Archive for lifewithoutmoneybook.blogspot.com

Beyond Money

With the permission of the editor, we reprint the following post from the New. Clear. Vision. blog.

The Foundation of the System’s Replacement  by Robert C. Koehler 

“Everyone loved him.”

The hole was too deep; these words couldn’t fill it. But there they remain, floating on the regret, vibrant with the possibility of a different kind of world. We’ve always been in the process of building that world, but the process has lacked a central cohesion . . . a god, if you will, to bless it and keep it.

Antonis Perris, an unemployed musician from Athens, found himself at age 60 living in a world where the love of his community didn’t matter and probably wasn’t even noticeable: He had lost his means to earn a living. Until Europe’s economic crisis hit, he had sustained himself and his elderly mother performing at local taverns. He had done well. Then business dried up. Finally, he reached a point where he saw no way to keep on living. The brief story of his death last May — one more “economic suicide” — was reported recently in the Washington Post:
The next morning, Perris took the hand of his ailing 90-year-old mother. They climbed to the roof of their apartment building and leapt to their death.
Europe has had thousands of economic suicides in the last few years. They always shock the community. In Greece, which has been reeling in economic crisis for five years now, “The suicide notes left in coat pockets or on desks,” the Post writes, “. . . are being passed around on the Internet and studied like the final treatises of revered scholars.”

“Everyone loved him,” a local café owner said. People would have helped him out, and helped his mother, who suffered from Alzheimer’s. But they didn’t know how badly the two were doing. Now their deaths are a gash across the community, across the country and perhaps all of Europe — and perhaps large parts of the so-called First World, where the middle class is crumbling. The poverty and despoliation — the dark side of capitalism — are no longer contained, relegated to the Third World and the Third World pockets of the First.

The situation has gotten so bad that the idea of debt forgiveness is gaining mainstream cachet. Erik Kain, writing last October in Forbes, brought up “the old biblical idea of a jubilee — a national cancellation of private debts. . . .

“In many ways,” he observed, “rather than creating a sustainable economy built around steadily rising middle and working class wages, we’ve built an unsustainable economy built on consumer debt. That debt has propelled the growth we’ve seen in recent years, acting as a sort of perpetual Keynesian injection into the economy. Now we’re paying the price.”

While I see debt forgiveness as a move in the right direction — an acknowledgment that debt isn’t simply a moral failing, and that the wealth of creditors, who have in so many ways rigged the game in their favor, isn’t all the matters — I wince at the provincialism of those who limit their concern to the American middle class, or would do no more to fix the system than increase wages for the working and professional classes.

Better wages that are the result of devastated environmental regulations, or that come at the expense of the Third World or future generations? The economic crisis is global in nature and the flaws of the system are deep and profound.

“The economy’s only valid purpose is to serve life,” David Korten wrote this month in Yes! Magazine.

The economy should not be an end in itself, an irresistible force that we fail to serve at our peril — yet that’s the conventional attitude. The economic suicides of Europe and, indeed, of every country on the planet, are testimony to the prevalence of this belief. We serve money as though it were God. When it disappears from our life, the most honorable alternative, as we stare into the abyss, is suicide.

We live within an economic system that is cruel and impersonal, divorced from gratitude, empathy, compassion, love and nurturance. (Money, whatever else it is, is the root of all cynicism.) This system is also voracious. It’s eating the planet: eating, i.e., privatizing and selling back to us, what was once the human and environmental commons, the context of all life.

“Real capital assets,” writes Korten in his excellent essay, “have productive value in their own right and cannot be created with a computer key stroke. The most essential forms of real capital are social capital (the bonds of trust and caring essential to healthy community function) and biosystem capital (the living systems essential to Earth’s capacity to support life). We are depleting both with reckless abandon.”

Trapped within the present economic system, so many people have limited patience for what they value most deeply, e.g., the happiness and loving growth of children, the glorious fecundity of the earth, the peace that passes all understanding. Who has time? We all loved him, but . . .

As the system crashes, we have the opportunity to look beyond it. Let’s dig deeply to establish the foundation of its replacement.

Robert C. Koehler is an award-winning journalist, nationally syndicated writer, and Contributing Author for New Clear Vision. This post originally appeared on New. Clear. Vision. blog 22 August.

