I don't feel that it is necessary to abolish money, but rather we need to make it impossible to be able to use money to exploit others. A major part of that would have to be the transition to direct worker ownership of the productive assets. If every workplace is put in the hands of the only people who will not exploit its workers, the workers themselves, money loses its ability to be used as a tool for control and exploitation. Ban inherited wealth and put a cap on the amount of money anyone can earn in a year in order to make it impossible for one to be rich. The end goal needs to be a fair society in which every baby is born into the same good opportunity, nobody born into poverty and nobody born into wealth but everyone starting out from the same starting point, a point that today would be considered a middle class lifestyle.

With everyone middle class and no rich and no poor we would have a classless society. With that and with worker ownership of the means of production as well as a direct democratic government (that is rearranged, with the Senate abolished and its duties transferred to the House) in which private money is banned from campaign financing and in which a recall mechanism hangs over the head of every politician at all times we would have achieved what we needed to achieve. Without a tiny sliver of the population having more wealth than they can spend in several lifetimes and without the ability to use money to exploit others then money would have lost its class character and would be seen as nothing more than a tool for the average person, losing all the evil baggage that has attached to the concept of money over the years.

For a long time I've thought that the only problem with capitalism is that there are no limits. But you can't make things like the ability to inherit illegal. No one would go for that. If money exists, it's a possession and should be able to be passed down to loved ones. Taking away from, or limiting people is not the answer. That was the problem with and mistake of systems like Communism and Socialism. Making new laws like that will only cause dissent and create more law-breakers. However now, I can't help but feel the problem is the system itself. the system civilization has used from it's beginnings and at first I think it must have been most useful. Easier to hand someone a piece of paper rather than 50 loaves of bread..especially over long distances. But it allows for so much corruption just by being the only means for people to get the things they want and need. We have so much in todays world...travel is no problem and could easily be improved upon...there’s probably enough food in this country alone for everyone in it and THEN some, we have medicines to stave off disease, the labs and scientists to discover more, we have the ability to produce clean, reusable energy, to explore and perhaps expand into space…the ONLY thing in the way of *true* progress is money.

In some ways.. the concepts of "progress" and "currency" completely clash. Look at machines that are created to do the production work in some industries... supposedly making it easier and cheaper on the company. This is part of what they call progress.. but people need to be able to do those jobs in order to make a wage and live. In this case both 'progress' and the monetary system work against each other. What good is that? What good is a medication if it's so expensive that even your insurance company won't cover it? that's like the prescription company dangling it in front of you like a carrot to a horse. What kind of world creates such things.. supposedly for the betterment of mankind.. only to make it inaccessible to those who need them?

With money being the only motivation that civilization provides people to work and learn and excel, things will always be this way. money will always come first.. people 2nd. We need to come up with another more positive motivation. THEN I think people could see the deep and needful changes we've so been craving for so long.

Lilraine:
I agree with much of what you've said, especially that "In some ways.. the concepts of "progress" and "currency" completely clash. Look at machines that are created to do the production work in some industries... supposedly making it easier and cheaper on the company. This is part of what they call progress.. but people need to be able to do those jobs in order to make a wage and live. In this case both 'progress' and the monetary system work against each other."
This is very true and something I myself have pondered. At what point are certain technological advancements actually more regressive in terms of the overall outcome than progressive? I'm no Luddite but I could certainly see myself being against technology that replaces workers outright and whose only real benefit is cheaper overhead for the factory owners. The rule of thumb that I tend to use is technological advances are good as long as they are making the worker's job easier with less backbreaking labor or less monotony etc. but are bad when they only serve to replace the worker and put him or her out of a job. That is why for instance if at some point in the future it would be possible to entirely automate the production lines at Ford, G.M. and Chrysler so that it required no workers beyond a few electrical maintenance guys to make sure the robots were running properly but still was able to make cars as efficiently or even slightly more efficiently than human workers I would be against it because of the massive job losses that it would entail, vastly more important in human terms and in terms of the overall economy than the savings gained from replacing the workers (for example a factory putting 500 workers out of a job means 500 less people spending back into the economy, 500 less people able to pay taxes and 500 MORE people who would need unemployment checks etc. so it would be good for the factory owners but bad for the larger economy as well as terrible for the individual workers.)

"the system civilization has used from it's beginnings and at first I think it must have been most useful. Easier to hand someone a piece of paper rather than 50 loaves of bread..especially over long distances."
Exactly, and that is one major problem with trying to transition away from some form of money, whether it is currency, coins or electronic blips transferred to your cell phone every payday. It is irreplaceable in terms of convenience. For example if I went to a restaurant because I was hungry I certainly would NOT want to say to the waiter "Hey I'd like a steak and some fries but how about I pay for it by washing your dishes for the next 3 hours?" or something like that. It just wouldn't be convenient at all for us to use a barter system and I don't think that humanity has evolved yet to the point of people being able to work their jobs without being paid but then be able to go into a store and take whatever they want or need. Maybe in the future but it would be so unwieldy and unworkable in the present era that I just don't think it's possible at this point. For instance how would we come to some kind of a fair evaluation of how much work someone has done versus how much goods and services they are entitled to from having done that work? It could lead to endless arguments in stores between people who say that 40 hours of ditch-digging should equal a lot more stuff than 40 hours of massage therapy work etc. Without money far too much is subjective.

You say "But you can't make things like the ability to inherit illegal. No one would go for that."
Ah, but what I am suggesting, (among other things) making inheritance illegal and transferring business ownership into the hands of the workers, would be an infinitely easier sale than convincing the public of the merits of abolishing money outright. Talk about something people would never go for. People generally want something tangible to show for their efforts and the assurance of being able to use that tangible reward to buy things they want and need. I can't see any significant amount of Americans being convinced to do away with any form of money. Regarding inheritance, in the society I am talking about building there would be no social classes and everyone would start out with the same good opportunity in life by virtue of their parents being of the same class as other people's parents. There wouldn't really be a need for inheritance for one thing, because adults would be able to make it entirely on their own when they are of adult age because they would have the wide-open opportunities available to them of being not just workers but part-owners of their workplace, being paid a good wage for their labor and sharing in the profits from the success of the business. What I am talking about, definitely a clean break with current notions of bourgeois property relations, would still be less of an alien concept to people than abolishing all money. What I am talking about, certainly involving the abolition of capitalism, would still allow people to see tangible results from their labor and what's more it would both ensure that they are not exploited as they and their brother and sister workers would be the actual owners of the business and would ensure that they have a substantial incentive to do the best job they possibly can because the success for the company that it brings will go directly into their own pocket and their fellow workers' pockets. That just isn't possible with capitalist wage slavery where the overwhelming majority of people end up working for someone else. You may not have realized it Lilraine but as radical as my ideas sound to you, your idea is actually far more radical and moreover is something that is enough ahead of its time that, and I mean no offense, I just don't see it as being feasible in this era. I don't think people are nearly that advanced yet however I CAN see the distinct possibility of after several generations of a classless, worker-ownership society being in place and people growing up and living their whole lives without exploitation that society might evolve from that into a moneyless "take what you need/want" configuration. We're not nearly there yet but it is definitely a beautiful concept.

