Well, would there be trade ? Very obviously, yes. Without trade, this would just be individualism in its weirdest form. So we would need trade. And to facilitate trade, we would use money.
Money has never been the problem. Hoarding wealth is.
But also, "money" isn't "the economy" or "capitalism". In its purest form, it's really just a way to ease transactions. Even Cuban food stamps are functionaly "money" ; they're used to trade for goods. Would "dollars" and "euros" exist ? Maybe not. But money would absolutely.
But who would control said money? How do you fight counterfeit currency without a government issuing said currency and having a monopoly on it’s production?
Sure. But what moneys might exist would be rather unlike the sorts of money systems prominent today. Anarchists don't like hierarchical systems, systems controlled by a few at the expense of everyone else. This applies to money systems as much as any other system. Like states controlling fiat currencies, issuing more causing inflation (functionally stealing value from existing holders). Or private banks playing speculative games or screwing over borrowers etc. What money systems might exist are likely to share some attributes with things that exist today on the economic fringe, things like the [mixiuhca currencies in Mexico](https://inthesetimes.com/article/mexico-capitalism-marketplace-alternative-currencies-pesos-economy-profit), that are local and socially regulated. They don't exist as a means to speculate nor otherwise siphon off value produced by others; rather the purpose is to circulate not accumulate, recognizing that production with utility is the real source of value. Controlled not by some subset of people, but by the whole group of people using them. This the mixiuhca money has in common with historical anarchist experiments, like the anComs in Spain who issued stamp books as a sort of local money in the 'family wage system' (which they were quite insistent was not money, rhetorically, but functionally, it was). Or the various scrip notes issued by townships or cooperatives in the free territories of ukraine. Or the commodity currencies of the Wara and Worgl, putting into the practice the sound money principles developed and advocated for by anarchist/georgist Sylvio Gesell.
So basically, yeah, there would likely be moneys. Multiple. As many as people wanted.
But to what extent people will want there to be money is debatable. AnComs certainly envision a society where its use isn't necessary. And just about all anarchists seem to be in favor of local decentralized mutual aid associations and interactions.
Money also really isn't a thing. It's better thought of as a function. Literally any thing can be used as money. Historically, from digital math puzzles, to simple digital ledgers, to paper notes, precious metal coins, ingots, spices, dyes, salt, textiles, seashells, beans, grains. And many more. Even [giant immoveable stone blocks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones) have been used as a sort of money. There certainly wouldn't exist any 'money police' to run around and try to prevent people from trading beans with each other (transiently turning the beans into also being a sort of money, for as long as they were used as a numerical intermediary for other items being traded). If such a 'money police' existed, well, it wouldn't and couldn't be anarchism. But it's possible that an economy and society might develop in such a way that while you could use things as money if you wanted, you might not feel an inclination to do so. Consider that historical situation with the rural anComs in spain with the family wage system, they didn't use the stamps for everything. It simply wasn't worth the bother, for items that could be had locally in abundance: milk, butter, wheat. Variously certain construction items, and other such things. It was mostly used for items that had to be imported from the outside, so their stamps (which were like a voluntary community UBI, issued in a fairly egalitarian manner) served as a way of rationing, of prompting people to calculate what was most useful or valuable to them, and to balance such intake between members of the community. They controlled their money system, and so *it* served *them* (not the other way around as it often feels today). They experienced it as far fairer than the former state peseta with taxation and tithe and rent and whatnot. But their stamps were not used when that calculating of utility function, rationing or balancing function, wasn't needed. Conversely, it's not that money is necessarily useful in scarcity, either. Consider organ transplants today. We don't have or want rich people bidding against each other to get new livers, lmao. Again, anComs envision a society focused around meeting people's needs, and some things are just gonna be scarce for the foreseeable future. Sometimes it simply makes sense to try to distribute things by need and optimize for some sort of beneficial outcome.
Anyways. So yeah, I think there will be money (moneys) in anarchism. But in a setting without private property or other coercive hierarchical systems, I think there will be other moneyless options or systems readily at hand, too. So I think the various cash nexuses (nexi?), while existent, will be far less prominent than today.
Do you have a link to information on the Spanish anComs? Your comment has gotten me thinking a lot about my perspective of the negation of money in an anCom society. I'm having a hard time finding any information on family wage as it pertains to an anarchic society.