Crossroads

Recently Pablo Salon posted a great piece on the so-called green economy on his blog: 'At the crossroads between green economy and rights of nature'. In it he castigates the rise of 'Natural Capital' as a way of defining and ruling nature for the narrow and damaging interests of capitalism. He uses the REDD scheme of carbon credits to highlight the dangers and absurdity of evolving capitalist practices for the natural functioning of forests, which benefits humans in the general rather than capitalists in particular. He asks us to '[i]magine what will happen when and if this same logic is applied to biodiversity, water, soil, agriculture, oceans, fishery and so on', concluding that:
The "green economy" will be absolutely destructive because it is premised on the principle that transfusion of the rules of the market will save nature...
We need to overthrow capitalism and develop a system that is based on the Community of the Earth.
 I urge you to read the whole post.

Guest blog by Terry Leahy


Terry Leahy, author of Chapter 6 of Life Without Money comments on a recent book.

Daniel Miller’s recent book Consumption and its Consequences (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012) continues his ethnographic work on the reasons why people consume, but also looks at these issues in relation to the environmental problems of consumption. The middle part contains the heart of Miller’s argument that no amount of green consumerism is likely to restrain consumption in ways that sufficiently protect the environment. This argument he summarizes here:

At one level most consumption is about basic household provisioning, as in food or clothing. More deeply, it is also about the intensity of relationships with the people you care most about or live with, about status and local symbolic systems. (158)

One study, which informs this, followed shoppers on their trips to the shops in the UK. Miller was mainly looking at housewives. What he found was far from a glorious indulgence in ‘materialist’ consumerism. Housewives were concerned to save the money of their family and careful not to splurge on their own fancies. In another of his studies, he looks at the way the people of Trinidad express themselves in showy purchases of clothing or refitting their cars with flash upholstery. He traces this to a situation in which money and dignity is in short supply and local people establish their status through display and a personal expression of their own style.

But what does he then propose to deal with the environmental crisis we are now facing? It is pointless to try to urge people to make different consumer choices; this is the wrong end of the problem to be tackling. We should tackle the production end. The way to do this is to engage scientific advice on what production needs to be curtailed for the sake of the environment. For example, we could ban gas guzzlers, restricting engines to 1.6 litres.

What Miller does not really take into account here are the vested interests of a capitalist economy that make this solution difficult. Such a regulation might well be scientifically rational but the impact would be massive on the economy, wages and jobs, a political hurdle preventing the well-meaning solutions Miller suggests from implementation already. People voting as consumers makes effective environmental regulation very difficult politically. Miller is certainly right in thinking that the current situation makes it difficult to reign in environmental damage through moral campaigns directed at consumer habits but this same situation makes it equally difficult to adopt the solution he recommends.

Miller does not believe any major change away from capitalism is possible or desirable. He writes of himself as a Norwegian social democrat. Miller does not highlight the key importance of people expressing themselves in consumption because they are alienated in their work, a central aspect of consumer pressures in every country that relies on wage labour. They seek expression and social connection through their consumption because they get little of either at work. Whether goods are provided by the market or by the state, the provision of goods has to be impersonal and bureaucratic.

This is where the idea of the gift economy comes in. It is a third alternative for modernity — not capitalism and not a centralized state based socialism. It is really a package of ideas for organizing production and consumption that gets beyond the impasse Miller describes. The model of ethical behaviour normalized in a gift economy is for people to look after the well being of others and to ensure an equality of outcomes.

How would a gift economy avoid the problems that modern economies now experience with consumption? The daily experience of work in a gift economy is engaging and meaningful. Working harder does not produce an increase in your own personal consumption and working is not necessary to survive. There is less motivation to consume because the pleasures of social connection and self-expression are also a strong feature of work. There is less motivation to produce because you are not required to produce to gain an income and consume and you cannot consume simply more by producing more, mechanisms which prevent over-consumption.

In a gift economy there is no government, so no possibility for environmental regulation by government. Producers control the methods of production and are concerned about their own health and the environmental wellbeing of their own community. Production is not for the market, but for use. Decisions about what to produce and for whom are made by a vast and complex set of decision makers. The aim of producers is to produce and allocate goods that are most needed and likely to give pleasure. Doing this they will be most rewarded with status and maintain support for the gift economy. Such a structure for making decisions would certainly do a lot better than the market in terms of redistribution and environmental outcomes and just as well in efficient production and allocation of goods and resources.

