-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
_-'""""Can society exist w/o money""""-_
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
WinkOsmosis
Banned
Nope. Think about this... why do people give money to their religious organizations? It's not because they are being forced to, it's because their cultural values cause them to want to. Kinship is just what it implies. Everyone is seen as a kin. Many of the things we take for granted, like self interest, are not universal to all people.
It's always been impossible for any decent sized society to deal without money. The Greeks and Romans used money, POWs in WWII used ciggarettes for currency, and some Native Americans used shells for cash. It's not a matter of greed, it's a matter of survival. With any sort of specialization, there needs to be some form of currency.
So by this post you base longevity of life to go hand in hand with simplicity? I have to disagree with that, I hope you have a happy life in eternity, I look forward to going on before I have to rely on pills and machines :disgust:
They hunted just fine, and we still never took to the ability to live WITH the land and animals instead we live off them.
Wars? Thats right lets take we the US as an example... we never go to war either 😛
WinkOsmosis
Banned
Can you be any more ethnocentric?
Less technologically advanced societies may not have the level of medicine that we have, but that doesn't mean babies are dropping like flies or that 28 is old age.
Adam and Eve... believe it or not, their story is at its heart an accurate history of prehistoric mankind.
When land is plentiful and populations small, it's like the garden of Eden. Farming wasn't a marvelous invention that was discovered, improving lives. It was a necessity. Hunters and gatherers aren't stupid. They know damn well that if you put a seed in the ground it will grow into a plant.
People in our society hunt for PLEASURE. What makes you think hunting is an arduous task for people who do it for food? Now farming... there's strenuous work.
When land becomes more scarce due to increasing populations, people are forced to use the land more intensively, farming for their food. Remind you of Adam and Eve?
Now look at us. We go to school for 12-20 years, work our asses off 10 hours a day including commutes for another 40 years, then chill when we are old and our eyes are dim and "ain't no more sh!t gonna happen again". Our ancestors hunted when they were 16, they hunted when they were 40, they relaxed when they were 50. Disease? Maybe if they felt a need to live in filth like many people today are forced to do by poor government and irresponsible economics.
I dunno about you guys, but I'd rather be stranded on a desert island, roasting a pig every week or so, and relaxing, or at least I would if it weren't for computers and the joy they bring 🙂. Actually I could overlook that if there happened to be a hot woman who actually liked me on the island. What I'm saying is that our society is not superior to that of our ancestors, nor was theirs superior to ours.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Just pointing out that just because they had not much in the way of technology does not mean they led simpler lives. They had different problems than we do and had to adapt and deal differently.
And I'm sorry if you feel like you'll end up on pills and machines immediately after reaching the age of 30.
Our society is a curse as much as it is a blessing. We have some of the longest lifespans in the world, comparatively the longest of any civilization in human history. We also suffer from many health ailments, high levels of stress, little to no cultural value, high levels of income inequality, high youth crime rates, etc.
The aborigines of Australia live relatively peaceful lives, have the sharpest natural vision of any people on earth, cultural equality, etc. Free of most any type of violence. Very interesting culture.
Which one is better? I cannot say. I am mired in this human culture, and I doubt I can ever completely break free.
The aborigines of Australia live relatively peaceful lives, have the sharpest natural vision of any people on earth, cultural equality, etc. Free of most any type of violence. Very interesting culture.
Which one is better? I cannot say. I am mired in this human culture, and I doubt I can ever completely break free.
Not sure what your definition of cashless is, but I was focused on the notion of absolutely no monetary system....
and the possibilities for people to work as a whole out of that system...
When you try to think of an ideal or advanced civilization, would a monetary system be in place???😕
The nature of people is money, it looks stupid from all points of view but not only for them... Only people see the biggest point in money. For me, my motto is: "Happiness is not in money, but in it's quantity'. I;m also a human, unfortunately, and I can't resist this human crap b/c of this sad fact.
dullard
Elite Member
Money is so much more conveinent once you get to a materialistic society.
Suppose I want your computer. All I have are 5000 chicken eggs. How am I supposed to ship those eggs to you reliably? Wouldn't the eggs breaking cause an enormous economic hit. The same goes for all other transactions - an enormous cost to do each transaction means fewer transactions which drastically hurts trade, which drastically harms the economy.
