Moneyless Society: The Next Economic Evolution

Product Information

And, of course, there will be a lot of work done because people enjoy it, receive social approval and respect, achieve self-fulfilment through it, and similar reasons. a b c Arno, P. S.; Levine, C.; Memmott, M. M. (1999). "The Economic Value of Informal Care Giving" (PDF). Health Affairs. 18 (2): 182–188. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.18.2.182. PMID 10091447. Nelson, Anitra (2016). " "Your Money or Your Life": Money and Socialist Transformation" (PDF). Capitalism Nature Socialism. 27 (4): 40–60. doi: 10.1080/10455752.2016.1204619. S2CID 156952230. Depending on how you pay, this record may be more or less extensive and may be visible to a few or several organisations. It may comprise information that shows who you are, where you were, how much you spent, what you bought and from whom. Your smartphone might reveal just as much information, if not more, but it’s still possible to leave your device at home, or even go without one. The equivalent choice won’t be available if cash goes. Care giving often exceeds the nursing tasks that come with caring for someone who is ill or recovering from surgery. Often, caregivers also must maintain the dwelling, provide meals, and interact with medical providers and doctors, among other responsibilities. Nearly 80% of labor that keeps seniors out of nursing homes is unpaid labor by families. [1]

Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and as such appears in a pure form as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. The god of practical need and self-interest is money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world—both the world of men and nature—of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it” (p.172). Elvia Wilk (2018) interviews Heidenreich: "The Economy of the Future Won’t Rely on Money" https://onezero.medium.com/the-economy-of-the-future-wont-rely-on-money-5a703e0ad30b This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. ( September 2022) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)The concept of ability needs to be supported by a ruthless repression apparatus, otherwise nobody will agree that their level of ability is to clean the sewers.

The technological, scientific and artistic characteristics of this world could be much richer and more advanced than in our own since money would not be necessary to make such developments; Collectivist cultures are more concerned with society's needs and goals. For example, collectivism was one of the best predictors of mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individualistic cultures tend to prioritise personal autonomy and may lead to the politicisation of questions, actions, and activities related to the public good (which could also be seen in the US where mask usage during the pandemic became a political issue and at the same time resulted in a higher number of super-spreaders compared to more collectivist cultures).Humanity creating virtual scarcity by prohibiting people from sharing that what costs nothing to share meanwhile pretending that material resources are endless and can be exploited infinitely. Which means no one can fix the machines when they start breaking down... because that depends on the innovation your society cannot have that would permit even the possibility that everyone could work for free. The eternal problem of communism is that " from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" doesn't work unless: My thanks to @CodesWithHammer for helping me expand that example. At the time I posted this answer, the U.S. government had created an artificial condition where a skilled laborer refuses to work because all his/her needs are met without labor. Whether or not the employer could, should, or would pay more to overcome the "economic inertia" created by that artificial condition isn't relevant to the question. What is relevant is that the workers could have easily returned to work "for free," contributing their skills for the greater good of society as there were (and there were) people in need of those skills. Given the choice to work "for free," they chose to stay home - thus making my point.