Brutal Truth,

Oh, I realize exactly how radical my views and ideas are :), tho I've been pleased to find out that I'm not the only one that thinks this way. I've found others.. whole groups even that think along these lines. My only meaning was that a new beginning cannot start by taking (or people at least seeing it that way) away rights that people have taken for granted all their lives. That would make them cry "communist!" even more. But the changes our world needs do run deeper than any political party or what policies and programs and laws we can put in place to try to fix things.

"At what point are certain technological advancements actually more regressive in terms of the overall outcome than progressive?"

Why is it that it's the advancements.. the very progressiveness.. that is to blame as opposed to the system we impose upon ourselves as the only means of either researching and developing the technology or obtaining and utilizing the technology? Everything we need for a better world already exists, and those that don't yet or aren't very advanced are primarily because of money. The problem isnt the technology, it's the method of obtaining it in an economy that makes it necessary to compete against our own inventions..and there's no competition. Not when industries stand to save tons of money. That's why so many jobs go overseas as well. Companies and their employees are fundamentally at odds because one wants to save more and more money so they can make more and more money, and the other needs to receive as much as they can just to live. The ultimate goal, for both parties is money.

Money is the only motivation civilization gives us to do our jobs. People do volunteer their time and energy into some things, and non-profit organizations are generally in it for whatever cause they feel motivated to help or fight for, but even those people need jobs to pay rent or mortgages, loans, credit cards, food.. etc. But what if there could be another motivation?

I maybe insanely idealistic in this.. and I'm in no way an expert on anything, so I don't have a detailed system all planned out with all the various ins and outs outlined... but I can envision a world where all you needed for your basic necessities (food, shelter, water, power, etc) is to have a job. Initially. Since there are a lot of jobs that no one relishes doing, but need to be done anyway, perhaps those just graduating HS.. if they want a small place of their own to start.. would be assigned one of these to do for a specified time period.. a year maybe (there are countries that make 2-year military service mandatory after HS, which is more desirable? that could even be an option!). Then from there could go to school, military, take up their parents trade, whatever they want.. just put into the community.. either local, regional, or global. No one would be homeless. And then from there, the more you contribute.. maybe keep a tally of hours, a rating for varying job types of some kind, the more material comforts you can obtain. Maybe make tiers somehow..I dunno. Perhaps a new innovative invention could earn the inventor 1/2 a year off work..or a summer home.. I dont know, it could be worked out. But the ideal of capitalism would still be there.. just the material gain would be in the objects/opportunities you desire themselves as opposed to the money you would otherwise use to obtain them. The harder you worked, the more you could gain. Since people would have the true freedom to pursue their interests and callings, and have the time and opportunity to investigate those interests w/o hinderance of cost, I think it would, over time, facilitate other positive fundamental changes in ourselves both individually and as a society. So many of our negative behaviors would be lessened. There would be more cooperation in everyday life than competition. More compassion as opposed to apathy. A LOT less crime! People could get their prescriptions, technology could flourish, we could develop and perfect the usage of clean and reusable energies instead of raping the planet for oil. The integrity of our products would be outstanding because there would be no hinderance of cost..no need to use inferior materials and ingredients.

The world I envision, would by no means be perfect.. no Utopia. That's impossible. If good exists, so does bad.. to some degree or other. Right now, in our world as it is, there seems to be so much more bad than good. It's because our way of life nurtures more of our negative qualities than our positive. But good exists, so if we devise a system that instead nurtures our positive qualities (and we have lots!) then eventually the scale would be tipped and there would be more good in the world.

I truly believe that so long as we insist on using a monetary system, there will always end up being few on top and vast multitudes on the bottom. There will always be "class".. even if it's just Rich and Poor. The Withs and Withouts. It may not start out that way, but it always ends up that way because money -by its own nature- cultivates greed, because..again..it's the only way to get anything. And since everyone is different.. with different desires, drives, ambitions.. it's inevitable that eventually a few will be driven and ambitious enough to soar far above the rest enabling them to take more and more, while eventually the rest have less and less.

And I hear from a lot of people "yeah, I can see that in the future, but we're not evolved enough yet". But really I think that a lot of us are. Just seeing the OWS protesters in NYC on the news this morning.. it was more like a community, with people helping eachother... usually you only see that when something catastrophic happens. This shows me that to some extent we are ready to live less selfishly and with more compassion.. This way of thinking needs to be cultivated so it can grow, then we COULD evolve and be less hypocritical in the values we profess to have. But there is an all encompassing fear of living in a world without money.. it's always been around, you could almost think the system of 'currency' is divinely ordained... and that fear is what's holding us back. Our system is failed. It's like we are on a river headed for a waterfall.. and all we keep doing is trying to throw sticks and branches into the water to dam it up.. but it's only slowing down the inevitable. What we need to do is divert the river. New programs in an old system won't do it.

“If every workplace is put in the hands of the only people who will not exploit its workers, the workers themselves, money loses its ability to be used as a tool for control and exploitation.”

The fact that the workers still NEED to have the job to survive shows that money still has the power to control and exploit. As long as there is a form of currency someone can hoard it, then use that accumulated wealth to manipulate someone with less.

As for “Ban inherited wealth and put a cap on the amount of money anyone can earn in a year in order to make it impossible for one to be rich.”

makes this statement false

“but what I am suggesting, (among other things) making inheritance illegal and transferring business ownership into the hands of the workers, would be an infinitely easier sale than convincing the public of the merits of abolishing money outright.”

For what you propose is killing the American dream but keeping the system of control the dream is meant to distract us from. Without the delusion that you have the chance to become rich, why would people subject themselves to a job they hate? And beyond that that system would require so many new laws, as Lilraine said “That was the problem with and mistake of systems like Communism and Socialism. Making new laws like that will only cause dissent and create more law-breakers.” more laws are not the answer to gaining freedom.

“Regarding inheritance, in the society I am talking about building there would be no social classes and everyone would start out with the same good opportunity in life by virtue of their parents being of the same class as other people's parents. There wouldn't really be a need for inheritance for one thing, because adults would be able to make it entirely on their own when they are of adult age because they would have the wide-open opportunities available to them of being not just workers but part-owners of their workplace, being paid a good wage for their labor and sharing in the profits from the success of the business.”

So where would the inheritance go? how can you guarantee a job for everyone? If inheritance is not needed why is money?

“For instance how would we come to some kind of a fair evaluation of how much work someone has done versus how much goods and services they are entitled to from having done that work?”

That “fair evaluation” would be some kind of currency, which as said is not needed. There is no need for people to submit to work at all, even in the way Lilraine described. I don’t believe anyone would, but if you chose to never work ever in your life you would still have the same access as someone who was a workaholic. Remember total economic freedom as a child? You go stir-crazy if you sit around doing nothing, even videogames get old after a few hundred hours( I speak from experience.) There will always be people who have a passion for a trade, and if there is a shortage there is NO job that cant be automated TODAY.

Some of your ideas might work great for a transition plan. But if your planning on converting to an RBE or not, doing what you plan will lead to people realizing they can produce more than they could ever sell/use/consume making products virtually worthless. The obsolescence of money will become truly obvious to everyone. but to try and maintain the system the way you talk about would take longer to overcome indoctrinated notions placed by this culture instead of simply rendering them obsolete to begin with.

Lilraine:

You say "a new beginning cannot start by taking (or people at least seeing it that way) away rights that people have taken for granted all their lives. That would make them cry "communist!" even more."

