Can a Modern day world exist and thrive without the Concept of Money??

November Rain

Single Mother
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
13,322
Reaction score
0
Points
31
It's pretty much been ingrained into most societies since the dawn of time and is the motivation (or at least short term motivation) for many of us to participate in certain organisations, to work and to keep in line while having something aspirational to aim for.

Now could a prosperous society exist without money, or any real form of trade. It includes bartering, commodity or placing any real value on external objects

For the sake of argument, let's say a society has all the necessary raw materials in order to live a sustainable life without the need to import/export labour, information, raw materials or refined products.

Discuss but please attempt to think outside the box here, the concept of money has been instilled in us for millenia so it may not be as easy to imagine a world without it initially.

Discuss First, I'll share my views along the way.
 
The only way you can exist without money is to have a commonwealth, and with commonwealths the larger they become, the more corrupt they become. Technically, even though the Soviet Union had currency, they tried the concept of a "propertyless civilization" and it failed. No-one could legally claim ownership of property, because everything was the property of "the people," i.e. the state, which meant they could take anything away from you for whatever reason they wanted. And as history has shown us, communism sucks, which is why money and property are not going anywhere.

The important thing to remember is to be content with what you have. If you don't allow yourself become jealous of other people's money, then it becomes a pretty trivial issue. Yeah, there are people out there who have lots of money and do dumb crap with it, but if that's how they chose to live then they can have it for all I care. What matters is what you yourself place value in, not what the world does.
 
I'm not trying to get away with property per say, ownership can be somewhat important in people's aspirations.

However the value placed on it is more abstract than bartered for or inherite

then again, is a state system really that necessary to govern a such a society.

I keep thinking about the household and how a household regime can work with all members having their role and providing some particular skilled input (maybe solely) but getting all their other requirements from the other members without the need of money to transfer. All that is required is for each member to pull their weight.

Most of the time it works. Is it because it is generally on a small scale and what are the limitations of scaling it up?
 
Human beings are too selfish and ego centered. We won't do anything if there is no personal gratification at the end of it. Human civilization has evolved in such a way that our own selfworth and sense of achievement is viewed mainly through our wealth, Job title, image ect.

Capital plays to be big apart in our hierarchy. Communism and Socialism never work because their will always be people who want to control the commodities thus putting value on it. Even with all the necessary raw materials in order to live a sustainable life thre will be someone who will want them all.

I truly believe human beings are not meant to be content (that doesn't mean not be happy). It means we will always want more than we have because it makes us strieve to work harder, invent and create. Goals are the engine to human progress and money is one of the main components to that process.
 
Communism and socialism to a lesser degree have never been fully actualized in a real-world scenario. It is highly unlikely that anyone could formulate and implement a system of economics based on anything other than money.

Greed literally is what fuels economy, even in societies that aren't has incredibly capitalistc as the US. Without money there would be no greed and without greed there would be little in the way of technological and scientific advancement.

In short, the only way this would work is if: 1.) We reached a technological apex that no longer required advancement. (Utopia) 2.) We reached a global state of enlightenment where the VAST majority of people world-wide worked for the betterment of mankind (Star Trek) or 3.) We all wore flip-flops smoked a lot of weed and didn't give a **** (Hippies).
 
I think most coomunism and socialist regimes are that in name only and because of the times have to operate in a monetary environmnet

Well the thing is that most pure scientists/engineers aren't necessarily motivated financially. Researchers and academics get paid didly squat in comparison to others

the only real inventors that make any money are ones that break away from establishments but most of their findings aren't lifestyle necessitities, rather things to make our lives more convinient, gimmicky products.

Again, a large part of innnovation is brought about via military application and military engineers and scientists don't get paid enough.

I think if most engineers were left to their own devices and had their other basic needs provided for, they could work without monetary reward. So that deals with numero uno.

2 and 3 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

it all depends on your idea of bettering.
 
i'll take number 3 majic...........its not about the money ... its about sending a message
 
The only way this would be possible is if we have Replicators like in Star Trek. The Ability to Make Food or anything you want at anytime you want. But, what that will do in my opinion, will reduce incentive to create new inovations other than in the world of Art and Science. Why invent something? What's the point, it's won't make you "richer" to do so, so why even try?

On top of that, why learn to do something, you are going to get any farther, all you have to do is go to the Trough to get your drink like cattle. Humanity would stop growing if we didn't have to work for something news.
 
Human beings are too selfish and ego centered. We won't do anything if there is no personal gratification at the end of it.
Ha, this is pretty much it. Everything we do is ultimately a means of obtaining some form of a emotional response. However no one has really kinda stopped and asked whether we can do this without the persuit of monetary values.

As if the idea of any other stimulus has been erradicated from our conscience minds.

Human civilization has evolved in such a way that our own selfworth and sense of achievement is viewed mainly through our wealth, Job title, image ect.
Mainly, true but is this really because the powers that be don't want to upset the status quo? There is a large amount of conditioning we have received since birth but even within that, we forget that we operate very different within our families than we do to strangers. At least before neighbours and communities may experience some existence of helping one another for no monetary benfit.

Even forgetting this, is it really the wealth, job title and image themselves that provide this self worth or the perception that you have of other people's perception with you having this.

kinda like a you buy a nice car not because it makes you feel good but because some girl will think more of you and that will make you feel good. Our people unecessarily valuing their lives via the eyes of another individual or a general society opinion?

