💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › daniil-dugum-anarchism-russian-style.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:01:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Anarchism, Russian-style
Author: Daniil Dugum
Date: 19 June 2015
Language: en
Topics: money, counter-economics, Russia
Source: Retrieved on 23rd January 2022 from https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/anarchism-russianstyle/
Notes: The village of Kolionovo has a reputation for independent mindedness and upsetting the authorities. Now they’ve created their own currency — the koliony.

Daniil Dugum

Anarchism, Russian-style

The story of Russian farmer Mikhail Shlyapnikov and his ‘self-made’

money has become something of a sensation of late, and has long

travelled beyond the confines of Kolionovo, the village where he lives.

The Moscow Prosecutor’s Office is now investigating Shlyapnikov’s

currency (named koliony after his village) and its creator on suspicion

of infringing the state’s monopoly on issuing currency.

A remote and tiny village, Kolionovo lies at the end of a small road

just off a highway leading west out of the Russian capital. And

Kolionovo would have remained remote, tiny and unknown, if it wasn’t for

the periodic scandal about how the village’s elderly residents have

chased the local administration out of town, the campaign to save the

village hospital, the self-organised firefighting service or the ban on

public officials entering the village without a document testifying to

their mental health and a recent fluorography test for tuberculosis. But

now the residents of Kolionovo have devised their own currency and, in

doing so, have written themselves into a wider history – a history of

alternative currency and anarchism.

Existential downshifting

With the dubious honour of being Russia’s leading anarchist farmer,

Mikhail Shlyapnikov was a successful entrepreneur before he moved to

Kolionovo.

After a series of unsuccessful operations for cancer in 2004, however,

doctors told Shlyapnikov he had three months to live. And Shlyapnikov

decided that, if he were going to die, he’d die in the countryside.

This existential downshifting did not help Shlyapnikov find peace.

Instead, the move to Kolionovo prompted Shlyapnikov to become something

of a rebel. This kind of story usually takes place in reverse: a former

activist, having come of age (and to his or her senses), moves to the

countryside in order to escape the madness of city life. After living

for a while in Kolionovo, though, Shlyapnikov began to invest his

entrepreneurial talents in what he understands by anarchism.

The move to Kolionovo prompted Shlyapnikov to become something of a

rebel.

For instance, take Kolionovo’s sapling nursery, a form of ecological

activism and business vital to the health of the Moscow region: the

forests here suffered huge fires in 2010 and after; and have been

punished by an epidemic of insects, which feed on tree bark.

But now Shlyapnikov and his comrades have gone too far (for the

authorities that is): they have started issuing their own promissory

notes; 20,000 of them. And with his charisma and popularity, Shlyapnikov

couldn’t help but provoke the powers that be.

After all, the question on everybody’s lips – in the break room at work,

hanging out with friends or chatting on the internet – is the exchange

rate. So one can understand the Russian state’s concern for its currency

monopoly, as well as the press and public reaction to the koliony.

Minimise interactions with the state, develop mutually beneficial

relationships and good old-fashioned altruism (helping the less

well-off, orphans): this is anarchism, Kolionovo-style. This is not

total anarchy, however: Shlyapnikov is still paying his workers in

roubles, and paying employer taxes.

Systems of exchange

We’re used to measuring so much in terms of money, it’s hard to think of

life without it.

But there are a large variety of currency systems, which depart from the

fiat system (that is, money issued by the government): time banks,

crypto-currencies (bitcoins being the most famous), local currencies and

currencies with ‘return percentage’ or planned inflation, goods-exchange

communities such as LETS (local exchange trading system) and internet

exchange communities.

The range of different forms of economic relations is striking.

According to Maxim Mitusov, an economist who specialises in local

currencies, there are more than 4,000 local economic systems in the

world.

In essence, any group, which is united by common interests and mutual

trust can create its own money or its own non-monetary system of

exchange with only a few simple skills. It’s a question of how united

the group is – that’s the deciding factor.

It’s a question of how united the group is – that’s the deciding factor.

Early societies did not suffer from the absence of money at all: they

simply weren’t aware of it. Evidence for this can be found in numerous

observations made by ethnographers and social anthropologists.

First of all, primitive societies originally found and consumed all

goods together, collectively. Second, most primitive forms of ethics

were based on mutual assistance: you simply couldn’t survive without it.

This kind of ethics excludes any form of selfishness, the desire for

profit – even the very idea of debt.

Self-organised economic activity rises to the fore when fiat currencies

begin to decline. During the 1990s, many Russians working in factories

remember being paid in the goods they produced themselves, or the goods

they were traded for. (Army families can recall how entire garrisons

were paid in groceries.) The money just wasn’t there, but goods were

aplenty.

For people living in the Russian countryside, barter is still an

important mechanism in interpersonal relationships. Financial flows

simply can’t penetrate this far, and remain in the metropole – in banks,

the cycle of urban consumption, in offshore accounts, and in

bureaucratic and criminal structures.