I still don't see how barring inheritance as compared to banning money itself would be a bigger shock to people. If it makes it easier to adjust to we could make it legal to inherit but as long as it doesn't raise one's income above the annual wage/salary cap, with any portion of the inheritance above that being taxed at 100%. I wouldn't have a problem with that and my main point by suggesting banning inheritance is to avoid the regression toward having social classes again. Being able to inherit vast sums of money would help rebuild the class stratification and keeping that from reappearing is infinitely more important than someone being able to or not being able to have a ton of money handed to them because of who they're related to. We would need to keep a lid on accumulated wealth as well regardless of what year it is being accumulated but that wouldn't be a big deal if everyone is making within the same general salary range with nobody is making millions of dollars a year. The goal would be a society in which people have enough to be comfortable and not worry about money but not so much that it is excess wealth that they can't effectively use.

"Companies and their employees are fundamentally at odds because one wants to save more and more money so they can make more and more money, and the other needs to receive as much as they can just to live."

Yes, and because of that fundamental class struggle between exploited workers and the companies that exploit them which is unavoidable in a capitalist society we have to remove the ability to exploit others or else we're just spinning our wheels.
"Since there are a lot of jobs that no one relishes doing, but need to be done anyway, perhaps those just graduating HS.. if they want a small place of their own to start.. would be assigned one of these to do for a specified time period.. a year maybe (there are countries that make 2-year military service mandatory after HS, which is more desirable? that could even be an option!)."

OK you talk about barring inheritance as "taking away freedoms" or being perceived as such, but what do you think requiring certain people to do certain jobs for a period of time or even press-ganging them into unwanted military service would be? That sounds MUCH more like a dictatorship than what I'm talking about. I don't advocate forcing anyone do any particular job for any period of time and I want to remake the military into something along the lines of a high-tech militia, not a huge force that can be used for overseas aggression. Yes there are some jobs that nobody really wants to do but part of that reason for disliking those jobs is because they are usually not compensated well for doing them. What I am saying is ensure that they are well-compensated in terms of pay and benefits. Nobody would be homeless in my society either. And the only freedoms I seek to abolish are those which the average person cannot avail themselves of nowadays anyway, that being the freedom to exploit others and the freedom to amass more money than they can ever realistically use or need.

"I truly believe that so long as we insist on using a monetary system, there will always end up being few on top and vast multitudes on the bottom. There will always be "class".. even if it's just Rich and Poor. The Withs and Withouts. It may not start out that way, but it always ends up that way because money -by its own nature- cultivates greed, because..again..it's the only way to get anything. And since everyone is different.. with different desires, drives, ambitions.. it's inevitable that eventually a few will be driven and ambitious enough to soar far above the rest enabling them to take more and more, while eventually the rest have less and less."

But that ignores the framework underlying the new society I'm talking about. Maybe I should have elaborated more in my comment above. OK the country I'm talking about building would move heaven and earth to prevent the reemergence of social classes. There would be laws in place specifically to PREVENT their reemergence and what's more there would be a system of electing a government that would make it impossible for that government to become what it is now, a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie, completely unresponsive to the average non-wealthy person. The laws I'm talking about would include a salary cap. If any money above say for example $100,000/year or $200,000/year or whatever that cap is set at gets taxed at 100% and there are NO tax loopholes, NO offshoring of wealth in tax havens etc. then there would be no way that a person could truly be rich. They would have enough to be comfortable but not rich. Yes people are different with different desires and abilities and I'm not saying a heart surgeon should be making the same exact salary as someone cooking burgers at a fast food restaurant. But he or she wouldn't be making so MUCH more than the other that it would put them in a class unto themselves. And without a puppet government to cater to the wealthy's needs at the expense of the average person but instead a government designed around catering to the average person and eliminating the condition of BEING wealthy, they wouldn't be able to use the power of the state to put things back the way they were. We would have direct democracy with no Senate as it does nothing but stands in the way of any progress that could be enacted by the House, no Electoral College to turn the will of the people in a general election on its head as it has done four times so far. Hand-counted paper ballots instead of electronic voting machines. Public funding of election campaigns with a much smaller amount of funding than politicians are accustomed to, each candidate for the same office given the same amount of funds to use as they see fit, with proper receipts naturally having to be kept to prevent someone from just pretending to run for office and socking the money away somewhere. And a recall mechanism hanging over the head of all politicians at all times whereby they could be recalled by the electorate and replaced if they start to stray away from the interests of the masses. So with a transparent, responsive, democratic, worker-friendly government dedicated to removing class oppression and keeping it removed, with laws in place to prevent class stratification and with everyone being a part-owner of their own business and getting paid a good wage for their labor I really don't see how money in and of itself would be a problem. If you make it impossible for it to be used to exploit others and make it impossible for people to hoard it and amass more wealth than they can spend in several lifetimes, what's the problem there? How would money still be this evil corrupting demon that turns otherwise good people into frothing at the mouth maniacs who only want more more more? I just don't see it. What I'm suggesting is neutering money to the extent that it CAN'T do the things you're afraid of it doing, the things it can do now in a capitalist society. You're still looking at money through the lens of someone who like myself grew up in this society where greed is the norm and money is constantly used to take advantage of people. I'm looking beyond that to make those abuses impossible, not take our rage out on the messenger. Money is an inanimate object. Just as a gun that is used to shoot someone isn't evil in and of itself but the person wielding it is, so it is with money. In the hands of average people who work for it and get paid a fair wage for their labor I don't see it being a problem.

Lavant:

"“If every workplace is put in the hands of the only people who will not exploit its workers, the workers themselves, money loses its ability to be used as a tool for control and exploitation.”

The fact that the workers still NEED to have the job to survive shows that money still has the power to control and exploit. As long as there is a form of currency someone can hoard it, then use that accumulated wealth to manipulate someone with less."

Like Lilraine I think you're missing my point. What I am advocating is a society in which it is no longer POSSIBLE to use money to do the things that are done with it today. Neuter money's power, don't abolish it altogether. With nobody able to make over a certain amount in a year and with nobody allowed to accumulate above X amount of wealth regardless of what year it is as well as nobody being able to USE the money to exploit others e.g. starting their own business and hiring 5 people at below a living wage to do the work. Instead with worker ownership it would be the workers themselves who are owning their own workplace. Nobody exploits themselves or if they do it's their own business, not that of others. If someone wants to start their own hot dog stand or magazine kiosk and do all the work themselves then have at it, knock yourself out. But if they hire even one other person to work for them it becomes a jointly-owned hot dog stand or kiosk. If ten people want to start their own business they start it as each a one-tenth owner, with the only variations in that formula being if they mutually agree "Frank, you're best with math so you can do all the accounting work and you get 15% instead of 10% and we all take the requisite cut to enable this." And so on. How would anyone be able to exploit others in those circumstances? How would anyone be able to sit on a mountain of money and use it to light cigars with while other people are starving in such a society? People would have enough to do fine, to be comfortable, but not enough to be excessive.

"As for “Ban inherited wealth and put a cap on the amount of money anyone can earn in a year in order to make it impossible for one to be rich.”

makes this statement false

“but what I am suggesting, (among other things) making inheritance illegal and transferring business ownership into the hands of the workers, would be an infinitely easier sale than convincing the public of the merits of abolishing money outright.”

