Nov 21, 17 / Sag 17, 01 23:55 UTC

Re: Money or moneyless?  

3rd phase of communism:

Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained  because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for  the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia,  everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the  restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would  control all means of production so that the one-class system would  remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising  back to the top. (You can see the full text of the manifesto at this Web site.)

Good luck with that. I guess. *shrug*

Nov 22, 17 / Sag 18, 01 00:35 UTC

No, not communism. Communism still is based in a monetary system and will rely on people to manage it and is typically totalitarian in nature as we have seen historically.
Its ideal are a bit archaic and out of date with the changing times. A issue with this comparison is, of course, the pejorative conntation this has without even researching. Less judgment is good and more research is better.

They do have some similarties, of course if you abstract anything out far enough you can make them the same: a person and a dung beetle are the same : they both are living things, require food, air, and procreate, therefore are the same. A RBE will be more like a technocracy.

Nov 22, 17 / Sag 18, 01 01:09 UTC

Communism Eh? Think 2000 years on a generation shit might achieve Stage 3?

Nov 22, 17 / Sag 18, 01 01:20 UTC

"Less judgment is good and more research is better."

No. Not really in this case.

Communism doesn't work, and your government will fail. Mostly because you are not a "Nation" anyway, but for other ridiculous contradictions as well.

Nov 22, 17 / Sag 18, 01 03:03 UTC

Nope. Not Communism.

Nov 22, 17 / Sag 18, 01 03:09 UTC

"Nope. Not Communism."

That's a great argument. That does it for me. I'm convinced. :-)

Dec 2, 17 / Cap 00, 01 19:40 UTC

Here are some infographics I put together which may be of use:

Mad Max Vs Star Trek (Economies)


Continuum of Capitalism (Oligarchy vs Communism vs Socialism)

  Last edited by:  James O'Neill (Asgardian)  on Dec 3, 17 / Cap 01, 01 05:03 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Dec 2, 17 / Cap 00, 01 22:28 UTC

That is exactly what a Resource Based Economy is!

Dec 4, 17 / Cap 02, 01 07:25 UTC

 I agree with Dr. Loki 🤔

Dec 4, 17 / Cap 02, 01 19:31 UTC

That is exactly what a Resource Based Economy is. =O

My blog post has more information and a study track to guide you in learning about a Resource Based Economy:

The Cancer of Capitalism and Its Antidote

  Last edited by:  James O'Neill (Asgardian)  on Dec 4, 17 / Cap 02, 01 19:31 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Dec 12, 17 / Cap 10, 01 20:44 UTC

There are three forms of cashless society that I can think of. One if where everyone produces goods or services and barters with others to get what they need. The problem with this is that if I am a mechanic and need bread, but the baker does not need a mechanic right now, I have to first find someone that has something to offer the baker and also needs a mechanic. I can't just go get bread. This could potentially be eased with a coop concept where a mechanic, a baker, and and others all come together. The coop then connects everyone's needs to create trade triangles or such.

The second possible system would be a communist society where everything goes to the community and is then redistributed by the community. The challenge with this Is that it becomes difficult to distribute goods equitably while still encouraging maximum production.

The third method is to simply have everyone give everyone else what they have that others need, but again, there is no motivation to work hard and reach optimum production levels.

A cashless society, such as in Star Trek, really requires a surplus economy where there is no limit to what people can have or requires a very well thought out and managed system that rewards people for doing a good job and that fairly distributes the goods. I will poing out, however, that even Star Trek couldn't conceive of a cashless society. Ona a ship where every one is following orders, has uniform lodging provided, has replicators that can provide anything people want, and a captain that oversees any requests for anything outside that, including a request for a new job. Once they mixed civilians in including on Earth or on DS9, once they introduced interaction with those outside the Federationespecially the Ferangi, and once they introduced conditions where replicated items weren't completely unlimited such as on Voyager, some sort of currency or spending allowance had to be introduced in all those cases.

Ultimately what currency provides is the ability to select your priorities of what you want. Unless there is so much abundance that everyone can have everything they could ever want (and I am not saying this isn't someday possible, but right now it isn't the case) than people have to choose what they do and don't want. You can't just give everyone the same because different people want different things. You could potentially have all money issued by the government and let people spend that money on what they need or want, and have everything produced go to the government to sell so that you can ensure equality and make sure everyone gets enough to live on, but you would still need to somehow reward people for producing more difficult products or services or producing better quantity or quality. People are naturally lazy and if there is no potential for reward for going above and beyond, they will do the least that they can get away with. People don't work overtime for free, they don't innovate for free, and they don't work harder for free. They do so because they have something personal to gain from it.

In the end, though, even if you were to go to a society with no currency, it would be complicated and limiting, and I don't really see any advantage to it. There is no cashless economic system that can't be also run with a currency and wouldn't be simpler and more efficient to manage with a currency. The Star Trek ideal that many people fantasize about talks about how there is no money or greed, but the truth is the key to that isn't the lack of currency, it's the lack of scarcity. Scarcity is still a part of our economy no matter what economic system we use. In Star Trek they have no money or greed because everyone gets everything they want, and everyone is forced to provide their services at an equitable level or risk court martial, and are encouraged to function at their best to earn promotion.

Long story short, a cashless society might be a dream of many who have watched Star Trek or who have had money problems, but at the end of the day getting rid of currency isn't as practical as it seems and wouldn't solve the problems we like to think it would anyway. Instead of trying to dream up a way to eradicate what has become a symbol for our problems, let's instead focus our attention on developing or identifying an economic system that will actually help to solved those problems.