When you think of it like that, can self worth not be self judgemental and skip the middle man. And can this all not be done without money being involved?
Capital plays to be big apart in our hierarchy. Communism and Socialism never work because their will always be people who want to control the commodities thus putting value on it. Even with all the necessary raw materials in order to live a sustainable life thre will be someone who will want them all.
But if everyone self valued, then how much of a commodity would they really have. They would be putting value in something the society necessarily doesn't need in order to value the individual who has them.

I've always felt greed is a sympton of some form of neglect, if you can provide, then what is the stimulus for greedy characteristics to manifest? Or at the very least wouldn't the greed that is manifested a greed to obtain something that society does value which in this case may be self worth?

I truly believe human beings are not meant to be content (that doesn't mean not be happy). It means we will always want more than we have because it makes us strieve to work harder, invent and create. Goals are the engine to human progress and money is one of the main components to that process.
Goals are fine, it just depends on whether they are shared by all or individualistic and also what scale they are on. Again a household can set itself a goal without the need for finances to necessarily pass hands.

I mean pride has always been a large motivation to enter war and that is about as serious an issue as we have on this planet. While some of this may be pride to protect a physical commodity, there can also be pride of ideals which people don't wish to compromise on.
 
The only way this would be possible is if we have Replicators like in Star Trek. The Ability to Make Food or anything you want at anytime you want. But, what that will do in my opinion, will reduce incentive to create new inovations other than in the world of Art and Science. Why invent something? What's the point, it's won't make you "richer" to do so, so why even try?
Most inventors just want to see their product in the market, they are pationately behind it and making a buck is secondary. It's just that the ones that we do hear about are highly sucessful at generating money because somewhere down the line capitalisty business ventures have had to provide money for development so it all becomes about making a profitable return for the investors.


On top of that, why learn to do something, you are going to get any farther, all you have to do is go to the Trough to get your drink like cattle. Humanity would stop growing if we didn't have to work for something news.
I don't think money is the sole motivation for enhancing knowledge or a way of life.

infact most people complain on about all the stuff they learnt at school and never used. I don't think 90% of people are currently in a vocation that is pushing boundaries, most are sustaining the status quo.
 
I think we should trade sexual favors instead. The more something costs, the more outlandish the sexual trick. It will be insanity. For those that are of the same sex, if they're straight, they just hire someone to perform it on their behalf.
 
The only way this would be possible is if we have Replicators like in Star Trek. The Ability to Make Food or anything you want at anytime you want. But, what that will do in my opinion, will reduce incentive to create new inovations other than in the world of Art and Science. Why invent something? What's the point, it's won't make you "richer" to do so, so why even try?

On top of that, why learn to do something, you are going to get any farther, all you have to do is go to the Trough to get your drink like cattle. Humanity would stop growing if we didn't have to work for something news.
Even with the replicators, they still had to build the ships
 
It's pretty much been ingrained into most societies since the dawn of time and is the motivation (or at least short term motivation) for many of us to participate in certain organisations, to work and to keep in line while having something aspirational to aim for.

Now could a prosperous society exist without money, or any real form of trade. It includes bartering, commodity or placing any real value on external objects

For the sake of argument, let's say a society has all the necessary raw materials in order to live a sustainable life without the need to import/export labour, information, raw materials or refined products.

Discuss but please attempt to think outside the box here, the concept of money has been instilled in us for millenia so it may not be as easy to imagine a world without it initially.

Discuss First, I'll share my views along the way.


It's all about escalation. Can you live in a world without money yes, can it be prosperous, wait what does prosperous mean? Continue asking the meaning of things eventually leads to existentialism and you do things because it is irrational to think rational about a pointless existence and argue about money like so.

That aside I think it could work on a small scale roughly larger than a commune.
 
They should've invested more wisely and built giant replicators.

Always a good idea

mastermold2es5.jpg
 
It's all about escalation. Can you live in a world without money yes, can it be prosperous, wait what does prosperous mean? Continue asking the meaning of things eventually leads to existentialism and you do things because it is irrational to think rational about a pointless existence and argue about money like so.

That aside I think it could work on a small scale roughly larger than a commune.

I think Camus just came back to life and **** his pants.
 
I think you should put yourself first, because you won't be able to help anyone when you can't help yourself, then worry about other people, because you can't watch your own back forever.

A little off topic, but even if you got rid of all the money in the world, there would be a new concept that people would value. Sex, entertainment, action figures or other toys, there will always be something of value to this world. Money just made currency universal and easier to value.

The world can live without money, just not value.
 
Don't you mean
"Can a Modern day world exist and thrive without the Concept of Greed"?
 
I think we should trade sexual favors instead. The more something costs, the more outlandish the sexual trick. It will be insanity. For those that are of the same sex, if they're straight, they just hire someone to perform it on their behalf.
Well money would still exist in this format, sex would now be its new currency though so not so good.

It's all about escalation. Can you live in a world without money yes, can it be prosperous, wait what does prosperous mean? Continue asking the meaning of things eventually leads to existentialism and you do things because it is irrational to think rational about a pointless existence and argue about money like so.

That aside I think it could work on a small scale roughly larger than a commune.

Ideals such as prosperous are really supposed to be determined by what the majority of the community desire (quality of life).

In a capitalist society it's usually just determined by a gdp but that doesn't always translate well as it doesn't show how the distribution of wealth is allocated and can be misleading.

I don't think you need to have an idea of what the meaning of life is to provide a goal for what you/a society wish to accomplish within it. Say if you simply wished to improve the quality of life from generation to generation, that could be a sufficient mutual cause for people to work towards, especially if you outlined a means of measuring quality.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"