BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Could a new currency bring down a government?

 
 
lord henry strikes back
21:29 / 27.04.07
Further to this thread I've also been wondering: If armed conflict is no longer an option to topple a government, what could?

For the purposes of this discussion I will take the UK as an example, but I feel it could equally apply anywhere else.

If a group of people were to adopt a new currency other than the £ they would need a few things. First, some way to produce said currency, second, a basic banking system for saving, deposits, and conversion to and from the £, and third, a large enough group of people willing to accept it. If this was in place then a bubble would be created where the national government could not control finances. If it gains some support then other things would come online: certain employers would start paying wages in the new currency, institutions would offer loans in the currency, etc.

If we accept, as I think we have to, that whoever controls the money controls the country, then one of two things would have to happen. Either a new nation would be created, or the new currency, and with it the controllers of that currency, would supplant the old.

Of course, without a level of support, this would die a quick death, but let's say it has support.

My knowledge of economics is OK, but not top level. Do any 'lithers know of a reason that this would fail? Would it even be a good idea?
 
 
Quantum
23:31 / 27.04.07
How do I type a Euro symbol?
 
 
Red Concrete
23:48 / 27.04.07
€ - hold Alt and type 0128 on the numeric keypad.

Lord Henry, it's probably illegal in most countries. I imagine if it started on any scale, the police would act quite quickly.

If you managed to get the police to support it... well, but you'd need a lot of popular antagonism to the governemnt. And if you had that, you might as well create a political party. Most democratic systems are designed so that dissenting voices can be represented.
 
 
The Ghost of Tom Winter
05:38 / 28.04.07
I don't think having a new currency could bring down a government in and of it self. However, a new currency can be used as a pretty effective tool of rebellion and revolt in an already turmoil stricken country.

I think if the government had much influence in the area then the distributors of the cash would be destroyed. But if the government was not effective for some reason (lousy government, distance from money press or super secretive location of press) then you could create a currency that might have some footing. However, I don't think people would accept just any currency especially if it’s not worth as much as government money. So you'd have to have support and the resources to make the money an effectual means of transaction. But if this underground cash became widespread and the government for whatever reason was powerless to stop it, I think it could be used as an effective form of revolt or civil war. However, the government would have to be some what ineffective to rule out use of democracy and to permit option of needing a revolution or overthrowing of said ineffective government.

This reminds me of Robert Heinlein's book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where there were two types of currency Authority Script and Hong Kong Dollars. The moon colony mainly used HK dollars because they were worth more and served as a symbol for breaking free of Authority's rule.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:56 / 28.04.07
The Discordians in Illuminatis! used an alternative currency as I recall, and there is the theory that one of the many reasons for the invasion of Iraq was that a number of middle eastern countries, including Iraq, were considering changing the rate at which petroleum was priced from the dollar to the euro, economics goes over my head so I'm not sure if I've got that right or indeed what it would mean, that the Americans would have to convert their dollars into euros to pay for oil?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:57 / 28.04.07
To answer your question, unless the country in question is a very small one and supported by outside forces, I don't think a civil war could be fought on purely economic grounds, but I think it might be possible for an international conflict.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
11:43 / 28.04.07
My first response was similar: if it actually seemed threatening to the government, they would surely declare it illegal if it weren't already and then roll in.

However, I then remembered the Ithaca dollar: in Ithaca, NY, there exist (so I hear) Ithaca Dollars which you earn "in trade" by helping people/businesses out for free, and which you can then trade in for stuff at most places. I don't know how well it works but I've heard of it more than once. I doubt it's in any danger of toppling the US dollar, but it's supposedly pretty widely used (there) and they haven't been arrested or whatever.

Also not too far removed are things like black markets. Often governments try to stamp down on these and can't. And they definitely represent some kind of freedom from or rebellion against government market control. In Zimbabwe the government had fixed the trade rate of Zim to US dollars in order to "fight inflation" (I think it was 55 to 1 when I was there, 2001-2); however the going rate on the street was more like 200 or 300 to 1 (reflecting more closely the actual value of stuff, or at least the US dollar), and this was destroying the country - foreigners refused to invest there since the banks would give them only the shitty rate and not what their money was (arguably) worth...well, and for a lot of other reasons.

