Could we survive without Money?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

we can live without money. the world will be a place where nothing has value.. everything would be free in the sense that no money will be exchanged for any item. everybody that can work, will work and in exchange they will have as much of anything as they need. the reason why we should live without money is that-money in the world allows there to be the rich and when there is the rich there is the poor, if there was no money there would be no rich and therefore no poor. why would people steal if the item was avaliable to them in the same amount of time it takes for them to break into someones house? there would be no class system, people would no longer worship "film stars" or "pop stars" because they would see them for what they are doing for the world, in this case reading words from a piece of paper to entertain us-the court jesters of the modern world. people would no longer be judged for what they wear, how big there house is or what university they graduated from. in every single award ceromony you hear the reporters blurt "who are you wearing?" refering to the designer. everything would be seen for what it is-a car would no longer be symbol of wealth, it would be seen as a means of transport. everything would change and start to benifit everybody in this world, chemicals would not be put into our food so to make them cheaper to produce, people will not be exploited. we will become healthier. we will stop polluting this world because there will be no monetary constraints on development of better fuels, and the people of today who sell fuel will not have any insentive to, as there will be no profit to be made. it is the only way we are going to evolve into a superior race. we must overcome ourselves and dismiss with our greed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a very interesting topic. It should be pointed out that Pol Pot (yeah, that idiot) was the first dictator that had enough balls to outlaw money.

Though in terms of currency, the products were the currency for the work, so it doesn't really count as valueless.

I don't think a society without pay would work, simply because it goes against human nature. No matter how 'sincere' and 'responsible' people are, it is essentially impossible to do work without a reward. Why would you want that anyway? Altruism is madness to the highest degree. The idea of a civilization is to unite people for the common good. If an individual is getting nothing in return, then he should leave.

Example:

A tribe of people decide to build walls around their camp. So Joe helps out by lifting logs (his labor). If he doesn't do any work, he doesn't get to share in the feast. So by the next day the wall is finished. Joe now expects to relax and have some food. Suddenly the tribe leader says 'we shouldn't have to give you anything, you did it for the good of the community'. What is joe left with? NOTHING. Even Honey Bees get something out of return.

AS for Utopia: I think the proto-fascist Star Trek model is an ideal society...on paper. Unless there is constant exploration and excitement (what the unabomber dubs 'surrogate activities') then people would get bored to death and rebel. How about those borgs? They seem like a metaphor for communists: lifeless, egalitarian, altruistic.

Tribal societies seem to be the most efficient, since there are strong leaders who make the rules, not the masses. Furthermore, they aren't really 'masses', they are a tight knit family, therefore decisions are more comfortable. These societies have better values for the sole purpose that there are no conflicting outside influences (such as the capitalist system today, where the television preaches values). If someone is commiting a crime, the tribe will punish them in severe ways so that it never occurs again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you ever read 'Lord of the Flies'? The power hungry survive and the idiots don't. That's how it is and I never want it to be any other way.

 

the world will be a place where nothing has value.. everything would be free in the sense that no money will be exchanged for any item. everybody that can work, will work and in exchange they will have as much of anything as they need

Have you ever read 'Lord of the Flies'? The power hungry survive and the idiots don't. That's how it is and I never want it to be any other way.

this issue has nothing to do with fiction, this is the real world. the idiots you refer to are millions of people in third world countries who starve to death everyday. perhaps if you were born into one of these countries then your attitude my be slightly altered.

 

A need for money in return for some deed is genetic is it?
In the human time scale money is a modern invention is it not?
I don't think the problem is with money but with the system.
Are those "treasury notes" in your pocket really yours, are they really worth the face value?

 

I never said MONEY. I said REWARD (money is a type of reward, not the rule). There is no animal on this planet that works counter to it's own interests. Altruism is an impossibility.

 

The book has a lot to do with reality if you bothered to read it. Or is that too hard? Guess what, I almost starved, I was homeless once. Don't preach to me, the simple fact is that pity is weakness. Do I think the Jewnited States should exploit third world countries? HELL NO! What's going on in Africa is hard for even me to stomach, but I'm not going to stoop to pity. I'd rather overthrow the system and attack the actual problem like a real hero instead of just giving away my fortune to the poor. What long term problem will that solve? Pity is leftist madness.

 

Not much difference

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How? Why?
Are absolutely all decisions made with the "what's in it for me" attitude? Is not that what you are implying? I don't believe it.

 

NO. Money is not the same thing. Money IS a reward, but not all rewards amount to money. For example: If I join a tribe of people that give me absolutely no shelter, no food, and no safety, there is no point in me being there. As such, these things I described ARE rewards for my hard work.

