On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:02:07 +1100 (EST), Mike Ballard <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Dmytri...could you please provide us with a quote or two to back this
> claim up?
Hi Mike, unfortunately I don't have the time to keep up with this list. This is a very interesting thread, and I will read what I can of it. In brief, I am not a Marx scholar, so I am no so interested in taking further any discussion of what Marx did or did not believe.
IMO, there is no economic difference between "labour vouchers" and Money, this is just a kind of money, but as mentioned I don't have the time currently to debate this point. Maybe I'll jump back in later.
A few basic premises:
- Specialization of Labour is not possible without exchange, wether formal or informal,
whether circulation is individual or collective. SInce with specialisation, no individual
worker is self.sufficient.
- Money is simply the memory of exchange, memory is necessary for allocation. Certain forms
of money, i.e. State "legel tender" allows holders to capture an exploitive scarcity rent,
however other forms, i.e. mutual credit may not.
- Money as we currently know it, State "legel tender" originates from tributary and
prestige exchange, not barter, nor the exchange of surplus subsistence goods.
I'm surprised that my comment on Marx causes so much discussion, I guess everyone agrees that what distinguishes Anarchism from other communist tendencies is a focus of worker's self organisation of production, rather than political organisation. Good.
Thanks to everyone for all the interesting comments and information.
Cheers.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net