How so? How many Americans own their own business versus work for someone else? How many Americans love their jobs and get up every morning with a smile on their face and can't wait for another day at work to begin? Versus how many get up and say "S**t, another day at the effing salt mine" or something to that effect? In short, many more Americans would stand to benefit from my plan than would be harmed by it and about 300 million less would be affected than those that would have to relearn life from the ground up in a society that would ban any kind of money. I'm not a pollster but speaking from purely anecdotal evidence of having talked in person to many, many people from various walks of life but all being ordinary working class/working poor/desperately poor people about the economy, when I've explained to them how capitalism makes slaves of all of us who lack the capital and suggested that we would all be better off with worker-owned businesses instead of the current set-up, I can count on part of one hand how many people I've talked to that wouldn't agree that worker ownership is what needs to happen. And not even one of them said "Yeah but what about money? Can't we do away with that too?" I've talked to a few people online who favor abolishing money but haven't actually been fortunate enough to have met anyone out in the offline world that favors that. Because of a conversation I had last week with someone from this blog I made a point of asking a few people since then, only about ten so far, if they would be interested in a future society without money, where people can work for no money but just take what they want and need and haven't had any takers yet. Now again this is just anecdotal evidence, certainly nothing scientific, and it's not what I'm basing my opinion on but is just mentioned because one would think that if such a concept wasn't very whiplash-inducing and off-putting to most people that I would have either had someone in my countless daily conversations suggest it to me or someone at least agree with it when I myself suggested it. Anyway what I'm basing my opinion on is not those conversations but on the understanding of just how alien a concept it would be versus what people have been exposed to already, to how much reflexive opposition exists in this country to big ideas that seem ahead of their time and to how much it would expect that the average person would transform themselves psychologically in a very short period of time to even make such an idea possible to attempt. If you talk to the average person and explain to them what capitalism is doing to them versus what a worker-ownership alternative would do FOR them, how they would be making more money, would be free from exploitation, would have their success in their own hands instead of it being largely rigged from birth and would provide them an incentive to work harder of their own volition, people would most likely be quite receptive to that idea especially if one avoids labels like "socialism", "council communism", "anarcho-syndicalism" etc. But I can't realistically see those same people that would probably readily accept having much more of a say in their own future and their own daily lives and a much better life in general deciding to go straight from this capitalist exploitation to some kind of moneyless take-what-you-want society. Especially considering the enviornment we have all been raised in the chances of a moneyless society at this time gaining traction would seem to be slim to none. If that was the only way to move past the exploitation and abuse that goes hand in hand with capitalism then I would nevertheless be in favor of it regardless of its lack of realistic chances for acceptance but as I've been saying, it isn't necessary to do away with money, only to render it harmless.

You say "For what you propose is killing the American dream but keeping the system of control the dream is meant to distract us from. Without the delusion that you have the chance to become rich, why would people subject themselves to a job they hate? And beyond that that system would require so many new laws, as Lilraine said “That was the problem with and mistake of systems like Communism and Socialism. Making new laws like that will only cause dissent and create more law-breakers.” more laws are not the answer to gaining freedom."

The American dream is a myth. Always has been. I say the best thing for the average person is to EXPOSE the myth for what it is. Why would people work a job they hate without the false delusion of one day getting rich? Because the main reasons people hate their jobs are because 1.they're underpaid versus the amount of value added they accrue for the company by their labor; 2.because they're overworked while being underpaid; and 3.because they feel no real psychological connection to their workplace, they feel like just another gear in the machine, which under capitalism they are. The society I'm envisioning would remove all three of those sources of disgust at one's workplace and replace them with 1.fair pay for their work; 2.nobody making you work overtime if you don't want it because you would be a part-owner; and 3.a real connection to their workplace because they are a part-owner and directly benefit from its success. And I'll tell you, the reason why people now work jobs they hate sure isn't because they think they'll get rich from slinging french fries at Burger King or washing dishes at Stuckeys. They work jobs they hate because that's ALL THERE IS. Because they've looked at a hundred other places and none of them were hiring. Because they inquired across town at another place where they could get a comparable job with their job skills and found that though it is hiring it pays the same low wage with the same lack of benefits so they say "Why bother changing jobs if I'm just moving the problem from here to there?" That's why people continue to work lousy jobs that they hate. Because they have no real choice to do otherwise. I am talking about replacing the phony mythological "American dream" with something real and substantial and giving people a reason to want to try harder.

Regarding "more laws not being the answer to gaining freedom", that's far too broad of a statement to have real meaning. There are plenty of laws that are on the books now that need to be removed, that's for sure. Some need to remain, for example I can't envision a society being better because it would be legal to murder people. Having a law against murder means another law on the books, yes, but I wouldn't want to live somewhere that it IS legal to murder someone and I don't see a law prohibiting murder as being restrictive to freedom. The two aren't directly proportional. Again, the "freedoms" I am talking about restricting are "freedoms" that hardly anyone in this country benefits from, the "freedom" to exploit others because they lack capital and have to come to you for a job, the "freedom" to amass more wealth than you could ever need, the "freedom" to fund puppet candidates that will pull strings for your economic benefit when in office. Few if any of the average people in this country would shed many tears over missing out on the ability to exercise such "freedoms" as those. Even if one went by just a strictly dumbed-down equation like the number of laws on the books now versus in the society I am envisioning I feel pretty sure that we would see less actual laws in my society as we would be doing away with the entire Patriot Act that gives the government police state powers, we would be taking the domestic spying capability away from the F.B.I., we would be removing all the laws banning adults from possessing, buying, selling or using "illicit" drugs. We would be giving the people a genuine democracy for the first time in this country's existence. And we would be giving them the freedom from exploitation, the freedom to start out at the same figurative starting line as everyone else at birth, the freedom to not have to choose between food and medicine, the freedom from hunger, from homelessness and from penury. What I'm suggesting would actually greatly enhance the freedoms that the average American can enjoy and yes, restrict the "freedoms" available to today's bourgeosie, "freedoms" that don't really apply to very many Americans at all anyway.

"So where would the inheritance go? how can you guarantee a job for everyone? If inheritance is not needed why is money?"

The inheritance would either be entirely taxed outright or as I suggested above in this comment, perhaps it could still be given as inheritance as long as it stays below the set salary cap and anything over that would then be taxed at 100%. How can I guarantee a job for everyone? Well I won't make you an ironclad guarantee but full employment will certainly be the goal and it should be achievable (or at least very very near full employment) because some businesses and their worker-owners WILL be making above a certain amount and will be paying it in taxes, the taxes going into the workers state government which then will use some of the money to fund things that nobody really goes into business to do, like fix the roads, and hire any unemployed to do that. If you put the 14+ million unemployed people back to work fixing the roads until they can find another job you fix the roads and you provide them employment. And so on. Basically through redistribution of wealth we will do our damndest to have as close to zero unemployment as possible. And that's not counting other ideas that other people will come up with in the future to address the situation. "If inheritance is not needed why is money?" Because money is the medium of exchange and you have to have a medium of exchange if you want to quickly and easily be able to purchase goods and services without resorting to bartering or haggling over how much work you've done versus what you're entitled to. Inheritance isn't, it's just more of that which I just described, money, which would be being daily earned by worker-owners everywhere and nobody would need to wait around for Great Uncle Charlie to pass away so you can get his house and live off his C.D.s and bonds.