While some people equate work with paid labour only, this is not accurate. For example, according to OECD research, unpaid care work is one of the important factors explaining gender gaps in labour outcomes (participation, wages, and job quality). Across all regions of the world, women spend on average A lot of work is done not because it is rewarded monetarily, but because it needs to be done. For example, I clean my toilet not because I am paid to do it and definitely not because I enjoy it. I do it because it needs to be done to avoid future problems (and because I hate dirt more than I hate cleaning toilets). The essence of money is not, in the first place, that property is alienated in it, but that the mediating activity or movement, the human, social act by which man’s products mutually complement one another, is estranged from man and becomes the attribute of money, a material thing outside man. Since man alienates this mediating activity itself, he is active here only as a man who has lost himself and is dehumanised; the relation itself between things, man’s operation with them, becomes the operation of an entity outside and above man. Owing to this alien mediator—instead of man himself being the mediator for man—man regards his will, his activity and his relation to other men as a power independent of him and them. His slavery, therefore, reaches its peak. It is clear that this mediator now becomes a real God, for the mediator is the real power over what it mediates to me. Its cult becomes an end in itself. Objects separated from this mediator have lost their value. Hence the objects only have value insofar as they represent the mediator, whereas originally it seemed that the mediator had value only insofar as it represented them. This reversal of the original relationship is inevitable” (p.212).Whether you agree with Marx or not, he makes a very good point: Moneyless economies require different cultural values and behaviours compared to money-based economies. I think that a moneyless society will put great emphasis on: Civic duties refer to the responsibilities of citizens, e.g. voting and jury participation in democratic countries. Social responsibilities are responsibilities as a member of a group. There are a lot of things that people do not want to do for one reason or another. However, these things still need to be done. A person with a strong sense of duty and responsibility will be much more likely to do unlikeable but necessary things.

I did not find even one research paper that would suggest that money is the only motivation to make people work. Most research suggests that correlations between salary and job satisfaction and between salary and work engagement are almost negligible. Internal motivations (like curiosity, interest in a specific topic, self-improvement, self-challenge, and so on) are much better predictors not only of job satisfaction and engagement but also productivity. There is a caveat. If we suddenly remove money from today's world and ask people to work without being paid, there will be a lot of people who will refuse to work, at least, initially. The number of those people will be most likely higher in cultures that assign high value to money and tend to see money as an indicator of personal success and fulfilment. I am talking here about cultural views and stereotypes, in other words, the perceived role of money in human lives. Whether this view is correct or not is a different topic. Arjan van Aelst (1995) Majapahit Picis: The Currency of a 'Moneyless' Society 1300-1700. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Such system works worse if people are diverse and complicated in their needs and wants. Which will encourage the authorities to try to make people more standard in their needs/wants. The easiest way would be for the Government to get rid of non-standard people, to bully/brainwash them into behaving like the general population, or just left their needs/wants unfulfilled. Like chronically ill and disabled people will have needs/wants that are different from needs/wants of an average Joe, so the government can decide to heal them once and for all, ignore their problems, or even to kill them. Such society will see being different as deeply problematic, people will feel ashamed/depressed for being different. Within the presupposition of division of labour, the product, the material of private property, acquires for the individual more and more the significance of an equivalent, and as he no longer exchanges only his surplus, and the object of his production can be simply a matter of indifference to him, so too he no longer exchanges his product for something directly needed by him. The equivalent comes into existence as an equivalent in money, which is now the immediate result of labour to gain a living and the medium of exchange.”Technology-driven, often centralized ("resource based") societies: the Zeitgeist movement, its related projects named Venus, Auravana, or Kadagaya in Peru, [19] and the Money Free Party. The biggest issue that time bank coordinators face, as a result, is funding. Time banks do not rely on volunteers, but require financial support — to pay the time broker’s salary, for a publicly accessible drop-in office, for marketing costs — to successfully attract socially excluded people in deprived neighborhoods. While many UK time banks have been supported by grant funding from the National Lottery, over time it becomes harder to secure ongoing funding, or to increase the funding available for time banks overall, and established projects close while new ones are begun elsewhere. [3] United States time banks and the IRS [ edit ] These workers would consist of all those currently unemployed or underemployed in addition to those made available from eliminating all the occupations rela The need for money is therefore the true need produced by the economic system, and it is the only need which the latter produces. The quantity of money becomes to an ever greater degree its sole effective quality. Just as it reduces everything to its abstract form, so it reduces itself in the course of its own movement to quantitative being. Excess and intemperance come to be its true norm. Non-monetary (state) communist currents, ranging from libertarian proposals [29] to the harsh reality of Democratic Kampuchea. Many communists and socialists envisaged a moneyless society. [30]