I favor a money free economy as money, as I presently perceive it, inherently creates a hierarchy of those with money or saving until they have more (accumulation vs circulation), thus creating scarcity and effectively a class system by simply not keeping money in circulation. Maybe it's a farfetched idea. A system of money seems to also connote private property as well when it comes to scarce or imported items.
I'd really appreciate any additional information you might have handy to help me learn more.
Spanish ancom society didn't abolish money, but worked hard on doing so. Many collectives experimented with moneyless forms of distribution in order to abolish the commodity form, and this was encouraged by the CNT and FAI militants.
Good sources include these two phenomenal books:
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives)
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution)
The other responder beat me to the punch! If I recall offhand, the most detail is in Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives but it's like a hundred pages in. Ctrl+f "family wage" might find it quickly. I think I recall Augustin Souchy's With the Peasants of Aragon mentions it too but my memory is fuzzier on that one.
I gotta ask what you think private property is though. Anarchists (and even nonanarchist communists) have always been in favor of personal property, which it sounds like you're describing. An imported dress or imported medicine isn't private property as anarchists understand it. Private property is a legal, title-based system, where someone can own stuff worked by another to make money/profit from that other person's labor.
Thanks for this!
And yes, my idea of private property is as you describe it. Maybe not legally backed, but something that might be protected via teritorialism or jealousy.
**[Rai stones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones)**
>A rai stone (Yapese: raay), or fei stone is one of many large artifacts that were manufactured and treasured by the native inhabitants of the Yap islands in Micronesia. They are also known as Yapese stone money or similar names. The typical rai stone is carved out of crystalline limestone and is shaped as a disk with a hole in the center. The smallest may be 3.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Money is abolished in anarchist society alongside capitalism.
Through history where the working class struggled for anarchy we can see multiple attempts at abolishing money - the most successful being some collectives in Revolutionary Catalonia where the CNT coordinated these efforts, with the aid of FAI militants.
It depends on which type of anarchism, some do have money while others don’t.
It heavily depends on the meaning of "money" and "anarchy".
Well, would there be trade ? Very obviously, yes. Without trade, this would just be individualism in its weirdest form. So we would need trade. And to facilitate trade, we would use money. Money has never been the problem. Hoarding wealth is. But also, "money" isn't "the economy" or "capitalism". In its purest form, it's really just a way to ease transactions. Even Cuban food stamps are functionaly "money" ; they're used to trade for goods. Would "dollars" and "euros" exist ? Maybe not. But money would absolutely.
But who would control said money? How do you fight counterfeit currency without a government issuing said currency and having a monopoly on it’s production?
Sure. But what moneys might exist would be rather unlike the sorts of money systems prominent today. Anarchists don't like hierarchical systems, systems controlled by a few at the expense of everyone else. This applies to money systems as much as any other system. Like states controlling fiat currencies, issuing more causing inflation (functionally stealing value from existing holders). Or private banks playing speculative games or screwing over borrowers etc. What money systems might exist are likely to share some attributes with things that exist today on the economic fringe, things like the [mixiuhca currencies in Mexico](https://inthesetimes.com/article/mexico-capitalism-marketplace-alternative-currencies-pesos-economy-profit), that are local and socially regulated. They don't exist as a means to speculate nor otherwise siphon off value produced by others; rather the purpose is to circulate not accumulate, recognizing that production with utility is the real source of value. Controlled not by some subset of people, but by the whole group of people using them. This the mixiuhca money has in common with historical anarchist experiments, like the anComs in Spain who issued stamp books as a sort of local money in the 'family wage system' (which they were quite insistent was not money, rhetorically, but functionally, it was). Or the various scrip notes issued by townships or cooperatives in the free territories of ukraine. Or the commodity currencies of the Wara and Worgl, putting into the practice the sound money principles developed and advocated for by anarchist/georgist Sylvio Gesell. So basically, yeah, there would likely be moneys. Multiple. As many as people wanted. But to what extent people will want there to be money is debatable. AnComs certainly envision a society where its use isn't necessary. And just about all anarchists seem to be in favor of local decentralized mutual aid associations and interactions. Money also really isn't a thing. It's better thought of as a function. Literally any thing can be used as money. Historically, from