To make a final comment, let us return to the Green shopper characterized as a cold-hearted fish who puts abstract environmental goals in front of the interests of their family. How does the gift economy deal with the trade-off between altruism and localism? In the gift economy the producer looks after their community and family by making sure that their production is not damaging their community and environment. Control at the point of production reconciles the supposedly abstract environmental issues with the local and family issues. What about the needs of people outside of their immediate community? People do not just work to provide for their own community but provide gifts for those to whom they are not personally connected by locality. The intention of this work is to bring other people closer and to extend the arena of intimacy to concrete others, rather than to perform a sacrifice in relation to impersonal ideals. They are making friends and extending the affluence of all parties at the same time.

LIFE WITHOUT MONEY: Building Fair and Sustainable Economies 2012-07-23 12:12:00

I had some really great discussions with people in my last week in Barcelona where monetary fragmentation and striving for a sustainable livelihood are present issues.

On Sunday 8 July I visited the Can Masdeu squat again and talked about Life Without Money in English, with a translator, with 40 to 50 people at the Degrowth Bike Tour Open Day. We gave the bike tour a fond farewell. So many people turned up there was barely enough food to go round, quite the fishes and loaves story. Both the photos, on the left and right, below, were taken at Can Masdeu, one during the talk and the other when I was looking after the cafe earlier in the day. This is in their social centre, at one end of the building they call home.

The next day Carolina Zerpa arranged a workshop about our book and acted as translator for Trade School Barcelona at AureoSocial in Carrer de Sardenya near the Sagrada Familia with about ten people. Trade School Barcelona is just starting and there were competing events so we were pleased with the turnout.

Again there was a great discussion about the possibilities and problems with extricating our livelihoods from monetary structures.
The photos below were taken by Carolina, who is a photographer as well as a driving force behind Trade School Barcelona. We met when she was in New York City, where Trade School started.



On the Wednesday, 11 July, I talked at the ICTA UAB 3rd Summer School and Workshop on Environmental Conflicts and Justice. I had participated on the first day and the 5–6 July workshop at Gaudi's La Pedrera. Do you like the students' sense of humour about our democracy in the photo below? — you can just read it: VOTE HERE.


Ostrom and common property



WEDNESDAY, JULY 04, 2012
 
Elinor Ostrom and common property
 
Posted by ajohnstone at 1:20 PM
 
On the 3rd July the Times of London carried an obituary for Elinor Ostrom who died on 12 June. She was the first (and so far only) woman to have been awarded a Nobel Prize for economics, not that this is necessarily an honour given the long line of capitalist apologists who have been awarded it in the past. Ostrom, however, was a little different in that she carried out research which refuted one capitalist argument as to why socialism would not work, the so-called "tragedy of the commons". Here's how the Times obituary-writer described her research:

"She put to rest a fallacy that suggested that, left to their own devices, people were incapable of properly managing commonly held property. The widely held belief in the 'tragedy of the commons' stemmed from the bitter experience of selfish herdsmen over-grazing shared common pasture-land, rendering it barren and useless.

By studying first the sharing of common drinking-water supplies in Southern California, then the management of forests in South America, irrigation in Nepal, and fishing off the Maine coast, Ostrom turned conventional wisdom on its head. The traditional response to the 'tragedy of the commons' was for such scarce resources, including common land, public forests, drinking-water stocks, oil fields, and fish in rivers and seas, to be either strictly regulated by government or leased to private interests.

Ostrom showed, using the first-hand tools of the anthropologist rather than the big-canvas theories of politics and economics, that smaller units invariably work better than larger ones and that community management is better than state regulation or private ownership in distributing goods fairly and sustaining scarce resources."

For this, she merits a favorable mention on the Socialism Or Your Money Back blog.

Upcoming Barcelona activity


Please drop by for this if you are in Barcelona...