"That “fair evaluation” would be some kind of currency, which as said is not needed. There is no need for people to submit to work at all, even in the way Lilraine described. I don’t believe anyone would, but if you chose to never work ever in your life you would still have the same access as someone who was a workaholic."

YOU'VE said it's not needed. Me, I'm still quite unconvinced. You say there is no need for people to submit to work at all. Were that the case then how would any goods be produced or services rendered? Even in primitive nomadic hunter-gatherer societies before stationary agriculture became the norm people still had to hunt and gather. They couldn't all just choose to lay around in their caves and have sex with each other. In order for a society to be able to produce anything or provide any kind of services people have to be working; whether it's a t.v. or a cake or a pencil someone has to be making them, they don't just appear. As far as someone choosing to be bone idle and not lift a finger to do anything but still being entitled to all the same access as someone who is working 40 hours a week, even though you've said you don't think it would happen, I don't agree with that concept of that person getting the same benefits out of life as someone who works. (This of course does NOT apply to those who are disabled or elderly and retired.) If someone is able to work and chooses not to then of course they shouldn't be allowed to starve to death or be denied medical attention, they should have the bare minimum necessities met, but they certainly shouldn't have any of the extras that a working man or woman should be entitled to, if for no other reason than that he would be sponging off of society and reaping the rewards that his more industrious brothers and sisters are providing. Just as nobody should allow someone like that to live in their commune when everyone else there is working, nobody should allow the same benefits of a worker state to someone who refuses to work and just wants to sit on their ass and do nothing productive. They would be doing nothing to benefit their community and everything they could to get over on it. In a society without money or any form of accounting for how much value added someone is bringing to a workplace because of their labor, because they're not getting paid (or "paying themselves") in the traditional sense, this kind of parasitic behavior would have the potential to be an enormous problem as like I said above, everything would be way too subjective. I just don't think humanity is ready for it yet and I really don't think abolishing money would be at all necessary to gain us emancipation. Again, money is just the tool. You take away the ability to use it for exploiting people, you take away the ability to amass so much of it that it's much more than you'll ever need and you take away all the evil satanic spirits that many people act like money is infused with. You render money harmless and you cease having the problems that many present-day people associate with money.

Brutal Truth:

Ok.. it's not a matter of whose idea is more radical or shocking. It's a matter of..in my opinion.. what's best for us.. really, mankind as a whole. Any change of any consequence, in this country especially where freedom means so much, cannot start off by taking more away from people. It's just not a good strategy. The vision I have takes nothing away from people, except their financial burdens and restrictions and perhaps a few illusions.

Money is like a drug for us. Drug abuse is a symptom of the sickness of society. It's a temporary relief from the machine we call our reality, providing synthetic happiness. Take the drug for long enough tho, and you become dependent on it to the point of it causing the addict sickness and even death. Regardless of this, the addict refuses to give it up..they're afraid to. They no longer remember how or are able to function w/o their drug.

Money is to the drug, as society is to the individual body that takes the drug. And the empty "happiness" that the drug called "money" causes fuels the addiction to materialism with a very false sense of security. And so we fear to give it up. Since monetary systems directly cause the symptoms of rich and poor, in the strive for fairness (or power) the gov't passes bills, re-arranges taxes, cuts spending here, add more there, and create new laws to enforce it all. But all that ever really seems to do is make more problems. Now, it's like a sick person being given a pill for the illness, but that causes a side effect so that the person has to take another pill.. which in turn causes yet a different side effect necessitating yet another pill.. and on and on it goes. If not watched carefully, all those meds could clash and cause even worse problems and perhaps eventually death. Not from the initial disease- but from all the cures for the side effects. We see this played out in our economy and society all the time.

"Yes, and because of that fundamental class struggle between exploited workers and the companies that exploit them which is unavoidable in a capitalist society we have to remove the ability to exploit others or else we're just spinning our wheels."

Remove money and you remove the ability to exploit. There would be no reason for it. Capitalism says the harder you work the more you'll be rewarded..the more you'll gain. Well.. it doesnt always work. I would consider my vision as an evolved form of capitalism.. with a different type of currency.. our very skills, knowledge and ability. And the rewards are the material items or opportunities for things like travel.. themselves as opposed to the money you'd use to buy them.. media recognition..bigger homes.. extended time off work to go or do whatever wherever you want..

"OK you talk about barring inheritance as "taking away freedoms" or being perceived as such, but what do you think requiring certain people to do certain jobs for a period of time or even press-ganging them into unwanted military service would be? That sounds MUCH more like a dictatorship than what I'm talking about."

Hardly. There are a *wide* variety of things a kid could do... including going to school. People will still have choices. With a constitution like ours in place there could be no other way, really. You must allow people their freedom.. have a little trust. lavant was right.. people will still have desires towards certain trades. I dont believe people would just sit around doing nothing all day if given the chance to explore their interests freely and go in the direction they want to go.. and excel as much as they dare. I think it could be a great way to expose a new HS graduate to a variety of stuff. You could do more than 1 thing if you wanted..it wouldnt necessarily have to be an 8 hr day either. Working a job or going to school right out of HS would be ideal incentive for a kid looking forward to their own starter home with the ability to furnish... free! I mean, c'mon! Hell, I'd have jumped on it when I was 18. It would keep kids in schools and more would graduate.. not drop out to sell drugs on the streets (for money.. so there'd be none of THAT either.. drug crime *gone*).

I'm sorry, I didnt ignore the framework of your new society.. I just don't agree with it (but that's ok, because as you can see I dont agree with *any* monetary society.) I can live in it, but I dont like it, and I think that changing it would fix FAR more than 1 or 2 problems. It would fix almost all that's wrong with the world. Your vision might work at first (tho many would dissent to start with) but eventually it will degrade just like every other system we've ever come up with. I truly believe this. My vision takes nothing away from people save the things they dont want anyway.

The American Dream is that.. as yet only a dream for most people.. but I think that also is because of money. When you scrutinize it, really.. money is at the root of just about all of our problems. One can say "oh, it's not money.. it's mans greed".. well money cultivates that.. it nurtures it.. it feeds the "everyone for themselves" mentality. Another system could lessen mans greed and replace it with generosity and turn negative competition (not all competition is negative) into cooperation.

"In a society without money or any form of accounting for how much value added someone is bringing to a workplace because of their labor, because they're not getting paid (or "paying themselves") in the traditional sense, this kind of parasitic behavior would have the potential to be an enormous problem as like I said above, everything would be way too subjective."

Just because money wouldnt exist doesnt mean tallies wouldnt be kept, lists of workers, their jobs, hours, any special contributions. it doesnt mean people wouldnt be recognized for these things. A recognition board could be created specifically for that purpose.. from the smaller community scale, then regional, then even global.

Money used to be a tool. And now it has outgrown its usefulness. We have aircraft, bullet trains as well as ships now..logistics has come a long way even from the mid 20th century. As I said before, nowadays money is more of a drug. An obscene dependence and I think its holding back the best of ourselves. And I really dont know if humanity is ready for it yet.. some of us are..but things are getting worse and worse globally, so SOMEthing has to give. Something big, something fundamental.

