BS: Why do we need money?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 04:24 PM

All the affirmative responses seem to me in near complete ignorance of human nature. This experiment should not be tried for it would end in disaster and loss of wealth and human lives. One can learn from the experiments tried so far even if none of these has tried to get rid of money altogether.

Beware of the well meaning idealists. The chaos they would create is far worse than the present not always pleasant alternative.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM

It'll come in time. Gradually we'll get to a situation where the hoops we have to jump through to run a money system in circumstances where free availability makes more sense will just get too complicated, and the system will just fade away. There are aspects of the Internet experience that presage that.

There's no automatic link between a money system and "human nature". As I said, there was a time before money, and there'll be a time after it. We were humans before money, and we'll still be humans after money.

But the change probably won't happen in our time.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 05:40 PM

I'm not suggesting an abrupt changeover, Wolfgang. I'm just suggesting a gradual transition...which is exactly what we have seen happening anyway over the last few centuries. We have progressed from a World of robber barons to a World of relatively peaceful societies with some fairly good social services. That's not bad. I'm saying there is further progress yet to be made.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 07:57 PM

BTW (thread drift) - Just saw the Motorcycle Diaries. Not a great flick but interesting and well worth it. Helped me understand how the young Che evolved into the notorious and much-loved, Che.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 09:03 PM

Why do we need money?

So that we know when we're broke; that's at the same time we don't have any money.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 11:04 PM

As of January debt cards have become accepted throughout the EU (it was about time)unfortuantely the UK still clings to an archaic system (that long ago forgot what the value of stearling was.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 11:08 PM

I believe James Jones established JONESTOWN is the South American wilderness for Nirvana on earth. Music, God, Music, Work, Music, Food, God and more Music. No bills, no bill collectors - just drink the kool-aide when it is distributed.

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 11:30 PM

LH .... I'm afraid we are regressing back to a society of robber barons, with the relative deterioration of our socials services. Worker's wages are eroding to a level we're we exist on and are controlled by debt. Debt, yes we are becoming a society were money is irrevelant, but were debt is the source of barter.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 11:48 PM

Yes, there is a tendency that way.

Gargoyle, your using the example of Jamestown in this discussion is like me making a general statement about long-haired young people in the late 60's, and using Charles Manson as the standard by which to judge them all. Pointless, provocative, and of no help whatsoever in discussing the subject. All it sheds light on is your own great satisfaction in being prejudiced and thoroughly negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 04:47 AM

Dear Wolfgang, I can entirely understand how the state capitalist countries of eastern europe have coloured you judgement against anything to do with socialism. But I implore you to understand that the only similarity between that and what is being talked about here is the name. The conception of socialism as a moneyless society precedes that of socialism as state ownership. I am talking about a society without property, where the means of living are actually controlled democratically by workers. Unlike others here I don't see it just happening (it would of happened by now and despite the optimism of some the world is in fact becoming more unequal) it has
been be brought about by the concious action of people, and when a majority want it to happen we can make socialism happen.

As for your assertions about human nature, it is a common objection to socialism but what facts are there behind this? Have a look at this article on human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 10:44 AM

I have just come across abolishmoneynow.com via this which contains some criticism.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 11:44 AM

Human nature comprises any and all possibillities, as has been amply demonstrated already throughout history. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 12:04 PM

There may not always have been money but there has always been trade between individuals and groups.
The fundamental relationship of any organism to the biosphere is an economic one.
We have to eat to survive, so food and in dry areas water, has many of the social properties of money.
I don't see how you could abolish money in a society were wee need so many specialists. Without money (as a standard means of exchange) how does a brain-surgeon get to eat?
I know the system is far from perfect but money has some good aspects
1 It's not Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, or Religiously bigoted.
2 It rots more slowly (most of the time) than food.
3 A large amount takes up a small space.
4 It can be easily hidden, so your wealth does not have to show. I mean this in terms of being robed. I can walk down the street with £10,000 in my pocket (I should be so lucky) and it does not show; a train of Oxen is however harder to hide.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 12:21 PM

Good points, Pied. Money is certainly handy stuff in a lot of ways. No doubt about that.

It would be possible, though, to organize a society where all the material needs were taken care of automatically...and people concerned themselves more about activity, accomplishment, personal satisfaction in playing out a part in life, so to speak.

That was the situation portrayed on the Star Trek Next Generation show. The good thing about that society was:

1. Everybody's material needs were met, so there was no poverty.

2. Things were done not for an artificial imperative (dollar profit), but for actual result.

One of the reasons our society is way off track in certain areas is that silly or harmful things are being done simply because they yield a short-term dollar profit. That, in the long run, is a very dangerous way to organize a society.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 12:45 PM

wealth is not = to money.

Wealth, to a much greater and more meaningful extent, contains elements of skill, knowledge, geography, luck...

