Dublin Mayday

top right hand side of flyer - Guy giving some black block kid a dressing down.

"Listen son, i used to think i knew it all too..."

I think Joseph was saying that vouchers and bartering schemes aren't much better than money. He is of course right.

Where people did ablish money and move towards communism in spain they did to my knoledge not develop a primitive market economy to replace it. Although there was obviously rationing (i presume this is what vouchers refer to) and non-money based distribution and provision of goods (i presume this is what barternig refers to).

Unfortunately Joseph, you get this a lot. People try to explain communism without appreciating that its a different social system. I fucking hate lefties trying to do economics as if its a neutral science. Its like prodhoun all over again. I mean at least he was making progress. But for fuck sake the left should have developed by now beyond fucking LETS systems. Grrrrrrr

yes they clearly fucking are, they aren't universal and are ultimately under the control of the commune etc.

or have you turnt into a toy town ultra leftist who thinks rationing is anti communist too?

it mentions bartering and vouchers, i don't think bartering would have been used that much and i'd imagine it would have related to various syndicates exchanging goods, rather than individuals running a red n black swap shop.

well none of the books or articles i've read about the Spanish collectives mention people bartering in such a manner, me thinks it's just ambgious wording.

Err no i was saying you get people who try to understand the economics of 'communism' and say that its based on barter or vouchers, i.e. a medium of exchange which is of course not puch better than money and will ultilmately lead to the re-emergence of money.

Vouchers are generally used to explain rationing which I think would of course exist in the early days of communism and I have no problem with rationing. Although calling it a voucher system might make more sense, rationing sounds bad.

Bartering is generally used to explain the negotiations collective A will produce spuds and will provide x amount of them to collective B. Collective B will produce wheat and will provide y amount of them to collective A. Provided the provision of these goods is not dependent on an equation of exchange its no more bartering than when in a corporation it is planned that the IT department will provide the accountancy department with computers and the accountancy department will provide the IT department with accountancy services. i.e. its planned collectively intergrated production not a market system.

P.S. I know that in a corporation the internal provison of goods and services is dictated by the ultimate aim of the corporation which is to extract and realise surple value, whereas under communism the provison of goods and services is dictated by the ultimate aim of satisfying needs and wants so the anlaogy doesn't really work but fuck you its an analogy get over yourself.

So, as the end here says, not really bartering?

What are you on about jack I was perfectly clear in my first post what i meant.

Mwah ha ha.

Well obviously was communism wasn't actually established so i presume that yeah some form of exchange must have occurred.

I think the objection is to the idea that one form of exchange-value being replaced by another is a good thing.

So you think a major national television corporation spreading lies and disinformation about the greatest experiment in human liberty in history is "harmless"?

Solidarity Federation would like to offer Spanish revolutionary peasants solidarity in the face of this attack.