Trading your dollar at a different rate than the feds isn't entirely unlike making your own currency. Maybe it's not that far fetched after all.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:36 / 28.04.07
I thought we had an alternative currencies thread already, Emperor Norton got mentioned because of his own money that was accepted as legal, but maybe I dreamt it.
 
 
jmw
13:41 / 28.04.07
Money fetishism that would make Milton Friedman blush.

In short, no, it couldn't.

Accepting that power and wealth are concentrated is a long way of accepting that that power actually lies in the 'almighty currency'. It doesn't. The currency is a manifestation of wealth, not its source.

Ithaca Hours have failed - and are doomed to failure - because of their inherent contradictions. Not that their intention is revolutionary any more that that of other scrips like Air Miles or Canadian Tire money is.

Right-wing libertarians also fetishise this kind of stuff but they fail to understand where actual wealth comes from, the realm of production. You know, stuff...
 
 
jmw
13:47 / 28.04.07
A quick additional note: in the North of Ireland there is no legal tender whatsoever and never has been. Bank of England notes are accepted as promissory notes, a kind of glorified IOU, not actual currency and others are free to print their own money - and people are free not to accept it.

In practice all this amounts to is that the Bank of Ireland, Northern Bank, the Allied Irish Banks (First Trust) and Ulster Bank all print their own "pounds sterling" but they are mere promissory notes, not actual tender.

It hasn't made a blind bit of difference because money is really only a token anyway. We all take it on trust that it is worth something.

I would guess that the situation is the same in Scotland.
 
 
diz
19:04 / 28.04.07
Right-wing libertarians also fetishise this kind of stuff but they fail to understand where actual wealth comes from, the realm of production. You know, stuff...

What a delightfully 19th century perspective. It's like having a time capsule.
 
 
jmw
19:30 / 28.04.07
Charming, isn't it? Almost as charming as the faith that some people put in stock markets to "generate" profits. Did we learn nothing from the dot com crash or Enron, that profit on paper does not equal real profits?

And where, exactly, do you think wealth come from?
 
 
LykeX
20:49 / 28.04.07
On this money ≠ wealth thing, allow me to butt in.

Indeed, wealth comes from production. Wealth is physical riches. However, the whole point of a currency system is its ability to hypnotize people into believing that a slip of paper is worth as much as a bag of chips. As a result, since all people believe this, the slip of paper actually becomes as much worth as a bag of chips, which you can prove by taking the paper, going to a store and buying a bag of chips (sour cream & onion, preferably).

Of course, to keep the system running, there has to be a certain relation between the amount of paper and the amount of physical wealth. If the amount of paper (or numbers in a computer) grossly outweighs the amount of physical wealth, people wise up, wake from the hypnosis and realize that paper is just paper. The result is inflation and stock market crashes.

However, (on the point of "generating" wealth) it is possible to use instability in a local system to amass a huge amount of wealth (paper or numbers) and then move that wealth out of the system before it crashes.

E.g. if you manage to sell all your stock just before the crash hits, you'll be quite rich while the buyers are left with nothing. As long as you manage to get all your assets out of the crashing system and into a stable one (perhaps a foreign currency, unaffected by the crash) you can then swoop in and buy up everything (companies, land, etc.) at greatly reduced prices, transforming your imaginary wealth into real, solid, 3D property.


Mind you, I have no training in economics and I'm basically just talking out of my ass. This is simply my own thinking on the matter. If anyone knows better, please correct me.

Also, I'm feeling a post coming on about generating wealth on a society level by making people think they're wealthier than they are, thus inducing them to act like it, but I need to think it through more.
 
 
petunia
07:14 / 29.04.07
Oooh.

This reminds me of 'the dropout scheme' i concocted when i was a bit younger. It was the ultimate way to have the world ge itself back on track, blah, blah. Doubt it would actually work, and i've forgotten a lot of it, but...

The idea was that, as corporations are the current leading power, the only way to 'beat the system/Man/lizard people' is to create a big multinational which trades in much the same way as current multinats, but does so ethically.

The main idea was that those inside the company (all employees) would be given an equal share of the company's profits as payment, thus giving them the desire to create good stuff, innovate etc - the stuff you need for a powerful business.

The 'trick' is that, while you can receive your pay in your local currency, its 'basic state' is that of company credits. The ideal is that the company would have enough subsidies in much of the day-to-day produce that you need to live. When buying with credits, you pay by 'cost' (the scheme needs to make no profit from its employees, as those profits go straight back to them anyway).