If you were able to take all the "money" away from everyone and distribute it equally on a per capita basis, you would somewhat alter who was and was not the wealthy among us -- but only somewhat. ....and only temporarily.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 05:19 PM

True, Jim. But why should life even be about wealth? Why not make it about accomplishment, happiness, and creativity? Or honor? Or something else non-material? Why wealth? There are better things in life than wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 06:14 PM

" If you were able to take all the "money" away from everyone and distribute it equally on a per capita basis, you would somewhat alter who was and was not the wealthy among us -- but only somewhat. ....and only temporarily."

JT, I think this was done already by Carl Marx. Didn't work, either.

No, I never read the book! Did anybody?? Just wondering. I don't even know what it was called. Utopia? or something like that. You'd think THAT would be something that is common knowledge, wouldn't you. Maybe it is to some! Sorry, rambling... Tra la la..

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 06:19 PM

BTW, I don't know why, but I need money..

If anybody doesn't want theirs please PM me. I'll be able to help.

;-)

Love, annamill (just joking today)

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 06:37 PM

Are you taking dogs as well, Annamill?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 06:41 PM

No thanks, LH. I have enough, though small, of that particular commodity.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 07:48 PM

"I think this was done already by Karl Marx."   No it wasn't. He wrote lots of stuff, lived and died in London as an exile, and spent a lot of time in the British Museum Library. Wrote a book called Capital.

"Utopia" - that's the book written by Sir Thomas More back in the 16th century. Much shorter, well worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 08:13 PM

McGrath, I'm sorry. I've always been under the impression that Communism was based on the book written by (K)arl Marx. Am I wrong then? Drat! Now I'll have to go lookup these misconceptions I have and discover the truth.

From movies and other books I've read I always thought that the whole idea of taking from the ones who have much and spreading it evenly to everyone, in other words:

"If you were able to take all the "money" away from everyone and distribute it equally on a per capita basis, you would somewhat alter who was and was not the wealthy among us"

was based on Karl Marx's book and some called it Communism, which didn't work.

So, I have been wrong on this idea? Of course I am strongly simplifying it. I was just playing and not taking the whole thing seriously at all. So Sorry.

Thank you for the info. Would I be able to find "Capitol" in English?
Or would I be arrested for reading it? Ooohh, theres a good question.

I'll look up "Utopia" at the library. Maybe I'll stay away from "Capitol" right now and do it another time.

Look what's happening to us.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 05 - 09:09 PM

I think there are 2 seminal books for the Communist revolution:

"Das Kapital" - by Karl Marx

"The Communist Manifesto" - by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

I am not recommending Communism when I suggest creating a society without money. :-) But I do think that both Communism and Capitalism have had some worthy ideas worth preserving and combining in a social system that would be better than either one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:05 AM

I am in no way a defender of every dot and cross that Marx wrote where did he suggest that money be redistributed equally?

Was it Das Kapital vol. II?: 'In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.'

No.

Was it in the Critque of the Gotha Programme?:
'What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? . . . Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; . . . Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case . . . But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. . . In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'

No, not there either.

Perhaps it was in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844?

'Even the equality of wages, which Proudhon demands, would merely transform the relation of the present-day worker to his work into the relation of all men to work. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.

Wages are an immediate consequence of estranged labour, and estranged labour is the immediate cause of private property. If the one falls, then the other must fall too.

(2) It further follows from the relation of estranged labour to private property that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers. This is not because it is only a question of their emancipation, but because in their emancipation is contained universal human emancipation. The reason for this universality is that the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are nothing but modifications and consequences of this relation.'

Well I guess not. Maybe he never wrote it at all. But do people still regurgitate the old myths that Marx suggested state capitalism for Russia, they followed his plan and it didn't work. Yes, they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:29 AM

Pied Piper, Yes, '[t]he fundamental relationship of any organism to the biosphere is an economic one.' in a broad sense. But that does not necessitate trade. Does a cow trade for the grass it eats, or a fox for lambs it takes, or, indeed, did the europeans trade anything for ownership of America when they arrived? A moneyless society is possible only when private property is abolished, why pay for what you already own? If the means of producing wealth are held in common, then what is produced will also be commonly owned. Economics can be a question of how to distribute stuff rather than trade. In socialism a brain surgeon would go to a store and take what he needed, because we have the technology to produce enough for everyone there is no need to ration.

You say money is not 'Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, or Religiously bigoted', of course it isn't, but do not these things arise from the unequal, competitive, repressive capitalist system of which money is a neccesity.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 05:54 AM

"...money is not 'Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, or Religiously bigoted', of course it isn't, but do not these things arise from the unequal, competitive, repressive capitalist system of which money is a neccesity. (?)"

no.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 06:36 AM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM

Cos I don't want to be paid in cabbages

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 07:23 AM

With small change in Brussels Sprouts. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 09:07 AM

Why?