But lets pretend we could easilly ship 5000 eggs around for each purchase. Money can be saved for future use. What are you going to do with 5000 eggs that will go bad in a couple of weeks? You cannot put them in a bank account and save for a rainy day. No instead you have to quickly find someone willing to take your eggs. That means you need to make excess purchases that you don't necessarilly want.
Money is easilly divisible. Suppose I have a cow and you have a computer. Is your computer worth exactly 1 cow? In most cases the answer is probably no. Do we have to kill the cow so I can just give you half?
Suppose I want your computer. All I have are 5000 chicken eggs. How am I supposed to ship those eggs to you reliably? Wouldn't the eggs breaking cause an enormous economic hit. The same goes for all other transactions - an enormous cost to do each transaction means fewer transactions which drastically hurts trade, which drastically harms the economy.
But lets pretend we could easilly ship 5000 eggs around for each purchase. Money can be saved for future use. What are you going to do with 5000 eggs that will go bad in a couple of weeks? You cannot put them in a bank account and save for a rainy day. No instead you have to quickly find someone willing to take your eggs. That means you need to make excess purchases that you don't necessarilly want.
Money is easilly divisible. Suppose I have a cow and you have a computer. Is your computer worth exactly 1 cow? In most cases the answer is probably no. Do we have to kill the cow so I can just give you half?
WinkOsmosis
Banned
Bartering is the same as money. No one is saying that barter is a replacement for cash.
Exactly. A barter system would be catastrophic economically, which of course would lead to social and political chaos.
Money is the only thing which has universal and consistent value. It is our MONETARY system which has facilitated our economic prosperity and resulting standard of living. Without it, we would all be living in the 1800's.
An old lesson in commerce: CASH IS KING. If I go to a place where there is a lot of buying, selling, and trading, cash will buy every item in the place. However, Seller A may not be interested in my 'trade', my 40 bushels of corn, or whatever. So then I have to find another seller (Seller B) who has something Seller A wants so I can get what I want, at the price I want to pay for it.
There is going to be at least one additional transaction, but likely two or three additional transactions required, just to acquire what I came there to acquire in the first place. People used to starve to death or flirt with financial ruin on a monthly basis because of this sort of extreme inefficiency.
You cannot always find a buyer or seller on demand who will gladly accept your 20 chickens, because he may already have too many chickens, or doesn't have an interest in your 20 chickens. The one thing that NOBODY has 'too much of' or 'no interest in' and, thus will never refuse to trade in, is cash.
Kadarin
Lifer
That is because the Federation established a Communist police-state in order to do so.
Society could exist without money, but it certainly wouldn't resemble anything we're familiar with. Let me give you an example: the Spartans of ancient Greece. Economic motivations were replaced by extremely rigid social codes and adherence to the ideals promoted by the state. The History Channel recently had an excellent program on this, titled "The Rise and Fall of the Spartans".
Zebo
Elite Member
Many people think that money has always existed and therefore it always will. Wrong.
Human beings have lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years without using money. When they were hungry, they ate. When they were thirsty, they drank. Whatever was available to anyone was available to everyone.
It wasn't paradise, because food was scarce, and growing communities were eventually forced by this scarcity into a competitive struggle for life.
First came the invention of agriculture, and the consequent need to defend the land, or property, on which crops were grown.
Although this gave communities more stability and growth, agriculture and animal husbandry could not by themselves supply everything which they needed to develop as cultures. For this they needed to associate with other communities and pool their resources. But in the new culture of property there was never again to be such freedom to take whatever was available.
And so began the exchange of products known as trade. And although some quite advanced bronze age societies managed to trade very well by using barter (e.g. the Egyptians), it was a supremely awkward way to conduct transactions. With the advent of the Iron Age, cheap metal was for the first time plentiful, and coinage was slowly introduced to facilitate the trading process.