So on the outside, the business is working like normal - selling goods marketed as desirable and ethical at reasonable market prices, giving the company real currency and power to buy 'in the real world' - but on the inside, you have a highly demo-anarchic society based on equal trade and growth of the community as a whole.

As the company could argue that the credits were 'employee reward schemes' or something, and not a actual form of money ("well sainsbury's employees get a staff discount; why not ours?"), it might be able to skip around the legal issues.

The idea is to have a system within the company that is so differently organised to that of many current governments (lack of random profit, equality of individuals, valuation of personal growth etc) that people would flock to the company. After a certain point, the company holds enough power in a country to be able to sway a vote, run a party, grab the power etc.

It's a nice dream...
 
 
jmw
13:44 / 29.04.07
Corporate scrips are used as a form of sub-currency by some employers. Additional payment in, and trade in, Air Miles is one example.

.trampetunia I think your heart is in the right place but, for my money, that idea is a little uncomfortably close to corporatism, albeit leavened with anarchist thinking.

Also, like workers' co-ops that exist today (and are, I'm sure, great places to work) it seems to be an attempt to transcend our material and political conditions rather than change them.

Finally this: " After a certain point, the company holds enough power in a country to be able to sway a vote, run a party, grab the power etc."

Er, I don't like the sound of that.

A silly fiction, yes, but Iain Banks's book The Business covers some of this ground. Apologies for not providing a non-fiction reference but I can't think of one right now.
 
 
jmw
14:38 / 29.04.07
I feel a long quotation coming on:

"But the weightlessness discourse infects even highly admirable writers like Fredric Jameson, who argues in his essay "Culture and Finance Capital" (1998) that capital has deterritorialised and dematerialised in this "globalised" era. All the weightless postindustrial nostrums are represented: "profit without production"—in fact the disappearance of production, except for "the two prodigious American industries of food and entertainment"—and "globalisation," defined as "rather a kind of cyberspace in which money and capital have reached its ultimate dematerialisation," as messages which pass instantaneously from one nodal point to another across the former globe, the former material world. Globalisation becomes a triumph of nothingness, and finance capital becomes "deterritorialised," and "like cyberspace can live on its own internal metabolism and circulate without any reference to an older type of content."

"It seems very old-fashioned to point out a few facts about this apparently weightless, placeless capital thoroughly unmoored from the real. The world money of the 19th century, gold, though quite tangible, nonetheless circulated without the imprint of any state; today's nonphysical monies need state entities like central banks and the IMF to guarantee and regulate them. Food production has been shrinking while measured as a share of GDP, and the share of household budgets devoted to food has been in a long decline. The alleged economic importance of the entertainment industries is a staple of both left and right discourse, with extravagant claims made about their rank in production and trade, but it's just not true. Motion pictures account for about 0.3% of US GDP—half as large as the primary metal industries, a quarter as large as motor vehicles. Add radio and TV and "amusement and recreation services" and you're almost up to 2%—the size of the chemical industry, but less than an eighth the contribution of manufacturing. Production hasn't disappeared from the US, much less the world in general. Despite a long manufacturing recession, there was still more than sixteen million factory workers in the US at the beginning of 2003, nearly one in eight employed workers.

"And though financial markets seem very fanciful, appearing detached not only from production but even from social relations, they are actually institutions that consolidate ownership and control among the very rich of the world (a point developed in the last chapter of this book). Much of the damage done to Southeast Asia in 1997 and 1998 and to Mexico in 1994 and 1995 was done by allegedly weightless financial flows. Closer to home, bond markets exert strict discipline on the economic policies of national and local governments, and shareholders have been exhibiting strict discipline on the companies they own. The wave of corporate downsizings in recent years—according to the head-hunting firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas, 3.9 million [layoffs] were announced by large employers between January 2001 and April 2003—is an example of the kinds of corporate policies they've been pushing on managers for the last two decades.

"Drawing on a point made by Ursula Hughs (1999), while the physical commodity—the one, in the classic definition, you can drop on your foot—may be diminishing in importance relative to services, many of those services are the commodification of activities that were once performed without the exchange of money (and much of that labour, whether paid or unpaid, is disproportionately performed by women). McDonald's replaces the home-cooked meal, commercial laundries replace in-house washing and paid child-care replaces the unpaid maternal kind. Services formerly performed by nonprofits, like education, are increasingly the realm of profit-seeking entities, from Chris Whipple's Channel One to the University of Phoenix. By focussing just on the form of the commodity—good or service—partisans of weightlessness overlook the monetised social relations behind seemingly insubstantial wares."

