is only necessary as long as trade is necessary, in socialism there will be no need to trade as everything will be under collective ownership.