Civilisation has since grown up on the back of this trade, whose sophistication was made possible by the invention of money. To the modern mind therefore, civilisation relies on money. This is a misunderstanding. In fact, it is only trade which relies on money. Civilisation relies on distribution of material goods certainly, but distribution is not the same thing as trade, just as give is not the same thing as sell. Modern industrial society has given us the means to free ourselves forever from that scarcity which has always dogged our forebears. Money is no longer a necessity or logical feature of society, and only a tiny minority benefit from its presence.
In history, many things become out of date, like the steam engine or quill pens. Money is about to join them.
Money today
Money is indispensable to the capitalist system, but this system is not indispensable to human society. Money as a universal means of exchange represents capital. The possessing of money enables the buyer to acquire goods and services (commodities) and the seller to dispose of goods and services. The key resource that is bought and sold is human labour power?the ability to transform initial wealth (resources, raw material, etc) into more wealth.
We live in a society where almost everything is bought and sold. That which you need to live is a commodity, you must buy it from someone who will make (or at least expect) a profit out of selling to you. It is our passport to existence in capitalism. Not only does the movement of products from producer to consumer come to be mediated by money, but the value of a product comes to be judged not in human terms but in terms of a sum of money.
The key to the rise of continuation of the capitalist system is the ability of members of the capitalist class (owners of means of wealth production and distribution) to buy the working abilities of members of the working class. They combine that labour with capital resulting in commodities that can be sold for more than it costs in total to produce them.
A high proportion of employment in capitalism consists of handling money in some way. There are hundreds of occupations that would not exist in a society that had no need for money: they range from accountants, bank and insurance staff, salespeople, wages clerks to name only some of the more numerous occupations. Tangible products needed only in a money system include bank notes and coins, account books and invoices, meters, safes and many others.
Capitalism as a market system means that the normal method of getting what you need is to pay for it. The normal way for members of the capitalist class to get money is to invest their capital to produce rent, interest, dividends or profit. The normal way for workers to get money is to sell their labour power for wages, salaries, commission or fees. If they are unable to find employment they depend on state or other handouts. The result is poverty in the midst of potential plenty?actual plenty only for the privileged minority.
Socialism: a moneyless society
Socialism means a world society based on production solely for use, not profit. It will be a classless society, in which everyone will be able to participate democratically in decisions about the use of the world's resources, each producing according to their ability and each taking from the common store according to their needs.
In such a society there can be no money?or, more precisely, no need for money. Money is only needed when people possess, and most do not.
Imagine that all the things you need are owned and held in common. There is no need to buy food from anyone?it is common property. There are no rent or mortgages to pay because land and buildings belong to all of us. There is no need to buy anything from any other person because society has done away with the absurd division between the owning minority (the capitalists) and the non-owning majority (the workers).
In a socialist world monetary calculation won't be necessary. The alternative to monetary calculation based on exchange-value is calculation based on use values. Decisions apart from purely personal ones of preference or interest will be made after weighing the real advantages and disadvantages and real costs of alternatives in particular circumstances.
The ending of the money system will mean at the same time the ending of war, economic crises, unemployment, poverty and persecution?all of which are consequences of that system.
The revolutionary change that is needed is not possible unless a majority of people understand and want it. We do not imagine all humankind's problems can be solved at a stroke.
Reforms of the present system fail because the problems multiply and recur. It will take time to eliminate hunger, malnutrition, disease and ignorance from the world.
But the enormous liberation of mental and physical energies from the shackles of the money system will ensure that real human progress is made. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep00/falmoney.html
I choose not to quote this in hopes you'd actually read it.
Also those questioning the incentive to work and evolve please read this, it's worth discussing IMO. And may shed some light on the common misnomer of calling the democrtes or any other other country "socialist" since that is not the case. The liberal european countries and US dems are very much capitalists in a political science debate.
Human beings have lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years without using money. When they were hungry, they ate. When they were thirsty, they drank. Whatever was available to anyone was available to everyone.
It wasn't paradise, because food was scarce, and growing communities were eventually forced by this scarcity into a competitive struggle for life.
First came the invention of agriculture, and the consequent need to defend the land, or property, on which crops were grown.
Although this gave communities more stability and growth, agriculture and animal husbandry could not by themselves supply everything which they needed to develop as cultures. For this they needed to associate with other communities and pool their resources. But in the new culture of property there was never again to be such freedom to take whatever was available.