Lilraine:

It sounds beautiful but I still can't envision the mechanics of it. Even if you had some sort of work credit card that recorded your hours and then that equaled X amount of goods or services then you just ran your card through that is still monetizing work, and that "work credit" or whatever one would call it would just be taking the place of money. And if you think that at least for this current generation if people who like its predecessors grew up in a society where people use some form of money to buy things but who could now just go into any store and take whatever they wanted that there wouldn't be a significant amount of people that would abuse it and game the system? Even if we could be so optimistic as to think that only 15% or even 10% would take advantage of the ability to fill up their shopping cart with much more than they need and walk out with it, that would still amount to enough of a drag on the system to potentially ruin it for everyone else, especially in terms of credibility. Also what about people who for whatever reason are able to get to the store first? Like if they happened to live nearby or if they just drove faster on the way there? They would get the first choice of everything and it would even work TO the advantage of someone who is lazy and is trying to game the system because while their brother and sister workers are out working they could be refusing to work and getting more than their fair share of the goods then by the time those that were working come home and go to the store it's all been picked over.

Money is just the vehicle. I don't see why there is such a great hue and cry directed at the actual inanimate currency itself. By itself it doesn't do anything. It is a tool to buy goods and services, not an end in itself. It doesn't influence anybody on its own. People use it to influence others. Money doesn't exploit anyone. People use it to exploit others. Enormous difference. You're blaming the currency for being the root cause of the crimes of humans when it is in fact the humans that are the real cause of the trouble. I still don't see how it would be possible to make every man, woman and child into someone who is prepared to work for no tangible paycheck but then take whatever they want from stores etc. all the while with no significant amount of people (who obviously grew up in this generation or earlier, i.e. in a society using money) who take advantage of the situation. Going directly from here to there doesn't seem possible without something in between for at least a few generations that would build truly community-oriented human beings who would have never been exploited and never exploited anyone else and didn't grow up in a greed-oriented capitalist society. The transitional generation itself with all its flaws would make it unworkable to go directly from capitalist slavery to a near-Utopian take-what-you-want society. We might eventually evolve into that over a few generations but I can't see it as being feasible in a direct conversion from what is existing now.

The good news is that it isn't necessary. If you build a classless society with everyone having the same good opportunity from birth and the ability to grow up to work someplace where even from the minute they start out there they are getting paid a good salary and are a part-owner, where nobody is born into poverty and nobody is born into wealth, where nobody legally has the ABILITY to exploit others with money or anything else, what does it matter what the stuff is that they use to pay for the goods and services? Even if a person is greedy in that new society they could fantasize about exploiting people but they wouldn't have the ability to act on those fantasies so what difference would it make? I think you're asking way too much of people in terms of making a psychological adjustment when it wouldn't be necessary to end our exploitation. Let's not forget what the real enemy of the vast non-wealthy majority is, capitalism, not the tool of capitalists that is money or whatever medium of exchange is used.

You know, I was just thinking of that.. an employment ID card could be elaborately made (like money) yet some may have the ability to make a "counterfeit". But that would have to be a REALLY lazy person. Someone who more than likely would just want to get over on the system. As I said in an earlier post.. it would not be *perfect*. Just VASTLY better. There are always a few bad apples. There would still be murder, rape, etc. But over all life would be better for everyone and everything. Not just socially or politically, or psychologically, but environmentally as well. With all the technology we have now there should be no need for anyone to truly *want*. No need for sooo much oil..if any at all. There should be no homeless. I think less people would be depressed and unsatisfied. I think it's money that has allowed for the corruptions of our civilization. It did not create "greed".. but it is fertilizer for it.

I've talked to others as well, even before I started this thread.. and yeah you're right.. most people dont believe such a thing is possible. There have been a few that agree with me, but there many more who skeptical and quite adamant that it wouldnt work, there would be chaos, people wouldnt do anything.. but they havent truly wrapped their head around the concept yet. This is certainly not a viewpoint I came to over night. This view has been years in the making for me. There is a LOT to consider.. behaviors to examine.. other cultures even. the elimination of many types of companies or services would be staggering..but in a world with so much.. and with no costs to worry about there's always something else you could do to keep what you have, and the ability and opportunity to go up from there. If we need more schools, we could build them, more homes, apartments, build them too, a huge greenhouse for an arid area.. say in Africa or somewhere else that it's needed..irrigation.. you name it, it exists and can be transported with ease compared to our abilities this past century.

Like I said in the past, I dont have all the particulars all planned out.. I'm just an average person.. But I have imagined say.. someone going food shopping should be able to get at least a cart full of food for the week for an average family. If we need more we can grow/produce more. And we could do it right.. not skimping on safety standards.. using cheap ingredients, etc. If people were recognized for their integrity and not how much money they make, they'd care more about the things they do.

Obviously you don’t understand me. So I will try to make it short and simple.

Neuter money's power all you want, As long as there is a form of currency someone can hoard it, then use that accumulated wealth to manipulate someone with less. You can never render it harmless!

You say you have asked people about a moneyless society? How can you trust the answers when you obviously cant describe one if you cant understand one?

I never said your plan wouldn’t benefit anyone, im saying it would still be problematic and the system I advocate would be even more beneficial.

You do give good reasons why people don’t like there job, but you left out the most common complaint. Repetition. And making it worker owned will not change the repetition in jobs like data entry.

“They work jobs they hate because that's ALL THERE IS. Because they've looked at a hundred other places and none of them were hiring.”

And why is that? Because thru increased efficiency and continuing automation there are less and less jobs. Your system only helps those that have a job, so its either be less efficient and forgo progress or have less jobs and people suffer.

“YOU'VE said it's not needed. Me, I'm still quite unconvinced. You say there is no need for people to submit to work at all. Were that the case then how would any goods be produced or services rendered? “

The answer is simple. You are correct, before the industrial revolution my system would have been unthinkable (hence why you had to go all the way back to hunter gatherers to support your point). However that is no longer the case. With modern knowledge, technology, production, and transportation capabilities we are able to supply everyone on the planet with such an abundance of what is needed it would be virtually worthless. Instead of making artificial scarcity to increase value and inferior products in the name of profit.

We are able to produce enough food on our planet to feed 12 billion people, we currently have just over 7 billion on the planet. If we didn’t pay farmers not to grow food and stopped throwing food away instead of giving it out freely because it would hurt profit if they could wait and get food for free, there would be more than enough to go around.

Then stop shutting down factories that are still standing unused and stop making items out of inferior materials to make people buy new ones more often. And use materials that are known to be efficient, durable, and easy to manufacture… like hemp, and we could clothe the world for pennies.

Finally we don’t need to mass-produce houses for the homeless, I am sure there are already plenty of empty ones to go around. But if not there are plenty of sustainable, efficient, and easy building methods that are never used because its not profitable that we need to start utilizing.

so again

There is no need for people to submit to work, or community involvement of any kind at all. I REALY don’t believe anyone would, but if you chose to never work ever in your life you would still have the same access as someone who was a workaholic.

Remember total economic freedom as a child? You go stir-crazy if you sit around doing nothing, even videogames get old after a few hundred hours (I speak from experience). There will always be people who have a passion for a trade, and if there is a shortage there is NO job that cant be automated TODAY.

BTW I know I repeated myself a lot, one reason is its parts of my speech I wrote and am planning on presenting at different occupations.