Doug Henwood, After the New Economy, 2003, the New Press, New York, pp.27–29

Henwood also wrote the book Wall Street which is now out of print and available as a PDF for free download. Have fun.
 
 
petunia
16:28 / 29.04.07
that idea is a little uncomfortably close to corporatism

I'll have to read up on corporatism more fully, but i think i may not have explained the idea quite fully enough. The company would run as a greatly democratic system - people all have say in how money is spent, how the company is run, how the society is run. It wouldn't be a society run just by the bosses. It needs a lot of consideration on how this could come about (as well as ensured), but the ideal is definitely not one of hierarchic structure.

it seems to be an attempt to transcend our material and political conditions rather than change them.

Um. Could you explain what you mean here? If the system were a reality, it would act within the world. It would involve people. It would produce. It would consume. It would involve constant considerations of how people want their societies to be organised. All that would be different would be the structure of that society. I'm not sure how this would differ from any other political 'plan of action'.

" After a certain point, the company holds enough power in a country to be able to sway a vote, run a party, grab the power etc."

Er, I don't like the sound of that.


Why not? Surely it is the aim of any political movement to be able to sway a vote in its favour (assuming it is going the democratic route)? Surely it is the aim of any political movement to grab the power?

I think the idea of a corporation is somewhat of a sticking point for you. All the idea is is that of a political group taking strength in a corporate guise. If we are to take it that corporations are the leading power in society at the moment, with governments playing giant face to the corporations' Wizard of Oz, we must assume that the only way to legitimately take power is to do so in the corporate world.

It seems there are two main routes of bringing about 'revolution' - the route of 'coup', where there is a great big battle or uprising and the new system takes its place (a good old revolution), and the route of 'moving with power', where people use the current structures of power to subvert the system from inside (forming a political party, getting voted in, changing the laws etc).

The 'coup' style has never really worked for long. I suspect this is due to inertia on the part of human society - a lot of people seem to like the kind of society we have at the moment, and they are rather unwilling to change their ways with a short shock.

I suspect the 'moving with power' style has more of a chance. It is slower and you get to Fuck less Shit Up, but it gets results. Moving with the people, getting things to change with the vote, with public approval. Abolition, Suffrage, Gay Rights etc.

But the second style needs updating. While it is beneficial to petition a government to change things, they aren't likely to change the way money works. While you could try to get into government to change the way money works, i reckon you'd soon find that the powers above you wouldn't be too keen on that either. So head for business. 'Corporations are the new states'. Form a new corporation and take over the world with it. It's just good ol' revolutionary talk in a new package.

But i don't know if it would work. It seemed like a very good idea at the time, but i was rather stoned.
 
 
jmw
17:20 / 29.04.07
Corporatism is most often associated with Italian fascism but I'm certainly not accusing you of being a fascist and it has been advocated by plenty of other people seeking compromise between business and other socio-economic forces. What I meant was that in seeking to find an accommodation through the vehicle of a body corporate seems to me to be wrong. So, yes, you're right in that I do have an inherent problem with the idea of a corporation, though it's worth noting that the definition of corporation used in corporatism is not identical to what we mean today—see the Wikpedia link above. Your conception of this corporation is internally democratic, true, but not necessarily so in terms of its external relations. Of course, the same accusation could be made of other forms of organisations such as trade unions so I wouldn't want to push that argument too far.

Suffice it to say that I don't accept the modern idea that corporations are all-powerful and that governments must bend to their will. That they currently do so is a choice, not a law of economics or nature, and it indicates a diminished role for government as mere managerial governance. Such ideas hold sway, in my opinion, because of the ideological framework in which we find ourselves operating today.

You're probably right on the question of my objection to "enough power in a country to be able to sway a vote, run a party, grab the power". I may just be being prickly, and of course all political parties and organisations represent interests, but you must admit the language is a tad strong.

On the question of transcending conditions versus altering them, it occurs to me that both your idea for a corporation and the original question about a parallel currency would, at best, benefit those who engaged in them and not fundamentally alter the conditions for the rest of them. This is one of the flaws you can find in Ithaca Hours, though there are others. As an analogy, think of a workers' co-op or commune—as nice as they may be for the participants they do little for the rest of us.