And so began the exchange of products known as trade. And although some quite advanced bronze age societies managed to trade very well by using barter (e.g. the Egyptians), it was a supremely awkward way to conduct transactions. With the advent of the Iron Age, cheap metal was for the first time plentiful, and coinage was slowly introduced to facilitate the trading process.
Civilisation has since grown up on the back of this trade, whose sophistication was made possible by the invention of money. To the modern mind therefore, civilisation relies on money. This is a misunderstanding. In fact, it is only trade which relies on money. Civilisation relies on distribution of material goods certainly, but distribution is not the same thing as trade, just as give is not the same thing as sell. Modern industrial society has given us the means to free ourselves forever from that scarcity which has always dogged our forebears. Money is no longer a necessity or logical feature of society, and only a tiny minority benefit from its presence.
In history, many things become out of date, like the steam engine or quill pens. Money is about to join them.
Money today
Money is indispensable to the capitalist system, but this system is not indispensable to human society. Money as a universal means of exchange represents capital. The possessing of money enables the buyer to acquire goods and services (commodities) and the seller to dispose of goods and services. The key resource that is bought and sold is human labour power?the ability to transform initial wealth (resources, raw material, etc) into more wealth.
We live in a society where almost everything is bought and sold. That which you need to live is a commodity, you must buy it from someone who will make (or at least expect) a profit out of selling to you. It is our passport to existence in capitalism. Not only does the movement of products from producer to consumer come to be mediated by money, but the value of a product comes to be judged not in human terms but in terms of a sum of money.
The key to the rise of continuation of the capitalist system is the ability of members of the capitalist class (owners of means of wealth production and distribution) to buy the working abilities of members of the working class. They combine that labour with capital resulting in commodities that can be sold for more than it costs in total to produce them.
A high proportion of employment in capitalism consists of handling money in some way. There are hundreds of occupations that would not exist in a society that had no need for money: they range from accountants, bank and insurance staff, salespeople, wages clerks to name only some of the more numerous occupations. Tangible products needed only in a money system include bank notes and coins, account books and invoices, meters, safes and many others.
Capitalism as a market system means that the normal method of getting what you need is to pay for it. The normal way for members of the capitalist class to get money is to invest their capital to produce rent, interest, dividends or profit. The normal way for workers to get money is to sell their labour power for wages, salaries, commission or fees. If they are unable to find employment they depend on state or other handouts. The result is poverty in the midst of potential plenty?actual plenty only for the privileged minority.
Socialism: a moneyless society
Socialism means a world society based on production solely for use, not profit. It will be a classless society, in which everyone will be able to participate democratically in decisions about the use of the world's resources, each producing according to their ability and each taking from the common store according to their needs.
In such a society there can be no money?or, more precisely, no need for money. Money is only needed when people possess, and most do not.
Imagine that all the things you need are owned and held in common. There is no need to buy food from anyone?it is common property. There are no rent or mortgages to pay because land and buildings belong to all of us. There is no need to buy anything from any other person because society has done away with the absurd division between the owning minority (the capitalists) and the non-owning majority (the workers).
In a socialist world monetary calculation won't be necessary. The alternative to monetary calculation based on exchange-value is calculation based on use values. Decisions apart from purely personal ones of preference or interest will be made after weighing the real advantages and disadvantages and real costs of alternatives in particular circumstances.
The ending of the money system will mean at the same time the ending of war, economic crises, unemployment, poverty and persecution?all of which are consequences of that system.
The revolutionary change that is needed is not possible unless a majority of people understand and want it. We do not imagine all humankind's problems can be solved at a stroke.
Reforms of the present system fail because the problems multiply and recur. It will take time to eliminate hunger, malnutrition, disease and ignorance from the world.
But the enormous liberation of mental and physical energies from the shackles of the money system will ensure that real human progress is made. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep00/falmoney.html
I choose not to quote this in hopes you'd actually read it.
Also those questioning the incentive to work and evolve please read this, it's worth discussing IMO. And may shed some light on the common misnomer of calling the democrtes or any other other country "socialist" since that is not the case. The liberal european countries and US dems are very much capitalists in a political science debate.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