9 July, Monday 7 pm
Trade School Barcelona at AureoSocial, Carrer de Sardenya 261–63, Barcelona 08013
A short talk — in English but translated into Castellano/Catalan — then participate in a bi/tri-lingual discussion on key themes in Life Without Money presented by the book's co-editor, Anitra Nelson, interpreted by Carolina Zerpa. The book's ten contributors argue that non-monetary systems of mutuality are essential to create socially just and environmentally-friendly practices. The book presents practical and strategic ways to construct a world without money. The workshop explores these ideas.
In exchange, participants side of the barter is to come along with 4 lists of:
1. 5 things you have available or services you can offer
2. 5 things or services you would like in return
3. 3 questions you have about a world without money
4. 3 to 5 examples of things you have done within the last week for free, but other people get paid for when they do them.
For more details, see Trade School Barcelona or contact 935 535 715
a barcelona@tradeschool.coop o llama al 935535715

Jul 9, 2012 Monday
7:00pm to 8:30pm
Aurea Social
Calle Sardenya 261-263, Barcelona
Una breve charla y debate abierto alrededor de los puntos claves del libro Life Without Money: Building Fair and Sustainable Economies(La vida sin dinero: construyendo economías justas y sustentables), presentado por Anitra Nelson, coeditora. Los diez colaboradores del libro explican a través de la teoría y de sus propias experiencias, como los sistemas no monetarios basados en la reciprocidad son esenciales para crear prácticas socialmente justas y ambientalmente sostenibles. El libro presenta ejemplos prácticos y estratégicos para la construcción de un mundo sin dinero. Este taller pretende explorar estas ideas a través de la participación y el debate abierto.
About the teacher, Anitra Nelson
Me dedico, entre otras cosas, al activismo medioambiental, prácticas creativas, la investigación académica y la enseñanza, la permacultura. Intento vivir de formas alternativas y trato de aprender, escuchar y observar lo más posible a través de mi vida. Trabajo a tiempo parcial, por dinero, en la Universidad RMIT (Australia). Actualmente estoy en el extranjero por unos meses realizando un trabajo de investigación de los sistemas de intercambio no basados en la economía de mercado.

Bioregionalism

Matthew Switzer of the Planet Drum Foundation in San Francisco (Shasta Bioregion) made contact to engage over our bioregional strategy for achieving sustainability in a world without money (outlined in Chapter 11 of Life Without Money). He writes:
Ever since I debated my economics-major college roommate about the paradox of value (aka the diamond-water paradox), and whether someone would ever trade a car for an apple (e.g. when the car owner is starving to death), it hit me that money — exchange value — is nothing more than an abstraction backed by “credit” that fuels the drive to produce, invest, extract and consume, inevitably drawing on the planet's ecologies as resources for this kind of development.
Beyond that, I was always intrigued by the more “anarchist” economic theories that called for the abolition of the wage-system, mutualism and mutual aid, etc. to free us from the wage-slavery in which we commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of a paycheck. Anyway, for the longest time I felt like no one really recognized this as a legitimate concern and even had a book in my head all lined up: "The Declaration of the Free Society for the Abolition of Money." But thanks to your book I can put that off for a while!
A while back Planet Drum Foundation put together a Bioregional Association of North America (BANA) to bring together bioregional groups and restore natural systems, develop sustainable practices, and create a cultural identity based on the nature of one's place. It was dissolved before I began working here, but I believe something like it is critical, and perhaps if it was organized as a moneyless economy, it could really open up volunteer opportunities for restoration projects and growing sustainable trade networks that could shift the economy away from material consumption of cheap plastics to a more healthy culture, eliminating detrimental work for money to survive and move instead towards more self-fulfilling life-styles. Such is the dream I guess, and I think Planet Drum would like to resurrect that project in some way.
Personally, I'd like to incorporate the idea of gift circles and non-monetary transactions as a primary method to halt the flows of capital and destructive practices of industry, and thought it would be a good idea to talk. The founding director of Planet Drum Foundation, Peter Berg, who did much to popularize the bioregional movement, was also part of the Diggers movement in the 60s counterculture in the San Francisco Bay Area that called for what they termed “The inevitable gift economy,” also outlined in “A Modest Proposal,”  so I thought it would be a great idea to start putting something together as part of our 40th anniversary next year.
We'd like to offer the opportunity for those willing to get together and discuss the possibility for a newendeavor to these ends. It’s not against the rules of bioregionalism to help other bioregions, so what kinds of activities or communications are important to include in a global bioregional network? Who knows, maybe we set up a “Federation for the Reinhabitation of Earth’s Ecologies” (FREE), and do everything we can to live up to the name… :)

If interested, please don't hesitate to send a message.

