Beyond The Socialist Dream, A Money-less Society Part I
Posted on Sunday the 5th of November, 2006 at 6:51 pm in BlogishOne of the goals of socialists is an economy in which all participants are equal and goods are available to all regardless of family, wealth or occupation. The ultimate goal of such an economy is an entirely money less society in which goods are free for all. Unfortunately a a system such as this is not possible when goods and resources are finite and where some occupations are harder to train for and others are physically harder.
Another problem with this system is that a money-less economy does not encourage hard work. As was demonstrated on the communal farms of Russia, when each worker has little reward for working harder than a minimal amount there is little reason to work harder. If harder work doesn’t mean more reward what is the point? In a completely equal society there is little point outside of personal pride, but even that is taken away with the right (or wrong as the case may be) conditioning. In a group society it does not serve to stick out among ones compatriots. However it is possible to encourage those who wish to succeed while still keeping people economically equal if a merit based system was introduced. A merit system would reward those that put more effort into benefiting society and as such allow them access to greater wealth and have the opportunity to acquire more exclusive goods.
In such a system a person would not be competing against all other people and occupations as they do in a money economy, but instead compete against those that have similar educations and occupations. Lets take for example two theoretical people. The first is a maid who never finished high school; the second person is a doctor who is among the preeminent surgeons of the day. Quite obviously in a money economy the maid would make far less money than the doctor, even to the point where the maid may make in a lifetime what the doctor makes in a year. Although one may argue that the doctor, because of his position and education, is worth more money than the maid, but should the doctor’s children automatically have a better chance at life than the maids? In a perfect society it sounds nice that the maid’s children have the same opportunity, but in reality the doctor’s children would have access to better schools and better teachers.
Ensuring all people start equally in life should be the main goal of the system, but as a person ages the amount of effort they are willing to put in should determine where they end up. Using this system each person must be the best they can be, or are left behind to fulfill the more menial requirements of society. Those that surpass expectations will prosper while others will only look on with envy and have none to blame but themselves. Rather than money, family or connections a person’s own nature will define their life.
In the first paragraph, you mentioned that a system such as this is impossible because goods and resources are finite. The trouble with this statement is that all finite goods are either unnecessary to continue a life comparable to the one currently enjoyed by the top societies on the planet, or they are unnecessary period. For example, oil is unnecessary. As has been proven time and time again by many of the worlds top scientists, there are alternatives, such as synthetic oils for the lubrication of machinery. As for oil products, such as gasoline, there are many many different ideas already circulating, many of which work better than gasoline at doing the same job, which is to make things go. These alternatives are only being supressed because the monetary cost is too high. If there were no monetary cost, the argument goes away.
Reply to tmsbrdrsIn your second paragraph, you mention the russian communal farms as proof that moneyless economies don’t encourage hard work. I agree, moneyless economies, when allowed to also be free, encourage smart work, not hard work. If a person has a choice between working for 12 hours in a field and building a machine, or attaining a machine, that will do the same work for him, without him having to do more than flip a switch, he chooses the machine. In current society, this would put many people out of work because the machine would enable one man to do the work of 12 with less stress. In a moneyless economy however, this would mean that the other 11 people could do what they actually want to do, the thing that makes them happy, such as exploring, building, learning, playing music, etc. A man will not work harder than his neighbor, he will work smarter. Because of this, everyone wins. The only problem comes from money. Get rid of it, the problem goes away. You also mention that in a group society, it doesn’t serve to stick out among ones compatriots. I’ve been in several groups and the only way that is true is if you stick out from the bottom rather than from the top. In a football team, the one who everyone shuns from the group is the one who always sits on the bench or the one who acts like an ass. On the other hand, the one who makes the team better is involved more in the group dynamic.
You also mention that the only way to fix the problem you’ve set up is with a merit based system, but wouldn’t this destroy the entire foundation of a moneyless society? Money is merit in the current system.
Since your third paragraph uses the same arguments I’ve already contended with, I’ll skip to the last. In this paragraph, you mention that the main goeal of the system should be ensuring all people begin life equally. The problem with this argument when taken in context with the rest of your essay is that it is impossible according to you, to do this without taking control of all children and raising them away from any outside influence that is different from any of the others. However, when allowed to work properly, letting individuals do what they love to do, rather than just putting them in a group doing the same thing where there’s no reward for doing the same thing better no matter what, when allowed to work properly, equality is a given. People do what they love to do, gaining personal merit, doing what makes them happy. I’m sure your argument for this would be that if everyone were allowed to do what makes them happy, nobody would do anything. If this were the case, the human race would have ended a very long time ago. People who are allowed to do what makes them truly happy have a longer, more fruitful life, which, in turn, means that the children of those people will have a longer, more fruitful life and, with this being said, you now know the true goal of a real socialist society. Freedom to be who you are, regardless of where you began.
It can work, but………. we would ALL have to change our mind set, and NOt think about having MORE of everything. Thinking that’s what would make me happy. The rich people have proved it for years. Those who have everything. Once you have the ability to buy anything you want, traveld where ever you awanted to go, etc, etc, etc. What happens in the end. You are still not happy. We would ALL have to have a mind set of working hard each day at making the world a better place. That’s why it will never work, because you could never get every one to think the same. But wouldn’t it e cool to see if it could work?
Reply to Mike RoeI don’t more than you think that I can deny Our Moneyless Society to be
Reply to Joram Arentvedas Anything Impossible, the way, that I look at it, is, however, another concept, our true nature as honest humans, an issue, on which I
can of course only recommend you some more advice of mine, what do we achieve by permitting, say that George B. can control us through abuse of economic advantages? Greetings, arentved@in.com.
The moneyless future, i.e. our own as moralists, maybe to be, is an issue, any law representative is please quite welcome to take up with me, so that I can of course tell & e.g. help us both find out how & when to become whatever representatives of, what a good future
Reply to J.A.truly is, greetings, arentved@in.com, most likely to be continued.