Re: [ox-en] Re: No-trade society (was: Re: herrschaft)
- From: Robin Green <greenrd greenrd.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:27:18 +0000
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:04:28AM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Franz Maria Tabei wrote:
i think, this is a good example. - art. don't You think in a Free Society
there would be different "reasons" why You want something, why You want to
give something to somebody.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the something-for-something reasons would
disappear. Consider a boy and a girl playing "I'll show you mine if you
show me yours".
i believe people would loose the false "interest"
in art, when it's not a mater of money or prestige.
I would go further and say that in any case where money is "abolished" it
would be quickly reinvented (through barter, if money were in some way
actively repressed).
why do we need money?
Because of scarcity.
what does it represent?
Buying power. (OK, poor answer. I couldn't think of a better one.)
i also think that it makes no
sense to "abolish" money, or anything we believe is wrong. because it goes
beyond the question of right and wrong. a Free Society does not know good and
bad or right and wrong.
Really? So in a Free Society murder is not wrong?
Or what do you mean, if you do not mean that?
Perhaps you are groping towards the notion of no _compulsion_ to trade to
meet basic needs (which is my current focus). But that's of course a _very_
different kettle of fish. That could in principle be met by a Basic Income,
without getting rid of capitalism at all (that's assuming a Basic Income is
sustainable under so-called "global capitalism" - I think we will soon find
out, when Brazil introduces it, as a recent law they've passed mandates
them to!)
of course it's a problem, if many people don't have enough money to live. but
do You really think if they had enough money everything would be fine? no
problems, no illness, no polution, no wasting of ressources, etc.?
No, I understand your point. Capitalism still creates incentives for pollution
etc.
basic income: how many people live in Europe? how much money would you need to
give everybody enought to live? (min.). from where do you want to take the
money? how will the system react? INFLATION? or BOMBING (don't forget
Yugoslavia: people did not get paid for months, there were a lot of
demonstrations and the government decided to print more money to pay the
salaries.... and then came the bombing.)
I'm not sure that the two were causally related. But yeah, a society free from
the compulsion to work could free people up to follow their desires and make
big social changes - which the Empire wouldn't like at all. So yes, bombing
might follow.
To summarise, I believe in a basic income, but I also belive in significant
rewards over and above the basic income (i.e. wages and payments) for
socially useful work done.
1. where is the difference to our system?
Freedom from the compulsion to work, if the basic income is high enough
(and the social safety net, e.g. free health care, is also good enough)
2. how do "rewards" and "socially useful work" fit together? if you know it is
useful, why do you need rewards?
Because not everyone is Mother Teresa!!
but if you think you can educate people by
rewards
Not just "educate" people. Motivate them!
again it's the same we do now - and it does not work.
In what sense does it not work?
Worse, in what sense has a no incentive society ever worked in a big city
context? (I refuse to consider "destroy the cities, back to the land" nonsense.)
worse: you
need fear, without fear people would not be interested in rewards.
That's simply not true. Rewards can motivate me to work harder, and/or prioritise
one activity over another.
but
without fear people can stay in touch with their needs and feelings and they
will know what kind of work is "socially useful".
Staying in touch with one's needs and feelings is not the same as staying in touch
with the world's needs and feelings. That is a very different question.
a. Nobody finds working in a sewage farm fulfulling. Then people will
have to get together and find alternative ways of dealing with sewage
that don't require sewage farms. But maybe in some cases there are no
alternative ways?
I think you're right, there will be such cases where TINA (There Is No
Alternative). At least for some period of time.
there is always an alternative. TINA means thinking in the way the system
does. the necessary changes are much deaper. we cannot speak about a new
society in terms of the old.
I reject that notion.
Well there must be some commonalities, or how could we communicate at all??
i'm sure there will be a different form of
handling sewage, even more: of producing - or not producing - sewage. there
will be a different medical system, and so on. but the change is difficult,
the steps to be taken are small, so lets think about the next step, and not
speculate about how it will be when it is finished (what could be also
interesting). we are still talking about a "germ-form" (?) ;-)
Well I don't know about you but when I embark on a shared project, especially
when it requires a lot of commitment from me, I want to know where it is going
and whether it is likely to work long-term.
That doesn't mean necessarily that I won't participate if I can't see these
things, but I do want to talk about them.
--
Robin
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/