RE: [OPE] Re: Dialectics for the New Century - money and the state

wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk

I agree with you that money need not be retained for tax purposes under socialism. Instead
socialism should operate taxes denominated in labour time, in the form of a duty to
perform a certain number of hours a week for the commune. The worst option would be to
continue the soviet model of using a turnover tax on state factories.

Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 1629
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/

-----Original Message-----
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of paul bullock
Sent: Sun 4/13/2008 11:46 PM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: Re: [OPE] Re: Dialectics for the New Century - money and the state

Gerry,

for me it is a matter of theoretical clarification. The role, nature , function of money 'outside' of its place in capital. 
It is an exercise for me to consider any possible idea that might help me assess the role of money as 'non-capital' as we go into  the future. A little bit speculative I'll grant you... lets call it rumination.  However just as i don't believe money was introduced to arrange tax payments in  'mesopotamia' a la Paul C. I don't think it will be retained for the same purpose under socialism. 

Cheers

paul

-- Original Message ----- 
  From: GERALD LEVY 
  To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu 
  Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 1:40 PM
  Subject: [OPE] Re: Dialectics for the New Century - money and the state

    > the btopic of money in non capitalist states is really important to reconsider 
    > if  we are thinking of  post capitalist or transition processes, tghis is why I am 
    > concerned here with the further past.

    Hi Paul B:

    OK: you're concerned about the subject of the organization of
    post-capitalist societies. What I don't really see, though, is the
    relevance of that subject to the historical questions associated
    with the role of money in ancient societies. The subject of 
    whether there should be money, quasi -money (like "Soviet 
    Accounting Tokens"), barter or something else (and, more
    generally what monetary policy should be)  in post-capitalist
    societies should (and will as a practical question, in the societies 
    in question) be discussed irrespective of the particular origin of 
    and form that money took in pre-capitalist societies.  If there is
    some particular question at issue in this debate between Paul C 
    and yourself  related to monetary policies in post-capitalist
    societies, then I don't know what it is.  A sentence or two 
    explaining why you think the ancient historical question is relevant 
    to money (or lack thereof) in p-cap societies would be appreciated.
    Thanks.

    In solidarity, Jerry

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  ope mailing list
  ope@lists.csuchico.edu
  https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope