Moneyless Society: The Next Economic Evolution

Product Information

If someone wants to create a new product, he goes to the slave slums, grabs a few of them and has them do it. If he wants to provide more of those products, he grabs more slaves. There might be specialist slaves which live in slightly cleaner slums, which can build machines to aid large scale production. Such a trip without money is not just a learning experience on its own, it's also a life changing experience. a b c d e Seyfang, Gill. "Time Banks and the Social Economy: Exploring the UK Policy Context" (PDF). www.cserge.ac.uk. CSERGE. Azis, Haris; Li, Bo; Wu, Xiaowei (2019-05-22). "Strategyproof and Approximately Maxmin Fair Share Allocation of Chores". DeepAI. arXiv: 1905.08925. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

While some people equate work with paid labour only, this is not accurate. For example, according to OECD research, unpaid care work is one of the important factors explaining gender gaps in labour outcomes (participation, wages, and job quality). Across all regions of the world, women spend on average In 1941 he publishes his first story about robots and his great idea and insight is that the robots are not going to be our enemies or our doom as a society, the way robots were usually portrayed, as Frankensteins. The robots will liberate us, and so Asimov is trying to figure out a world where human labor is no longer necessary for survival. And that is something you see throughout Star Trek, much more so in The Next Generation than in the original series. In The Next Generation you have these incredible machines that will make anything for you on the spot and on demand—the replicators—and in a way the replicator is a metaphor for universal automation the way it is described in Asimov’s robot stories.” Whether you agree with Marx or not, he makes a very good point: Moneyless economies require different cultural values and behaviours compared to money-based economies. I think that a moneyless society will put great emphasis on:

The “Post-Scarcity” Society

Is there no responsibility on people to care for items and not smash them because they become enraged? My previous response did not take into consideration that the OP explicitly states our technology level and available resources would be what they are today in their fictional scenario. That restriction severely limits the possibility for such a society, but I do still believe it would be possible so long as it was done sustainably. Private business frequently focuses their research on consumer products that can bring profits and increase the company's value. They are not concerned with the public good and even if they are a responsible company and they have some considerations it is not their top priority or primary goal. It is even possible to argue that while capitalism indeed led to the increase in the quality of life short-term it is also responsible for the massive decrease in the quality of life in the future due to the harm caused to the environment.

The crime levels in this world would be much lower since most crimes are committed out of greed and the need to make money for a living; But in a communist society there is no money. Since there is no money, there are no prices. Since there are no prices, there is no way for production to be informed of what's needed to be produced. Since there is no way for production to be informed of what's needed to be produced, you will always have overproduction of some things and underproduction of other things.Such system works worse if people are diverse and complicated in their needs and wants. Which will encourage the authorities to try to make people more standard in their needs/wants. The easiest way would be for the Government to get rid of non-standard people, to bully/brainwash them into behaving like the general population, or just left their needs/wants unfulfilled. Like chronically ill and disabled people will have needs/wants that are different from needs/wants of an average Joe, so the government can decide to heal them once and for all, ignore their problems, or even to kill them. Such society will see being different as deeply problematic, people will feel ashamed/depressed for being different. In a normal economy, the interaction between supply and demand works as a distributed information system which by and large makes sure that producers allocate resources to what consumers actually need. While getting my dinner this evening I was reminded of the comments of a friend about a month ago. He's a plumbing contractor — and the people who work for him... won't. When he asked one why he wouldn't come to work, the response was, "why should I crawl in attics and crawlspaces when I can stay home on unemployment for the same amount?" Smith, Adrian (2002). "Culture/Economy and Spaces of Economic Practice: Positioning Households in Post- Communism". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 27 (2): 232–250. doi: 10.1111/1475-5661.00051. JSTOR 3804544. Heidemarie Schwermer (2015). Das Sterntalerexperiment – Mein Leben ohne Geld[ The Sterntaler experiment - My life without money] (in German). BoD – Books on Demand. ISBN 9783738622850.

I also want to note that money is one of many reward mechanisms. Fame, recognition, respect, special treatment, and so on are examples of other reward mechanisms. In addition to rewards, societies employ coercion mechanisms to make their members perform necessary work. The social stigma attached to those who refuse to work can be used as coercion. So, while a moneyless society may not have one of the rewards mechanisms it will still have all other reward and coercion mechanisms. And even if people are not willing to accept working for free they might be forced to do so. The specific use of coercion and reward systems determines whether your moneyless society is a utopia or a dystopia. The absence of money does not automatically lead to any of these two outcomes. Some writers claim that this abolition of money had, and still has, negative consequences for Cambodian society. For instance, an article by Sheridan Prasso (eastwestcenter.org, January 2001) claimed that, although money had by then been in use again in Cambodia for over twenty years, its former abolition had made people there distrustful of money, hence their preference for US dollars or gold and the ineffectiveness of the Cambodian financial system. More recently, Anirudh Bhati (mekongresearch.org, 19 June 2018) has argued that Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge had no money, private property or trade, and states that ‘without money — and therefore without effective trade — there is no possible freedom.’ As can be seen, supporters of capitalism have sometimes seen the abolition of money in Cambodia as an argument against socialism, against the very idea of a moneyless society based on free access. Non-market ecosocialism as advocated by Anitra Nelson: as for the nonmonetary aspect, each household "guesstimates" its basic needs, which are met in return for "collective production as a community obligation." The production, distribution, and procurement of goods and services from "more distant communities" are collectively agreed on. [32] Please note that I came within an inch of voting to close this question as opinion-based. I'm only answering it because your specific question, "would everyone accept to work for free?" has, IMO, only one plausible answer.

Moneyless society in the bible

The other form of home-based nurturing also serves benefits society as a whole. Care giving provides assistance for those who are elderly, disabled, suffering terminal illness or chronic illness, or are generally frail or in need of assistance. Someone who cares for someone in any of these positions is a caregiver. This is largely provided unpaid by friends or family of the patient. The complete domination of the estranged thing over man has become evident in money, which is completely indifferent both to the nature of the material, i.e., to the specific nature of the private property, and to the personality of the property owner. What was the domination of person over person is now the general domination of the thing over the person, of the product over the producer. Just as the concept of the equivalent, the value, already implied the alienation of private property, so money is the sensuous, even objective existence of this alienation” (p.22).