Dec 12, 17 / Cap 10, 01 22:22 UTC

Barter systems will not work because it has the same problems as a capitalism.
Communism will also not work as it has existed which is authoritarian in nature and exists within a monetary system.
Here are the features of a monetary system:

* recession and inflation
* greed, corruption, and exploitation
* pollution and destruction of the ecology
* income inequality which has powerful negative biopyschosocial effects
* planned obsolescence and waste
* war and violence
* crime, poverty, homelessness
* systemic ‘isms (racism, sexism, nationalism, patriotism, etc)

If you are OK with these systemic features of a monetary system being responsible for killing millions of innocent people each year, then yea, we can do that.
=O =) 

Profit is all that matters. My post above goes into this is much more detail. 
If you have not read the book The New Human Rights Movement, then please do.
It really goes into amazing depth with studies, facts, and experts, etc.

The only real option that is possible is a Resource Based Economy. I have an entire series of articles on this:

Technically we have a surplus economy in many places and it could be worldwide, if we chose to.

* In the US we throw away enough food to feed 3 times our population and that is with very inefficient methods of production.
With localized aquaponic vertical farms there could be more food then we could ever need and it would be completely sustainable.
* We also have enough housing for 3 times our population too.
* We could have a surplus energy worldwide for thousands of years with alternative energy. 

This will be similar all throughout the first world nations. We have the resources, knowledge, and technology we need to solve all of the the world's problems. Money is what keeps the second and third world nations from having a similar quality of life.

Capitalism is what gets in the way. There is no money to be made in actually solving problems and helping Humanity.

A Resource Based Economy would not be at all complicated nor limiting.
It just requires a lot of computational power, maximizing automation, powerful AI to process a global data driven sustainable management of the world's resources. =)

Dec 13, 17 / Cap 11, 01 05:38 UTC

Other than the fact that it avoids the use of cash, and has a computer make decisions instead of a bureaucrat, and of course a new shiny name, I am unable to find any real differences between communism and RBE. From what I can tell it still does not in any way encourage people to be productive members of society. Some might be just because they love their job that much, and some might be because they really want to make society better, but most people (and even those in these two categories) will eventually do the minimum required if there is nothing to gain from doing more. We are naturally lazy and any system that does not reward innovation and hard work will eventually fail, and will certainly never lead to becoming a scientific leader in the world (necessity breeds invention).

As for money being responsible for the laundry list of topics you have. Only a few of those connect to money. Some connect to capitalism (which is an economic system that uses money, but it is the system that has issues, not the fact that it uses money). Some are related to ego and the natural human tendencies. The isms, for instance, are the result of ego and our desire to think that we are somehow better than someone else (it doesn't really matter who, someone gives us a group of people for us to think we are better than, and we are eager to accept it so that we can feel special and important. That's ego, not money. Similar is true with most of that list. Inflation would not happen without money, but inflation alone isn't bad. High inflation is bad, but that is a result of bad fiscal policy. Inflation itself is at worst neutral. Greed, corruption, and exploitation are not a money thing, they are a part of the human condition, and will certainly exist with or without money. In fact the oldest stories in history, from before money was invented, share tales of these traits.

Calling these systematic features of a monetary system makes as much sense as saying the only two options are a resource based economy or unbridled capitalism, or saying that a resource based economy gives you Star Trek or every one having access to jet skis 24/7 (as an article you previously linked to suggested RBE would allow). None of these are valid statements. I am not saying we should have a capitalist society. I'm just saying that I have yet to encounter any suggestion for a cashless society that offered any advantage over a cash based one, and that includes RBE. Most of the reasons people don't like cash is because of economic systems they don't like.

Dec 13, 17 / Cap 11, 01 19:47 UTC

Upon reflection, I may have been a little harsh in my last post. While the sentiments and reasons stand, I will work on better researching this economic system. From what I can see so far, it shares communism most destructive trait which is a lack of a system to reward good work (be it working hard, developing skills, or creating new discoveries). I wouldn't say that capitalism necessarily does this as well as would be ideal, though. If RBE has tenants in it or can be modified to include tenants that reward people for achievement than I could see it being viable. I'll work on doing more research on it as so far all I know is what you have said or what you have linked to. Right now it just seems to share too many of communism's worst traits. All that being said, I do stand by the statement that the concept of currency is not the cause of all ghe problems you listed off. Greed, ego, capitalism, and central banking are the root cause of almost all of those.

Dec 14, 17 / Cap 12, 01 11:24 UTC

I initially just wanted to say hi as my dads family is from Scotland. Then I read a couple of your posts. I read we would all only have to work one day a week to supply all we need? So perhaps we could find a way to use the extra time to use a a way to trade for any extra material items or something? Anyhow a world were the head count and the production of resources, medicine, schools is something I have dreamed about. Though I am an uneducated cleaner, until I read your post I was not sure this would be possible for all? I'm not sure how it would go, sorting out who gets what after we have worked out the initial basics needed to survive, but believe we would find a way to organise ourselves and fulfil the extras needed in life the material and activities that also make our lives worth living. I'm not against asguardia having a monetary system as we live in a world which is probably far away from living how we need to live as apposed to how a small minority of the population believe we should exist? But hopefully asguardia is the right step in that direction