If any of you are familiar with the Zeitgeist movement, you know one of their principle goals is a society without the need for money.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912&ei=vE-XS7bBHZK8qgL10K3yAg&q=zeitgeist&hl=en#docid=3932487043163636261
(talks about the monetary system at about 2:30)
Can it work?
Besides the current system, can you offer an alternative?
The monetary system (at least in simple terms) wasn’t invented, it evolved naturally. I’m pretty sure that if you rewound the clock, the same sort of thing would happen again.
Without completely redesigning society to eliminate the need for currency (let’s say, making us a hive, like the Borg), some kind of tokenised method of value exchange is going to end up inventing itself.
Of course it could work. Money is an illusion. Value is subjective.
The lying turds in the zeitgeist movement won’t bring it about, though, no. In fact, it’ll never, ever happen. There are enough greedy specimens of homo sapiens, and they are clever enough to convince just about everybody else that their best interests are everybody’s best interest. But enjoy thinking how cool it would be.
so you’re saying they’re trying to trick people?
did you watch the video?
People have been advocating a post-capitalist world without money for over a hundred years before the Zeitgeist movement. So obviously some people think it’s possible. As a member of the World Socialist Movement, I happen to be one of them, so if there’s anything in particular you want to know about our particular idea of a world without money feel free to ask.
How would it evolve again from that point? Why would there be a need to do that?
If you would please comment on specific parts.
Also he mentions in the video that money was created as a way of barter and because during those times things were truly scarce, but he believes things are different today.
I would have to agree. There is no reason anyone should be starving in this world, nor should anyone be dying of common illnesses. It’s the system that makes it beneficial to MAKE something scarce to increase profits.
I’ll be honest I don’t know what Socialism really is.
But I do think people should have what they need to survive.
I do know that the Zeitgeist Movement has a large emphasis on technology, the scientific method, and letting go of religion.
Zeitgeist is also related to the Venus Project which is an industrial design project.
I just think everything he says makes sense.
I’ve always felt that Capitalism is just a way for rich people to be able to have their way with the populace. As it explains in the video… what work or contribution do most wealthy people do, usually nothing. They put their money in a bank and somehow collect a huge amount of interest, while I take out loans and pay huge interest. I sometimes feel like I am a slave.
I can’t watch the video from where I am at the moment, so I guess I may have to dip out, unless you’d like to explain what it’s about and which arguments you find particularly compelling.
From the rest of your post, it sounds like it’s an argument that we are already living in a technological state capable of bringing about a post-scarcity world.
If so, I disagree - we’re just not anywhere near that.
Discussion at the ZM forums about differences with Socialism and Communism:
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=7&id=46085
I think the key difference here is how they are organized, and that they don’t necessarily want people living in communes or even wearing the same garb. Where you’ll still have choice over what you have and it’s not just predetermined.
I think the biggest problem is people don’t understand how we can provide for everyone because they’re under the impression that things on this planet are still scarce. They’re also afraid of a system which will limit their choice, but thiss system is the opposite. It will give you more choice.
Reading a few of the essays on their website, I don’t want it to work.
As I’ve said before, if they wanted to establish their own co-operative somewhere that people can choose to join, they’d have my full support. But since they’re just another bunch of assholes that think they have a right to my time and property, they can go step in front of a bus.
Why do you say that we’re nowhere near that?
What are we lacking?
Cite? Where do they say they have a right to your property or your time?
From what I have read everything is voluntary and property is OWNED by you.
And you don’t OWN your property now.
Try not paying property tax… yeah your house will get taken away.
How many people under capitalism have had homes they OWN taken away from them by the government.
Please explain that to me.
Or if society were to become sufficiently close to the post-scarcity ideal ( true post-scarcity being impossible, what with the existence of fundamentally limited commodities like land ), I could imagine trade becoming rare enough that our descendents revert to a pure barter system. But that still wouldn’t get to the abolition of property, much less the abolition of government these Zeitgeist people apparently want; that would require as you say a change in human nature.
I think the problem is that government stands in the way of progress. None of these people are scientists who can actually solve problems, they are law makers who put band-aid fixes on everything without addressing the core problem.
It might sound ridiculous, but there is potentially no need for law, police, or government as long as their are people finding REAL solutions.
Drunk driving for example. In this society we make a law. How effective is it… only 2670 drunk driving deaths last year. In the Zeitgeist movement we instead have a critical thinker handle the problem… obviously you can’t eliminate drunk driving completely but you could add a device to the car that when swaying occurs it will automatically slow down speed, turn to the side of the road, and lock up… and the guy can sit until he sobers up or call for a ride. Obviously humans don’t need to know drunk driving is illegal to know it is dangerous.
What about Murder! Okay obviously there is some ‘law’ but do things like murder really need to be a law to know they are wrong?
I guess my real point is the government doesn’t provide real solutions to problems. If you can provide an example of the government making a law that is not already common sense and solves a problem that couldn’t otherwise be solved by technology… please let me know
It’s one of those words that different people use to mean different things. We define socialism (a term we use interchangeably with “communism”, as did Marx, Engels, and other early socialist writers) as a world-wide socio-economic system characterized by democratic control, production for use rather than for profit, and free access to goods and services. That last bit implies the absence of money.
And the WSM has much the same emphasis. I think our biggest point of disagreement with them is their adherance to a demonstrably false understanding of economics, known as social credit. Proponents of this idea claim that banks and other financial institutions can simply create wealth at the stroke of a pen.
It sounds ridiculous, because it IS ridiculous.
And without a government who, exactly, is going to force the drunk driver or anyone else to put such a device in his car? Or keep him from removing it?
No, but they need a law and a government to discourage them from doing so.
They need a law to stop the people who simply don’t care that it it wrong, or don’t believe that it is.
I’ve already mentioned some. The “real solutions” you want simply don’t exist, or would be worse than the problem. And without government, what would there be to stop some other people from simply enslaving or killing you?
Does it need to be a law to know that’s wrong. Also it could be made in such a way that it couldn’t be removed.
Please explain to me the last point:
‘a law that is not already common sense and solves a problem that couldn’t otherwise be solved by technology… please let me know’
Btw… it doesn’t exist because we think our bandaid laws cover the drunk driving problem.
You are ignoring all the people who simply won’t care.
Rather unlikely. And again; without a government, who is going to force anyone to install it in the first place?
Murder and drunk driving, the very examples you have been using. “Technology” can’t solve either.
“Bandaid laws” are the best available solution, like it or not.
Let me get this straight:
Humans are inherently good.
Governments (which are designed, appointed and populated entirely by humans) are inherently evil.
That makes no sense. If governments are human constructs, and humans are inherently good, then why aren’t governments inherently good?
Who will do the shitty jobs? Why would anyone choose to work (at least, work at something other than an enjoyable hobby), if money is no longer necessary?