I see lavants ideas as being what my idea would eventually evolve into. In fact, lavant..feel free to use anything that I have written in this discourse for your presentations if you care to. I've recently started a blog you can draw from as well if you like http://lilraine.wordpress.com. So far there are 4 articles on the subject.

thank you. and the same to you. Above all else, spreading and perfecting new ideas is one of the most important things we can be doing right now!

i also have a face book group whereim talking and so i have a lot of info on my ideas there.

“WHY DO WE NEED MONEY?”
http://www.facebook.com/groups/105038829609322/

"Also what about people who for whatever reason are able to get to the store first? Like if they happened to live nearby or if they just drove faster on the way there? They would get the first choice of everything and it would even work TO the advantage of someone who is lazy and is trying to game the system because while their brother and sister workers are out working they could be refusing to work and getting more than their fair share of the goods then by the time those that were working come home and go to the store it's all been picked over."

I've thought of that too. For one thing, w/o money in the way more stores could pop up in more out-of-the-way rural areas. Perhaps for some things, there could be specified whole weeks where certain stores are open.. or certain days. For example electronics stores. Things like food would be available everyday tho. SOMEthing fair and reasonable could be put into place. And once people realized that the things they desire will always be there every few weeks or whatever it is, they would have no need to stockpile anything..no need to take more than they need. If your iPad breaks, return it to the store for an exchange..the broken one could be recycled by the store. People wouldnt stockpile these things to "sell" them, because money simply wouldnt exist. See, certain mind sets would be changed. Eventually, after the transition, all stores could be open all the time (if necessary) once people got used to the new way of things and not overrun the stores all at once in a great chaotic mess taking gobs and gobs of stuff just because they could. Perhaps make a limit as to how many things you can take out of a store at any single day or week. lets say 5 items is the limit for one day (imagine that! walking out of a Best Buy with a tv, iPad, new speaker systems, an xbox and a camera). Perhaps you could only take 1 of any particular item at any given visit to the store. This would be in the interest of making sure there is enough to go around at any given time. It's not hard to come up with some form of fair regulation for such a huge population as our country has.. nevermind the world!

If you refuse to work... refuse to go to school.. refuse to do or contribute anything, then you wont receive anything. Food perhaps (for no one should starve) and medical attention, but if you have a leaky roof for example..unless you're a roofer and have all the materials you need, it wouldnt get fixed. Why should society carry the weight of people who refuse to do anything either for themselves or their community? I dont think this is harsh. I think it's reasonable. Many of our morals teach that you reap what you sow, you get out of something what you put into it, the story of the grasshopper and the ant advocating working for your own future and betterment. It's about time we started heeding our own morals.. things we KNOW to be true and right. The only ones with a free ride would be those who are truly disabled and those who are retired for they would have paid their debts to society already. The retirement age could even go down with time instead of up as it always seems to do.

A friend of mine once asked what if someone could live solely self sufficiently..have their own generators, grow their own food, have some farm animals, make their own clothes, etc and didnt contribute anything, just took care of themselves. I said.. ok that's fine.. if they're not putting a burden on the rest of the community then let them be.. however... what happens when their crops fail? or when some disease takes out their animals? Then they will NEED the help of community and at that point would need to start contributing. If you dont contribute.. in some way.. to the community, you can't take advantage of it's entertainments, it's protection, etc. Fair is fair.. it doesnt mean being given a free ride.

lavant: you're quite welcome and I totally agree. It's more important now than ever.

Money fills the gaps between bartering if we each have something the other wants but can't agree onthe trade of goods or services; then perhaps we can agree on monetary values. It's the "love of money/materialism and the things money can buy that is the problem not money itself

You are right Evolution 101. All a functioning monetary system is a system of barter using a universally valued object as a medium for trade when your goods or service is scarce or less desired at times of the year. money is nothing but a tool we use to control the distribution of goods and services.

What gives something value is how scarce it is in a particular region/ time of year and how necessary it is for survival. And when things were truly scarce money worked wonders to help.

But with modern knowledge, technology, production and transportation capabilities we are able to supply everyone on the planet with such an abundance of what is needed it would be virtually worthless. Instead of making artificial scarcity and inferior products in the name of profit.

I have seen what technology we have now, and what we are capable of if it wasn’t regulated by patents and profit motive, and with my own imagination cant find a job that cant be completely automated or rendered obsolete. I see the food we waste in our own town and know we can feed the hungry. I have seen street after street in my town of empty houses and know we can house the homeless. I see in less that 50 miles of town over 3 huge parking lots, far from water, full of boats (not to mention the harbors full of practically unused boats) and know we could share all the toys. All we need to do is remember what we were told in preschool! which brings me to the second point.

To brake the "love of money/materialism" we explain to people how that ownership isn’t all its cracked up to be without scarcity.

Most possessions you own have a limited usage. Like a rake. Even if you let perfect strangers burrow your stuff, how many of your neighbors can you say would do the same? Not to mention many wouldn’t even ask out of pride. The ideas of property and ownership are greedy, wasteful, and crippling to your freedom.

Ownership without scarcity is wasteful, making everyone need their own of something. It also breeds greed, hoarding, and the power to manipulate. Ownership is also hindering to freedom. If you own stuff you need somewhere to store it no one else could get to, or a law protecting you. The more stuff you have the harder it is to move, the larger place you will need, and the more you need to worry about theft.

Without ownership you wouldn’t be cumbered down with crap you almost never use. There would be no fear of theft, for how can you steal that which is not owned and there is free access to another? You could travel anywhere you want whenever you want as often as you want knowing wherever you go you have access to anything you could ever want or need. And there would be no problem with keeping a small bag of things you like/need, like a toothbrush, because there is enough to go around and any shortages could be addressed in less then 24hrs with modern transportation.

We have the technology, we have the recourses, and the knowledge does exist TODAY. We just need to teach people what really is possible so they can chose what they want to do.

Evolution101:

The system I see in my head isnt really so much of a 'barter' system so much as a high tech cooperative community. Is it really bartering when you can just walk into a store and get what you need w/o money.. without giving something immediately in return? When the form of 'giving back' is in whatever work you decide to do for the community whether it's being a plumber or construction worker, a teacher, a scientist, a train operator or pilot, actor or entertainer? I dont think so. I'm not really sure what you would call it, but it's not "trade" in its traditional sense.

The point is, we shouldnt *need* trade and barter anymore. We are far too populous (7,000,000,000 world wide) for monetary systems. Where once it was a tool and useful, now it is a hindrance and tends to cause far more problems than it solves.

Im sorry but you are still trading labor for goods, and that is a form of barter.

If the lazy would be withheld goods, then some how you will need a way of keeping track of how much labor you put in. that counter would be some form of currency. Digital is still currency. If its not immediately paid its credit. You would still need to keep track of the value of the goods taken “freely”.

But as you said earlier you two have the best transition plans I have heard toward an RBE.

I thought it would be good to add, you two have such similar views its almost creepy. Its just Brutal_Truth understands the technical aspect better and Lilrian understands the physiological issues a little more. Put them together and you have almost a complete transition plan for me.

You are correct, it isn’t money in itself that’s flawed. but I don’t think it will take generations to bread out the problems before a transition can take place. Like I said in another talk elsewhere.

IMO the best case scenario would be the occupy movement (hopefully peacefully) overthrows the government and install something like a parallel government as proposed by Peter Joseph in his message to the movement. Use that to start helping people with what we already have.(at this point we would be installing something like your transition plan) Then connect with other nations that are doing the same and during that world conference globally agree on and begin implementing something along the lines of a resource based economy.