Self-help

Crises are often accompanied by attempts to create money without the

involvement of the state. The crisis, which hit Argentina in 1998, for

instance, provoked an unprecedented level of cooperative activity.

Cast out from the closed factories and rented flats, Argentinе citizens

watched with hungry eyes how trains and trucks carried off basic items –

items which they needed – in order to pay off the state’s foreign debt.

At that moment, millions of people without jobs realised that the only

things you can rely on in life are your own energies, skills, and other

people.

Looking at photographs from that time, you can see, not only people

holding stolen goods, molotov cocktails, sticks and stones, banners, but

brightly coloured bits of paper too – money they’d made themselves, the

credito. With the help of this ‘money’, members of a rebellious and

self-organised community were able to pay one another and exchange

goods.

Or the example of Michael Unterguggenberger, mayor of the Austrian town

of Wörgl, who issued his own Wörgler Freigeld to save the town from

bankruptcy and build a series of public projects over a 13-month period

during the Great Depression. After a few years, though, when dozens of

other Austrian communities had become jealous of their neighbour’s

success and decided to replicate the idea, the national bank banned the

Freigeld, frightened by the threat to its monopoly.

Likewise, the Bashkirian sovkhoz (state farm) of Shaimuratova responded

to the financial crisis of 2008 by issuing its own currency –

shaimuratiki. According to the project’s initiator, economist Rustam

Davletbaev, local currencies can channel unexpressed ‘demand’ (usually

ignored by the market) in the sense that it allows people who want to

buy goods (but have no money) to use their own goods or skills in a

local system of exchange.

Unfortunately, though, while everyone in Shaimuratovo liked the idea,

the local Prosecutor’s Office didn’t. The fight for shaimuratiki

continues, only now at various courts.

What is the secret of these and hundreds of other currencies just like

them? What makes them workable, and how do they affect the economy?

On the one hand, alternative currencies are more than just money: they

connect people’s real interests to their capabilities and the products

of their labour. As a rule, these kinds of currencies are not part of

the system of financial speculation, nor are they linked to the price of

hydrocarbons.

On the other, the cost of devaluation (demurrage) of alternative

currency means that accumulating this money is less than profitable. Yet

circulation of these currencies is increasing, and is leading to the

development of local infrastructure.

If alternative currencies are so useful, why is the state afraid of

them?

‘Like a piece of uncurrent gold’

‘Pray God, your voice, like a piece of uncurrent gold, be not cracked

within the ring.’ So speaks Hamlet in an elegant reference to the death

of the king, the father of the Danish prince, and whose face was

depicted on the ‘piece of uncurrent gold’.

Shakespeare’s metaphor exposes one of money’s most important

characteristics: while the fact that monarchs impress themselves on

every unit of currency may seem an act of vanity, the face of the

sovereign means that the value of this unit is guaranteed by the state.

For instance, the anthropologist Keith Hart writes: ‘Look at a coin from

your pocket. On one side is “heads” – the symbol of the political

authority, which minted the coin; on the other side is “tails” – the

precise specification of the amount the coin is worth as payment in

exchange. One side reminds us that states underwrite currencies and the

money is originally a relation between persons in society, a token

perhaps. The other reveals the coin as a thing, capable of entering into

definite relations with other things.’

The nominal value of every coin often did not correspond to the value of

the metal (gold, silver or bronze) used to make it. In Information, Work

and Value, Paul Cockshott goes back to the very first currency made in

the Kingdom of Lydia (coined from a mixture of gold and silver). Diluted

with silver, these seventh century coins were worth more than the gold

contained within them, and were, as such, very expensive coins. With a

single Lydian stater, you could satisfy your basic needs for a month.

Cockshott comes to the conclusion that ancient kings tried to avoid

deceiving their subjects, and both introduced and set the value of their

currency specifically to simplify the collection of taxes: ‘If the Crown

imposes on its citizens a duty to pay tax in coin of the realm, then

these citizens must either work directly for the state – building roads,

acting as soldiers etc, or, they must produce commodities to sell to

those who do serve in the army, build roads etc. In this conception, it

is the coercive power of the state that accelerates the penetration

commodity production into the social organism.’

Today, it is the currencies of the world’s most powerful states, which

are the most respected. (In this sense, the Eurozone is like an empire

created and managed by the unity of economic interests.) And today, the

state’s main concern in the financial sphere is to preserve its status,

its monopoly on issuing money.

The state’s main concern in the financial sphere is to preserve its

status, its monopoly on issuing money.

‘Koliony aren’t even money, they’re just IOUs.’

As Mikhail Shlyapnikov has argued in court and out (he has his own

LiveJournal account): ‘Koliony aren’t even money, they’re just IOUs.’ In

this sense, this farmer-cum-anarchist from outside Moscow has not come

up with anything new.

In Debt: The first 5,000 years, David Graeber writes: ‘There is an

unresolved debate between those who see money as a commodity and those

who see it as an IOU. Which one is it? By now, the answer should be

obvious: it’s both.’

