Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That's a huge claim, you need to support that.
Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here's a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monetary_economy
~edit: wording~
The huge claim is the present tense, "has the ability". It's not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn't the claim. Humanity has a long road before that's possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An "ability" is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An "ability" involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. "energy credits"), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no "ability", merely aspiration.
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don't find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn't really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We're not there yet, and you can't just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that's a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can't outlaw money tomorrow.
Words are how we communicate ideas, and words are messy and can mean different things in different cultures and contexts (and a lot of times people use them incorrectly). Semantics matter in science and academia when you're trying to be precise for the historical record so things don't get misinterpreted by people who usually don't have the ability to ask you what you mean by "has the ability" or "humanity". A very broad statement I might add. Too broad of a statement for most academic literature.
An early step in the process of ending our reliance on money is broadly accepting that it isn't a necessity. I never claimed that that kind of global shift would happen overnight, and I don't find it useful to use that kind of prescription to undermine the concept unless your goal is solely to undermine the concept.
Semantics matter in every attempt at communicating information.
If I say humans "have the ability to fly", it is important to specify that I mean they have the potential to secure the means to fly, not that they can actually fly themselves. That difference in meaning is the difference between a person booking a flight, and jumping off a roof to their surprised death.
A much more important early step is securing an alternative to money. Money is not really the problem, it's just a framework for resource allocation. Any other framework is going to have its own vulnerabilities, like the administrative corruption in central planning, or the kludginess of barter, or the social loafing of spontaneous cooperation. And none of those alternative frameworks prevent unofficial currencies from popping up.
Ignoring these issues doesn't make them go away, and wanting to address them at the outset does not undermine the concept, any more than acknowledging that humans cannot naturally fly undermines the development of aircraft.
Again, context matters. If someone reads an internet comment that says "humans have the ability to fly" and proceeds to jump off a building, that's on them. Doesn't change the veracity of the statement. If you would like to question how the statement was true, hopefully the commenter would be willing to elaborate with some examples (like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don't involve money). The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true. The people who didn't think that were eventually proven wrong.
Also again, a full economic theory is way too complicated to get into the details in this context. I can say that my favorite theory is a library economy, but I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.
But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.
And I responded by pointing out that all those systems which could be implemented today reduce to barter, central planning, incentiveless systems that result in social loafing, or reinventing money with extra steps (e.g. energy certificates, local currencies, etc.). The others require some significant material change to function (e.g. near universal automation).
The vast majority of them invented things that did not make it true, and many of them died testing those inventions. I'm not saying we can't develop a moneyless society, but I don't think that's something you can flippantly say we have "the ability" to do, when our current state of development is more like Icarus than the Wright Brothers.
That's exactly the source of my disagreement. Trivializing the work left to be done does nothing but encourage people to jump off buildings en masse with cardboard wings.
I disagree. Central planning is extremely vulnerable to corruption, mutualism is extremely vulnerable to corruption, barter is extremely vulnerable to corruption, none of the alternatives listed prevent black market currencies, which are extremely vulnerable to corruption. Yes, money has flaws, but if none of the available alternatives are less flawed, then disposing of money accomplishes nothing of importance.
The effort still required to make any alternative viable cannot be trivialized. The flaws of alternatives cannot be trivialized. It's not enough to have an idea, that idea actually has to work in the real world. I have the same goal as your, but trivializing the difficulties involved does not help.
We have to decide we want to do it before we can figure out how to do it. If we allow the current trend to continue, we'll never get the opportunity to try out any of those alternatives. There is a definitive plan to live in a stateless classless moneyless society, it's called socialism. It has an express goal of moving beyond a moneyed system. Focusing on how long and complicated the path could be is a great way to keep people disinterested in making any change whatsoever. I'm not saying you need to hide that part of it, but the way to inspire change is by keeping focus on what the goal is, and making it seem like it's possible because it is.
Also it's very easy to just say "____ is extremely vulnerable to corruption" to dismiss the whole idea, but you're also just doing the same generalization I did but in a negative direction. Well money is extremely vulnerable to corruption and we have more evidence of that than most any other system.
Agreed. But that's "should" language, not "can" language.
The last time something called socialism got widespread, it too succumbed to horrible corruption.
Ignoring how long and complicated the path to aircraft could be is a great way to get people jumping off buildings with cardboard wings.
The Incan economy isn't going to painlessly scale to a globalized society. Pretending that it's a rational alternative just makes you look foolish, which does more to hinder progress than soberly acknowledging the difficulty of the problem.
Yes. Every system of resource and labor allocation is vulnerable to corruption. Some people are greedy, and no matter what system you devise to allocate resources and labor duties, some people will figure out how to manipulate it for personal advantage.
You claim to want the same outcomes as me, but your method of naysaying and picking at every detail will mostly lead to people disengaging with the conversation entirely. That's actively harmful to the movement's progress.