With full support we could have the system functioning in about 5 years. So given how people are I see no reason 20 years would be unreasonable.

Ok, barter perhaps..but the "work credits" as you guys have called them, would work much differently than currency. Probably the main thing that makes money so dangerous is that it is transferable (so I really DO understand Brutal Truth when it comes to wanting to do away with things like inheritance). you could pay someone to do your own work for you. to take on your own responsibilities. It can be used to bribe people (one of the MAJOR problems in corporate and government settings). The tallies or records of an individuals achievements and time would not be transferable to someone else. It would be a little more like earning vacation time at my job. I've earned it based on the hours I've worked, and there's no way I could give someone else that time I've earned. It is mine, I earned it, it shows I've done my job and I've contributed..but it's not for me to give away. You don't own time...time is a concept..a measurement. I also couldnt confer my actions onto someone else. And ones time and actions are what would gain the person more. That takes the power and negative influences out of the equation, and it also gives great incentive to try to do the best at whatever it is you're good at or wherever your interests lay.


Brutal Truth: You said money is only a vehicle. Yes it is. But vehicles breakdown and after so long, there is no more fixing it and it is time to get a new vehicle. And that is what is happening here.

So if this must be called a form of currency, I would say it is a much more evolved form. An evolved form of currency for an evolved form of capitalism.

The foundation for money must rest upon the willingness of the individual to engage their talent and creativity for the greater good of society. Such a willingness is freely and equally accessible to all. Individual contributions can be measured in units of time, which is also freely and equally accessible to all. Money should be created automatically by an individual's willingness to work and it should be nothing more than a digital receipt for the time a person spends working for the greater good of society. Total work = total production = total value (measured in increments of time). As digital receipts (money) are used to consume the production, they are extinguished, not recycled. A new willingness to work creates new money as the work is being done. The money creation process is controlled by individuals themselves, not a money creator or lender, so financial exploitation is no longer possible.

All land, air, water and natural resources of the earth are a sacred, inherited treasure that belong to all living things equally. No private interests should be allowed to own, control or take profit from this priceless common heritage.

All wealth is created by bringing natural resources and human resources together. All tangible assets are merely different forms and combinations of stored human labour and natural resources. No cost other than the normal wear & tear or depreciation of the asset should be included in the production costs of a company. No profit derived from the labour of others should be allowed for it is morally wrong to expect to profit from another man's toil. No patents or intellectual property rights should be tolerated as all advancements in the knowledge base of society are dependent on the entire inherited knowledge base that preceded and made possible any new innovations. Knowledge is a shared human right.

With such a system, individuals have complete freedom from exploitation by corporations seeking to amass outrageous fortunes for themselves and their shareholders.

Because the full value of all production assets have been paid out to labour, but only the depreciation in asset value has been added to prices, there will be an excess of purchasing power in the marketplace at all times. In the past, this excess has been expropriated by corporations and lenders, using profit and interest. With the changes above, this excess would remain with workers and would be available to adequately fund their retirement savings, more leisure time, etc. Improvements in productivity and product durability will finally flow directly to workers instead of being tapped off into corporate profits. Improvements in productivity and product durability will finally give workers the financial ability to enjoy shorter work weeks, more time off and an earlier retirement.

If these ideas make sense to you, please check out http://www.monetaryreform.com/MR/betterWay.htm or http://www.financialParty.ca

Without money humanity would never have reached its current level of prosperity, especially without the way capitalism initially organizes money into the hands of the many. The mistake is to assume any of these two to be finalities. Both have always had their dark sides; sides we have chosen to overlook because the benefits outweighed the negatives. We now live in an age where capitalism has "matured" and the tables have begun to turn. Like Paul Hawken states "At present, we are stealing the future, and selling it in the present, and calling it GDP" - we no longer live in that present, the effects we are feeling today is only the beginning. However we can't just cast money aside and expect everything to work out, that would be devastating - and going down a barter road would be a step backwards.

DonOld, I think your system sounds like a well thought out and detailed form of Lilrian’s idea. The only question I have so far is how that system compensates for the reducing man-hours?

In industry, thru increased efficiency and continual automation, production has been going up at the same time as man-hours are dropping. As long as you require people to acquire hours of work to exchange for goods, this continuing trend will cause an increase in suffering.

The choices seem either forgo advancement and accept less production in the name of keeping people working or find a system where we can forgo servitude and increase production till there is enough for all.

Memeotis:

Yes, without money we would not have progressed nearly as far as we have by now. It was a system created for convenience. But it's really not convenient anymore. It's in the way of decent housing, medical care, clean energy, fair representation in government, teachers having to buy their own supplies for 20+ kid classrooms, school improvements in general.. and the list goes on and on.

And yes.. , a sudden switch would be devastating...unless there is a parallel system formed and standing by to shift over or transition into. The Zeitgeist Movement has suggested such a plan. Something could be worked out. But the hardest part is enlightening minds.

DonOld:

I'm reading your article There Is A Better Way, and yeah your idea really does sound like a more detailed version of the system I think of. You make many of the same points I have made. You should check out my blog at http://lilraine.wordpress.com (particularly A Look at Money Under the Microscope).

@lavant In the system I am suggesting everything is priced according to human labor inputs only, so if automation reduces the labor inputs needed, prices go down in an equal measure. If machines make everything, then prices will equal only the amount of human labor necessary to run & service the machines (plus the actual depreciation cost of wearing out the machines, which is priced as a tiny portion of the total labor hours needed initially to build the machines).

All of the money originally paid out to workers to make the machines will still be in the hands of the workers (as only depreciation costs are included in prices) so they will still have enough money to continue buying stuff even though they may not be currently needed to build new machines. Leisure time will be affordable!

The industrial system we use today uses profit & interest to raise prices and rob workers of the true wealth that their labor creates. That is why workers suffer and automation only makes things worse.

@Lilraine I checked out your blog and our thinking is remarkably similar. The one problem that I see with having no money at all is that there would be no incentive to contribute productively to society at all. Many would choose to fulfill themselves as consumers only and forgo the development of their talent and their own self discovery. This would make society much poorer than if everyone was contributing their full potential for the good of all.

For a practical, real-world example of how this could work see http://www.financialparty.ca/QA.htm

Im going to look thru the links you posted. It sounds like this system could be a direct shot to an RBE style system.

As I have said the best transition would be to free technology and increase production till everything was virtually worthless.

I really don’t believe money is the best incentive to contribute to society. We thrived and grew for thousands of years before we invented money. And after we remove money, there is the passion for an art, many I talk to love the idea of being fulltime students, and the real incentive is whenever you improve anything it improves yours and everyone’s lives equally everywhere.

But for the tread, and my laziness, is there a plan to transition into this system. And is there a way to prevent “counterfeiting” of the “digital receipts (money)”?

after looking at this link http://www.financialparty.ca/QA.htm I am very concerned with this

“after discussing your business plan with your bank, a new line of credit for up to 100 units is created in your business account. (the new credit is created instantly, out of thin air, based upon the soundness of your business plan).”

One of the biggest problems we have right now is banks making money out of thin air, now they want that to be the admitted system? And who decides how sound the plan is? How is the decision reached? And that line of credit just creates a pool of ever exchanging debt that gets bigger and bigger with every business.

This sounds like you want to give the banks 100% control.