Life without money

Capitalism seems a very complicated affair, requiring complicated plans. To our fellow-workers, the simple socialist proposition of converting the means of production from private or state ownership to common ownership, and thus making all the wealth produced freely available to everyone according to their needs, is too difficult to comprehend. So accustomed are they to have placed before them the complicated plans, programmes and policies of other political organisations that the simplicity of the Socialist Party proposition makes them suspect that there must be a flaw somewhere. The cunningly conceived schemes of governments and the hotch-potch of incomprehensible “immediate demands” of the reformists give them the idea that politics is a most profound business. Then to be told by a member of the Socialist Party, an ordinary worker like themselves, that all society's problems have a common cause in the capitalist system and that the solution just rests in the abolition of capitalism, leaves our fellow-workers somewhat suspicious that they are somehow being tricked. They take fright at the idea of a society without buying and selling, without prices or money. Not only is the money system inefficient, wasteful and socially destructive, but it will corrupt any system in which it operates. This means that there can be no fundamental social advance while we retain a money system. Like all radical concepts, a social organisation without money is difficult to envisage and therefore seems impossible, but we ignore the implications of refusing to do so at our peril. The idea of socialism as a world without money can be found in sources covering a wide historical span and a great diversity of authors.

The case against money is the case against capitalism which is an irrational system of “production for production’s sake”, of “growth for growth’s sake”, leading to recurring economic crises and slumps like the one we’re in now. Wars and preparation for war with armament production and defence spending arise when capitalist states compete over sources of raw material, trade routes, markets and investment outlets. Capitalism puts short-term cost and profit considerations before protecting the environment and respecting a balance of nature. Capitalism does not allow production to be geared to meeting the needs of people for food, clothes, housing, healthcare, education and the other amenities for an enjoyable life. People’s needs are met but only to an extent that they possess money to pay for them.

The Socialist Party wants to replace the present capitalist system with a new system based on common ownership instead of ownership by the few and with production directly to meet people’s needs instead of production for sale on a market with a view to profits. In such a socialist (or communist the two words mean the same) society – money would be redundant. So we don’t want to “abolish money”. We seek a change to a social system in which money would be redundant and so would disappear. The Socialist Party says capitalism must go if we’re going to provide a decent comfortable life-style for every man, woman and child on the planet. What is needed is for the Earth’s resources to become the common heritage of all. Then, they could be geared to satisfying people’s needs. If productive resources were commonly owned, then so would what they produced. The issue to be dealt with would be, not how to sell to people what had been produced (how could you when they’re already the joint owners of it?) It’s how to distribute what’s been produced. In other words, the exchange economy (buying and selling) is replaced by distribution (sharing). For this, money is not needed. Given the capacity of modern technology to produce abundance, the aim to be reached as soon as possible would be free access to goods and services. The implementation of the principle of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”  there would be no requirement for money.

Even today within capitalism, some things are free at the point of use such a the National Health Service and people know they will continue to be freely available they only take what they need. In Scotland, there is the Entitlement Card for the over-60s to free bus travel from Berwick-on-Tweed to John O' Groats. Do we spend all our time going from one end of Scotland to the other? Of course not. We only travel when we need to. Maybe more than we would if we had to pay, but there’s nothing wrong with that. It only shows how having to pay means that some needs have to go unmet. Over-use or over-consumption is not going to be a problem. The issue will be ensuring that the distribution centres are always stocked with what people are likely to need. The supermarkets have already solved much of the problem with elaborate supply-chains to keep their shelves filled. If stocks run short, bar-codes signal to order or produce more. If the warehouse fills up, that’s a signal to order less. This system stock-control works irrespective of whether gods are bought or taken freely. Organising production and distribution through money is not necessary. In a money-free society production and distribution could be largely self-regulating, monitored by check-outs without cashiers.

Adapted from a talk by Adam Buick, contributor to  'Life Without Money'