No matter who you ask the simple question, “What will happen if we eliminate cash from circulation?”—no one goes beyond answers like “Well, in Germany, I hardly use cash” or “Nothing will happen.”
However, if we look at it from the perspective of what is written Earlier. The complete withdrawal of cash from circulation means the “digitization” of money and leads to a full accounting of all transactions by the population. In theory, this should be beneficial for the ruling class. Moreover, there is already the technical capability to transition all transactions to a cashless form. Mobile communication, the internet, and electronic payments are already capable of meeting such a need for the ruling class, if it existed. However, this is not happening. Why?
To understand the reasons for the existence of cash, it is worth first exploring analogies from previous social structures through a few rhetorical questions:
Why did privateering thrive, especially when it was “sponsored” by the authorities, at a time when ensuring the safety of communication with the New World was crucial?
Why are the relationships between capitalists and the monopolies they create so ambiguous when it comes to the power they themselves have established? It’s the same reason we have cash today. After all, without cash, it would be impossible to sell and buy drugs, to take and give bribes, or to organize any illegal income at all. So who benefits from the absence of illegal income? The modern morality, upheld by the ruling class, states thatSociety is indifferent to who earned the money and who spent it., since money is impersonal.
At the same time, a new morality is emerging, albeit with difficulty, which states, “I earned it, so I want to spend it.” If we trace the evolution of, say, the pension system, we can clearly see a shift from a completely solidarity-based pension system (I pay into a fund, everything is mixed together, and payments are made to retirees from it) to a fully personalized system (here is my pension account and here is the money I have accumulated).
A characteristic example of the bureaucracy’s reaction to the idea of moving away from cash is the story of how an academician… V.M. Glushkov in the middle of the last century proposed to introduce a system that would translate the economy exclusively to electronic payments. Although the idea itself was ideologically in line with the principles of communism—a cashless society—its implementation was simply not allowed, and moreover, with fierce resistance and precisely because it deprived the bureaucracy of power.
Once again: transaction logging will make financial corruption impossible. And logging the movement of material assets (as is already done with real estate and vehicles, and in Ukraine, with mobile phones using IMEI) will not only eliminate corruption by “brazen pups,” but also theft, robbery, and burglary.
However, this is not what the authorities are concerned about. In Ukraine, for example, the IMEI code is used to control the legality of importing devices into the country. An illegal phone supposedly won’t work (in reality, it continues to function, which means that the database of IMEI codes is clearly being collected for other purposes). In other words, the ruling class is fulfilling its function of control and management. At the same time, no one is in a hurry to develop a procedure that would allow for the blocking of the IMEI of stolen phones. Because phone theft is profitable. Through phone theft, wealthy individuals buy new devices, while less affluent people acquire phones and communication services. Isn’t this a form of “sponsored” piracy by the authorities?
If we touch on the topic of drugs, we can simply refer, without going into details, to the widely held belief in society that the authorities and the drug trade are closely linked, and that the ruling class has no interest in either legalizing such a magical source of money or shutting it down on a physical level. A simple illustration: given the level of control over people that already exists and the level of control that can easily be ensured if necessary, is it really so difficult for the authorities to completely cut off the drug trade? Not at all. Instead of shutting down this flow, the authorities stage high-profile arrests of smugglers, where customs officials, seemingly acting on orders from above, determine that there is a kilogram of heroin hidden in the spare tire of this particular truck. Perhaps the information doesn’t come from the heavens, but it certainly comes from a higher authority?
The existence of cash allows the ruling class to easily manipulate public consciousness by exposing certain businessmen or officials who have fallen out of favor. They can be accused (and good luck proving otherwise) of any economic crimes, without the possibility of simply checking the accused’s account transaction history to verify these accusations. By the way, to conclude this part, it’s interesting to trace the evolution of money, along with the evolution of social institutions Текст для перевода: ..
- Initially, there was barter (which emerged during the communal system and became a prerequisite for social inequality and the abolition of egalitarianism);
- then a certain universal exchange commodity emerged (it arose during slavery and became a prerequisite for feudalism);
- then this product was replaced by paper receipts that confirmed its availability to the bearer (this emerged during feudalism as receipts from usurers or templars and became a prerequisite for capital accumulation);
- then receipts were replaced by simply abstract paper money (which emerged with capitalism and gave a boost to informism);
- And now we are heading straight towards the next level of abstraction — transferring money simply as entries in accounts.
The next step could be decentralization the monetary system. After all, if no one is physically printing money, then technically it doesn’t matter who puts it into circulation. The question is simply about the algorithms for issuing and securing the money supply. However, it is precisely the move away from cash that is not beneficial for officials, and this is something that will inevitably happen. This contradiction between the desires and capabilities of the ruling class is not the most important issue. The main contradiction is— Here. Текст для перевода: ..