Altruism is impossible because anything you do is to your benefit. For example, if a guy puts a gun to my head and tells me to build him a pyramid out of rocks, I can either build it or get my brains blown out. I may not WANT to do it, but unconsciously it benefits me becase I'm still alive.

For a better argument: If some utopian-collective-cult-whatever, tells me to give them all of my belongings, my time, and my effort for no reward, what am I gaining? Acceptance into the cult of course! The acceptance is my reward.

 

Let me put it this way: selfishness is not something to be cherished, collectivism is not evil. However, if all people give themselves up altruistically, there is no real point to having a civilization because it is achieving the opposite of what society was intended for. Humans came into packs out of common interest, not altruism.

Lets says there is a pack of wolves that come upon a group of rabbits. Each wolf kills a rabbit and then puts it into a kill pile instead of eating it, because they want to serve the collective instead of being selfish. They will all starve to death even though there is food in front of them. See the absurdity of self-sacrifice?

When Ninjas commit Sepuka for the love of their country, they are doing it in their own interests because that is how deep their love is. If they do not feel anything for their country, their action is irrational.

Bees appear to be altruistic creatures, yet many idiots fail to realize that they fight to the death out of genetic priority.

 

i did not say anything about pity. you are the one that called it pity. "The power hungry survive and the idiots don't. That's how it is and I never want it to be any other way" and now you say that you would "rather overthrow the system and attack the actual problem like a real hero" surely this system is the system you believe in and that you "never want it to be any other way" you call it a "problem" and feel that you would be a "real hero" if you were to attack it. when did i say that you were to give away your fortune to the poor? if there was no money there would be no poor. "Do I think the Jewnited States should exploit third world countries? HELL NO!" is this not an example of the "power hungary" and the "idiots" that you refered to?

 

As you seem fond of analogy, what reward do I get for kicking the cockroach rather than sqaushing it? None I'd say as I'm likely to need to kick it again some time.

 

To LoneAzdgari:

I offer these two related links on the subject:

<a href="http://www.strange-loops.com/politicsabolishwork.html">Abolish Work</a>

and

<a href="http://www.primitivism.com/index.html">Primitivism</a> (with an especial look at <a href="http://www.primitivism.com/primitive-affluence.htm">this piece</a> which talks about the !Kung bushmen and Australian Aborigines)

I haven't had the time to read the entire long thread in full (I'm new here, lots of catching up to do), but it seems to me money is not a necessity if one gets rid of work. And work, for the most part - especially in its current form - is not a necessity if one gets rid of some of our more worthless consumerism habits.

 

Even in a perfect altruistic, non-greedy society you would still want money. It acts as both a store of value and a measure of value, both of which are important to the functioning of a complex society.

 

The society would niether be ultruistic or selfish. would you want money if there were no money to want? money is a store of monetry value. in a world without money items would have no value, therefore we would not need it to be stored or measured.

 

Let me clarify; I meant that money would still serve a useful purpose is such a society.

 

Money

I too have felt confused on this issue until someone told me that money is actually a means for carrying information. That information tends to be a complex representation of human business activities with each other. What is defined by business is of course a much larger topic hear than the concept of money. Needless to say, this business can, and does include very base and animalistic desires of the proponents of business.

Going back to it, when one uses money, it actually represents the value of a something (a pot of rice, a bottle of whiskey etc). However, what determines how one object is valued over the other is the tricky bit. Theoretically, they are valued on their production rates. In reality, politics, and human greed (the animus) takes over and skews the curve in extraordinary and generally quite evil ways.

As marx said, money can have no meaning on its own. You do not go into a shop and ask to buy money (well unless you are loaning money, than in exchange of a promise to return that money, you are getting some money in advance). Well thats the short answer. There is a much bigger and strangely less complex answer to this but requires quite a bit of explanation for which none of us have the money to pay for.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

errrr wat?

There is one thing I find disappointing about this forum. It tends to be things like the above. Two arguments

1. As we don't pay for our oxygen we breath (you do not pay directly), than it has no value ????

2. A self descriptive phrase like "ghosts are things made of ghostly things" is not a constructive description.

 

Eventually we will have machines that can instantly create any object, it will have a stored memory of every atom for everything, so it would be impossible for their to be money.

Eventually we will have to abolish capitalism and work out another way. I think if there was no money there would be less poor people, less rich people, and more middle class. For the division of goods would be given equally and only if you were a lazy mofo would you earn nothing and become a bum.