Graeber uses numerous examples to illustrate how traders and artisans in

the past issued their own money made from iron, wood and leather. This

kind of money circulated in a community of business partners, among

consumers of the same institutions, stalls and studios. And as we face a

fresh economic crisis, small business owners have returned to these

practices.

This development is neither surprising, nor revolutionary. Small

business is creating currency in its own image – and now you can travel

down the ‘goods-money-goods’ trail without the involvement or management

of the central bank. Big capital expresses itself through fiat

currencies and comes alive in global currencies – even abstract ones

like electronic currencies.

But IOUs are goods like any other, and the exchange of goods is, in

turn, a mutual obligation. According to Graeber, economics is, in fact,

the material expression of ethics, and the market economy is a

reflection of the ethics of debt. But where is the border that separates

‘mutual obligations’ from the cut-throat world of financial monopolies?

It was the German economist Silvio Gesell who first detailed both the

useful and harmful aspects of money at the end of the 19^(th) century.

Indeed, it was Gesell’s concept of ‘free’ money, which inspired the

experiments in Wörgl and Shaimuratovo.

For Gesell, money can help people find a common economic language, to

recognise people’s contributions to society. But money also breeds a

tendency to accumulation, which creates hierarchies, competition, crises

and armed conflict. Gesell saw the basis of prosperity and justice in

making accumulation unprofitable and, on a conceptual level at least,

tried to think about money as an item of exchange like any other.

But we have to make sure that goods and money correspond in terms of

value, and all goods have an expiry date. So why shouldn’t money?

Demurrage is precisely that: the ageing of money.

Yin and yang

The Belgian economist Bernard Lietaer classified the world’s currencies

in terms of Yin and Yang. Yang currencies are the fiat currencies we

know (and love) – units of value issued by the state. They are

convenient for international exchange (if the issuing state is

sufficiently powerful). They are capable of gathering society’s

resources for large projects and quick mobilisation. But they also form

the basis of hierarchy, power and competition.

By contrast, Yin currencies stimulate the circulation of locally

produced goods and services, transforming the whole landscape of a

community through constant circulation.

Lietaer says directly that the more patriarchal a society is, the less

perfect the financial system it creates. The men standing at the top of

the patriarchal hierarchy do not allow ‘currency pluralism’ because it

erodes centralised control (hence the concern in the Moscow and

Bashkirian Prosecutor’s Offices).

Those ancient societies, which respected women’s reproductive labour,

which idealised it and connected it to fertility cults – these societies

were more ready for cooperation. For Lietaer, this is the source of

currency pluralism:

‘The stronger the king, the larger the kingdom, and the less practical

it becomes to keep the demurrage system going. This happens in parallel

with a growing political necessity for a repression of women as well.

The stronger the patriarchal impulse, the more it may appear necessary

to give to each man the feeling of being “king in his own household”.’

While patriarchal societies favour strong single currencies, matriarchal

societies opt for dual currency systems – one currency for long-distance

trade, and another for local exchange.

While patriarchal societies favour strong single currencies, matriarchal

societies opt for dual currency systems

It’s time to change

Mikhail Shlyapnikov and his koliony still have a long way to go before

they make it into the history books. The humble kolion is, after all,

not subject to demurrage. But the connection between this farmer and the

land around him makes him a part of a larger financial history of

alternative currencies.

The kolion is the strongest currency: its exchange rate is unchangeable

and fixed to eggs, geese and other goods produced by Shlyapnikov. Oil

prices and the rouble exchange rate can affect the kolion indirectly via

the prosperity of the participants of exchange. But there is no direct

link. And the significance of koliony lies in creating autonomy from the

harmful system of speculation.

As Rustam Davletbaev, the creator of shaimuratiki, writes: ‘Koliony have

exposed a very serious problem – the absence of responsibility of

economic institutions of the state – the Central Bank, Ministry of

Finance and the Ministry of Economic Development when it comes to the

periodic economic and financial crises faced by Russia, and their

consequences.’

To put it simply: if the Central Bank is responsible for economic

growth, then why does it shrug off negative currency fluctuation,

aspects of crisis and a fall in GDP so easily? Why does no one take

responsibility for the fall in citizens’ living standards? Why do these

structures fail to provide the conditions necessary for our citizens to

implement their rights to life and work? Perhaps it’s time to change

something?’

The pathos of that ‘it’s time to change’ should give us reason for

optimism. Just like Shlyapnikov, Davletbaev understands all too well the

indifference of those ‘responsible’ for the state of affairs in a remote

village.

If one looks at the Russian economy today through the eyes of Silvio

Gesell, there is nothing sadder than the total control of people who

receive profits from rents rather than labour and real exchange.

This is why we should give the creators of the koliony and shaimuratiki

their due, and those who try to spread the seeds of cooperation and

economic alternatives on (otherwise infertile) Russian soil.