From one bioregion to another,
Matt — PDMembership@gmail.com

Un Mundo Sin Dinero: El Communismo


In Adam Buick’s chapter in Life Without Money — and in his talk at Bolivar Hall (see post below) — he referred to a pamphlet Un Monde Sans Argent: Le Communisme (A World Without Money: Communism) published in France in 1975 by Les Amis de 4 Millions de Jeunes Travailleurs (The Friends of the 4 Million Young Workers), who had been influenced by situationists and the Italian communist Amadeo Bordiga, who Buick discusses in his chapter.

The libcom.org group, who describe themselves as ‘a small collective of libertarian communists based mainly in and around London and Brighton UK’, have reproduced some quotes translated into English here. These translations were originally printed in the Socialist Standard (July 1979), a publication of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB), of which Adam is a member.

The quotes show The Friends of the 4 Million Young Workers following a classic Marxist line, that ‘Communism is the negation of capitalism … a world where human activity will never again take the form of wage labour and where the products of such activity will no longer be objects of commerce.’

They envisage a world which operates on a ‘logic of sharing’, democratically planned to share responsibilities for, and results of, production (rather than barter, which they refer to as ‘primitive exchange’).

The publication appeared in Spanish too.

El Dinero No Se Puede Comer

This poster features the well-known quote pointing out that 'money cannot be eaten' — here in Spanish, 'el dinero no se puede comer'. It has been created by Santiago Armengod and can be viewed at the Just Seeds Artists' Cooperative website.


Adam Buick on a life without money

Adam Buick's script from our panel discussion on Life Without Money at Bolivar Hall (London) on 30 May 2012 follows. Well over half of the discussion involved the around 40 participants who attended and it was quite lively.

I spoke about why and how we came to write the book and Derek Wall talked more generally about the power of money and contemplating radical social change while the first question that Adam addressed was: What might a 'life without money' mean?

It’s an ambiguous idea. It can mean trying to survive without using money within or at the margins of existing money-dominated society. Or it can mean a change of society to one in which money would be redundant. Both points of view are represented in this book.

Then there is the question of what is meant by “money”. There are those who want to replace notes and coins, cheques and electronic transfers by labour credits or consumption vouchers. They too are represented in this book, even though some might regard them as only wanting a different form of money. But then, Karl Marx, a famous critic and opponent of money, envisaged using “labour-time vouchers” instead of money in the early stages of socialism pending it becoming possible to go over to full free distribution and full free access.

None of the contributors argue that all that needs to be done is to abolish money and leave everything else unchanged. That would be madness and would lead to a breakdown of production and distribution. If you’ve got a system based on producing goods and services for sale on a market with a view to profit, you’ve got to have money. So, no, we don’t want to go back to barter.

As a Socialist, I’m one of the contributors who wants to replace the present capitalist system with a new system based on common ownership instead of ownership by the few and with production directly to meet people’s needs instead of production for sale on a market with a view to profits. In such a socialist (or communist) society – the two words mean the same – money would be redundant. So I don’t want to “abolish money”. I want a change to a society with a system of production and distribution in which money would be redundant and so would disappear.

For me, the case against money is the case against capitalism.

Capitalism is the system which now dominates the world. No country escapes or can escape from its influence and effects. It is essentially an economic system where the means for producing useful goods and services take the form of “capital”, or wealth used to produce more wealth with a view to profit, and where the goods and services produced take the form of “exchange value”, they all have a price and have to be exchanged for money.

The farms, factories, offices and other places where wealth is produced are owned and controlled by rich individuals, capitalist corporations and states. Under the pressure of competition, those in charge of these “units of capital” are driven to seek as much profit as they can, not so much for the personal benefit of the owners (though this does come into it) as to get funds to reinvest in cost-cutting innovations so as to be able to compete with, and outcompete, their rivals. One consequence of this is that more and more capital is accumulated. This in fact is what capitalism is all about: the accumulation of more and more capital out of profits.

So, over time the means of production and their productive power have built up and society has now become able, in theory, to produce enough useful goods and services to meet people’s needs. But the economic mechanism of capitalism does not let this happen. Making profits and re-investing them as more capital always comes first.

It’s an irrational system of “production for production’s sake”, of “growth for growth’s sake”. There are other anti-social results of capitalism. Such as the recurring economic crises and slumps like the one we’re in now. Such as the wars and preparation for war that occur as capitalist states compete over sources of raw material, trade routes, markets and investment outlets. Such as putting short-term cost and profit considerations before protecting the environment and respecting a balance of nature. But the one I want to concentrate on is that it does not allow production to be geared to meeting the needs of people for food, clothes, housing, healthcare, education an the other amenities for an enjoyable life.