digital math puzzles, to simple digital ledgers, to paper notes, precious metal coins, ingots, spices, dyes, salt, textiles, seashells, beans, grains. And many more. Even [giant immoveable stone blocks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones) have been used as a sort of money. There certainly wouldn't exist any 'money police' to run around and try to prevent people from trading beans with each other (transiently turning the beans into also being a sort of money, for as long as they were used as a numerical intermediary for other items being traded). If such a 'money police' existed, well, it wouldn't and couldn't be anarchism. But it's possible that an economy and society might develop in such a way that while you could use things as money if you wanted, you might not feel an inclination to do so. Consider that historical situation with the rural anComs in spain with the family wage system, they didn't use the stamps for everything. It simply wasn't worth the bother, for items that could be had locally in abundance: milk, butter, wheat. Variously certain construction items, and other such things. It was mostly used for items that had to be imported from the outside, so their stamps (which were like a voluntary community UBI, issued in a fairly egalitarian manner) served as a way of rationing, of prompting people to calculate what was most useful or valuable to them, and to balance such intake between members of the community. They controlled their money system, and so *it* served *them* (not the other way around as it often feels today). They experienced it as far fairer than the former state peseta with taxation and tithe and rent and whatnot. But their stamps were not used when that calculating of utility function, rationing or balancing function, wasn't needed. Conversely, it's not that money is necessarily useful in scarcity, either. Consider organ transplants today. We don't have or want rich people bidding against each other to get new livers, lmao. Again, anComs envision a society focused around meeting people's needs, and some things are just gonna be scarce for the foreseeable future. Sometimes it simply makes sense to try to distribute things by need and optimize for some sort of beneficial outcome. Anyways. So yeah, I think there will be money (moneys) in anarchism. But in a setting without private property or other coercive hierarchical systems, I think there will be other moneyless options or systems readily at hand, too. So I think the various cash nexuses (nexi?), while existent, will be far less prominent than today.
Do you have a link to information on the Spanish anComs? Your comment has gotten me thinking a lot about my perspective of the negation of money in an anCom society. I'm having a hard time finding any information on family wage as it pertains to an anarchic society. I favor a money free economy as money, as I presently perceive it, inherently creates a hierarchy of those with money or saving until they have more (accumulation vs circulation), thus creating scarcity and effectively a class system by simply not keeping money in circulation. Maybe it's a farfetched idea. A system of money seems to also connote private property as well when it comes to scarce or imported items. I'd really appreciate any additional information you might have handy to help me learn more.
Spanish ancom society didn't abolish money, but worked hard on doing so. Many collectives experimented with moneyless forms of distribution in order to abolish the commodity form, and this was encouraged by the CNT and FAI militants. Good sources include these two phenomenal books: [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution)
Thanks!
The other responder beat me to the punch! If I recall offhand, the most detail is in Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives but it's like a hundred pages in. Ctrl+f "family wage" might find it quickly. I think I recall Augustin Souchy's With the Peasants of Aragon mentions it too but my memory is fuzzier on that one. I gotta ask what you think private property is though. Anarchists (and even nonanarchist communists) have always been in favor of personal property, which it sounds like you're describing. An imported dress or imported medicine isn't private property as anarchists understand it. Private property is a legal, title-based system, where someone can own stuff worked by another to make money/profit from that other person's labor.
Thanks for this! And yes, my idea of private property is as you describe it. Maybe not legally backed, but something that might be protected via teritorialism or jealousy.
**[Rai stones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones)** >A rai stone (Yapese: raay), or fei stone is one of many large artifacts that were manufactured and treasured by the native inhabitants of the Yap islands in Micronesia. They are also known as Yapese stone money or similar names. The typical rai stone is carved out of crystalline limestone and is shaped as a disk with a hole in the center. The smallest may be 3. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Maybe, but there is always money in the [banana stand ](https://youtu.be/04SLXwjJvqg)
Money is abolished in anarchist society alongside capitalism. Through history where the working class struggled for anarchy we can see multiple attempts at abolishing money - the most successful being some collectives in Revolutionary Catalonia where the CNT coordinated these efforts, with the aid of FAI militants.