Getting back to the original topic, I just cannot accept that currency holds that kind of power. To say that it does seems to be imbuing it with some magical worth and yet currency's value is entirely external to it, be it the now-defunct gold standard, or the material production from which wealth springs.

Certainly it's possible to create shadow or parallel currency—and the point above about the black market is apposite—and it's further possible that it could have a destabilising effect. I have rather more difficulty envisaging what the original poster suggests, that is the creation of a stable and meaningful mode of exchange which would fundamentally alter power relations for the better.
 
 
sleazenation
18:24 / 29.04.07
OK lets look at the example of Zimbabwe.

The current regieme is using the repressive aparatus of the state to, well, repress all opposition. it has also removed exisiting farmers and reallocated their land to those loyal to the Mugabe regieme. The result has been widespread starvation and hyperinflation.

So, what effect would the popular adoption of a new foreign currency have?

(it would more likely be an existing foreign currency because an new currency would have no authority or recognition behind it, even less legitimacy than other currencies)

My guess is the result would just be to bring the current regieme's relience of foreign currency reserves/prescious stone and minerals into the open, but I'd like to see if anyone else has any other suggestions.
 
 
Feverfew
19:28 / 29.04.07
Just to add to the literature referenced - I believe this is also the driving idea behind Stephenson's Snowcrash, wherein one of the protagonists was working with a company whose stated aim was to eventually invent and float a new currency backed by a large amount of WWII gold.

Also, I'm not sure if Linden dollars have come up yet - bear in mind that Second Life and World of Warcraft have both managed to create secondary real-world money trade for intangible objects within gamespace - but then again, this also stretches back at least as far as Diablo II, where many items turned up on ebay for sale. The exception here is Second Life, where the Linden dollars are directly correlative to US$, but I suspect it's only a matter of time before this becomes more widespread.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:14 / 01.05.07
One doesn't need a new currency to bring down a government. From my memory of economics, all you need is to sell a *large* amount of the country in question's currency, flooding the market and driving down the price. The country must respond by buying the free currency to maintain its' value (but depleting the country's gold reserves), or allow it to lose value (and thus drive up inflation as the cost of imports rises). If a loss in value is the result, you can theoretically buy the currency up and do it all over again.

That said, I'd imagine that in a country such as Zimbabwe where the official and street values of a currency differ so much, trying to convert 'street' cash into e.g. dollars through a bank wouldn't work this way, as the bank would likely impose large conversion charges (I can't see any other way for the official value to maintain it's relative strength). I'm not sure whether those charges would work both ways though. And as Sleazenation implied, most zimbabweans prefer foreign currency when they have to opportunity, simply because inflation is so high that foreign currencies are a safer short term investment?
 
 
alejandrodelloco
18:12 / 03.05.07
When thinking about alternative currencies, I like to think about Ithaca HOURs, which are a local currency in Ithaca, NY based on man-hours of work. A currency based on labor is really easy to start up when you don't have any monetary or production resources to back it up. It could be done on a larger scale, I bet.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:00 / 04.05.07
Pantsbridgade mentioned them upthread, and I think jmw dismissed them as only benefitting those inside the system. They sound basically like a cross between the barter system and an employee-reward scheme.

I suspect that such systems are probably well in place in countries with hyperinflation such as zimbabwe, though on a very local scale. Were they to spread they would probably result in government/police attention (bribery being a pretty rampant in zim right now AFAIK). Outside of these countries I can still see problems if they spread, as they basically undermine the tax system, and unless the systems are totally self-sufficient (difficult in this day and age), governments could always reclaim the lost income tax by dropping it in favour of a massive increase in VAT.
 
 
jmw
16:20 / 05.05.07
One, and only one, of the problems with Ithaca Hours is that they assume that all labour is of equal value. It's like a form of pseudo-socialist economics that has put the cart before the horse. They're just a curious form of scrip.

Also, it's an unbacked currency and is thus inherently unstable and it has a very small geographical boundary. Ithaca Hours are centred on the idea of ever-greater money production equalling greater demand for the currency and thus universal wealth.

Between 1991 and 2001 $85,000 were printed. That's not a lot of money.

I have to ask, though, what's the point? I fail to see what problem it solves. It may be an unusual form of exchange but it's still based on scarcity.
 
 
jentacular dreams
10:15 / 17.09.09
Brixton launches its own pound tomorrow.
 
  
Add Your Reply