People’s needs are met but only to an extent – to the extent that they have money to pay for them. There are various ways an individual can get money. They can inherit it (be born with it). They can steal it. They can beg for it. Or they can work for it – which is what most people do.

I don’t criticise those who try to avoid this by establishing rural communes or by living off what they find in skips. That’s a lifestyle choice but not an attractive one for most people. I don’t even criticise those who chose to steal money, at least not as long as they steal from the rich.

But what sort of society is it where most people have to fend for themselves to get money so they can access what they need to live – and where, even in a developed country like Britain, 10-15 percent can’t keep up and are forced to rely on more or less meagre handouts from the state? This, when, from the point of view of technology, society could produce enough for all, especially if we get rid of capitalism’s artificial scarcity (the need to make a profit holds back producing enough to meet people’s needs) and its organised scarcity (not just of wars and preparation for war, but also all of the resources devoted to the counting and transfer of money).

As a Socialist, I say capitalism must go if we’re going to be able to provide a decent living for every man, woman and child on the planet.

What is needed in place of capitalism is for the Earth’s resources to become the common heritage of all. Then, they could be geared to satisfying people’s needs. If productive resources were commonly owned, then so would what they produced. The issue to be dealt with would be, not how to sell to people what had been produced (how could you when they’re already the joint owners of it?) It’s how to share-out/distribute what’s been produced. In other words, exchange (buying and selling) is replaced by distribution (sharing-out and taking). For this, money is not needed.

It’s possible – right at the beginning or as a result of some major natural disaster – that some useful things might be temporarily unavailable in sufficient quantities. In which case there would have to be a temporary rationing of them till supplies were increased or restored. But, given modern technology and capacity to produce, the general rule (and certainly the aim to be reached as rapidly as possible) would be free distribution and free access, the implementation of the old communist principle of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”. With free public transport, healthcare, education, gas, water, electricity, telephone, internet access, and other public services and amenities. And people free to take from the stores and distribution centres according to their needs. As I said, there would be no need for money. It would be redundant. The notes and coins we now use would find their proper place in museums.

Why not? Would it work? And how would  – or, rather, could – it work?

The main objection is a popular version of the basic dogma of modern conventional economics: that resources are scarce because people’s wants are infinite. Or, in its popular (populist) form, because people are greedy, so they would take too much and the whole system would collapse in chaos.

But are people’s wants really infinite? “Infinite” is the word they actually use in the textbooks. If literally interpreted, it would mean that everybody desires to obtain the whole universe. Which is absurd. People’s needs are not infinite. But are people “greedy”? In today’s society, where you can’t be sure of the future, it makes sense to make hay or gather nuts while you can in case things go wrong and your future money income is reduced (if, for instance, you lose your job or your employer or the government freezes your pay).

But even today within capitalism, when some things are free at the time of use and people know they will continue to be freely available they only take what they need. I’ve got a Freedom Pass that allows me to travel free on public transport in London. So have hundreds of thousands  of others. Do we spend all our time going from one end of the line to another or round and round the Circle Line? Of course not. We only travel when we need to. Maybe more than we would if we had to pay, but there’s nothing wrong with that. It only shows how having to pay means that some needs have to go unmet.

So, overconsumption is not going to be a problem. The problem will be organising so that the stores and distribution centres are always stocked with what people are likely to need. Here we can go again to the textbooks of conventional economics. They say that production is geared to meeting paying consumer demand. This isn’t the case, but let’s assume that it is. The theory is that consumers determine what is produced by the way they spend their money. What they buy over a given period is a signal as to what to produce. If stocks run short, that’s a signal to produce more. If stocks build up, that’s a signal to produce les.

This system of signals via stock levels can work just as easily irrespective of whether the stocks run short or build up as a result of what people buy or as a result of what they take freely. So the sort of central planning involving planners deciding in advance all that’s needed – which some people see as the only way to organise the production and distribution of useful things without money – is not necessary. In a moneyless society too, production and distribution could be largely self-regulating.

Anyway, this is not a blueprint, just an illustration of how organising the production and distribution of wealth without money is feasible.
The session was taped and will be posted on You Tube in about month's time.