Do you really think that bigotry boils simply down to nothing more complex than economics?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 09:14 AM

Does a cow trade for the grass it eats, or a fox for lambs it takes...

Well, actually, yes. Grass, like all plants, requires carbon dioxide (which the cow breathes out) for photosynthesis. Also, the cow excretes nutrients vital to the continued existence of the grass and when it dies returns what it took from the grass (for the continued existence of the cow) to the grass by its decomposition -- just as you and I will.

You, me, and the fox are a bit more complicated, but carnivores (the fox) eat herbivores (the lamb). Ultimately, we all thrive on the grass, and we all "pay back" to the grass by our excretion and eventual decomposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 10:15 AM

Rapaire, you are correct to point out that all organisms are related chemically, but we are talking about trade, that is, buying and selling, which is dependent on human will, the ability to make decisions and so on, whereas what you are talking about is independent of humans.

Jim Tailor, it is the case that most bigotry has a material basis. For example, the Rev Dr Ian Paisley is a famous religious bigot. His religious views are entirely rooted in the political, thus economic, competition over who controls the industrial north of Ireland. Adolf Hitler is well known for enacting racist policies, they were based on the conception that Jews were all very rich with disproportionate control of industry which he wanted to control. Racism amongst working people has its basis in fear of competition for jobs. The examples could go on, do you want to suggest that bigots wake up in the morning and randomly pick a type of people to castigate?

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 11:04 AM

"...do you want to suggest that bigots wake up in the morning and randomly pick a type of people to castigate?"

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 11:14 AM

The give and take of nature is reflected in humans. I think you should read Andrew Carnegie's essay "On Wealth."

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 11:54 AM

Andrew Carnegie! ROFLMAO, I hope that was supposed to be ironic. It's pure ideology, the apologetics of a man who spent most of his life living the life of reilly off the backs of others:

' . . . the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself.'

Can anyone take this anti-social crap seriously? He was saying you and I are too stupid to look after ourselves. His 'gospel of wealth' was know your place, don't step out of line, work for me and I'll use the surplus I get from paying you less than what you make for me for 'good causes', yeah right, he owned estates in Scotland and the US.

Even if all capitalists had philanthropic tendencies, materially they possess the means of living which the majority doesn't, and thus have power over us. Carnegie obviously wanted to keep it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 12:38 PM

How about if you read the damned thing? In toto? Here are a couple of extended excerpts.

Under republican institutions the division of property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.

It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the sentiment that they are in a position to labor for public ends without reference to pecuniary consideration, then, of course, the duty of the parent is to see that such are provided for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the exception, but the rule, that men must regard, and, looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, "I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar," and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies.

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes -- subject to some exceptions -- one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for the public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, as of Shylock's, at least

    " ---- The other half
    Comes to the privy coffer of the state."

This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention, and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from their fortunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:35 PM

Yeah, so what? It is ideology for the continuation of the capitalist system, the preservation of Carnegie's privileges over others and riches whilst he was alive. Even if it was workable, which it isn't as it based on the flawed belief that some moral code of conduct can be lauded onto the economic basis of production, it is a utopia for the rich to relieve their guilt of living as parasites on the rest of us. Whatever excuses you make for the capitalist/market/money system it only recognises the efficiency of producing profit. That is why ideas like heavier taxation for capitalists and fairtrade only ever amount to palliatives at the very best and we are still lumbered with the inherent problems of the money system.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 02:06 PM

To start a new one...

Has anyone read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"? There is a great dissertation on the goodness of money. It's my day off and I'm too relaxed right now to go find some quotes, but I though she had some good arguments.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 03:20 PM

Ayn Rand, allow me, she wrote:
'The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism [yeah, take me back to the good old days, people dying in the street, abject poverty and all those ideals]. It is a system where men [she obviously didn't have much regard for her own sex] deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit [it isn't free and it isn't a mutual benefit, the majority of the world have no choice but to sell their labour to those that own the means of production, you 'volunteer' your labour or you starve and seeing as capitalists make a surplus on labour the benefit isn't mutual]. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others [yeah, there have never been any wars, robbery with violence or mugging in capitalism??]. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights [it seems to be doing the opposite at the moment]; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders [oh yeah, right??]. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church [yeah, fuck anyone who can't help themselves??].

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 03:57 PM

Piers,

I've read your links and more from that socialist site (of course, they are the 'true' socialists). It sounded to me as if it was 20 years old and then I found that some bits actually were twenty years old. I do not have they impression that the writers have added anything to their knowledge since their university days of old. No source from, for instance, Evolutionary Psychology is mentioned.

What puzzles me about your argumentation is that you paint a money using system in the blackest of colours with the worst of examples from the history of capitalism as if there could be only one type of capitalism, whereas on the side of socialism you dismiss any bad examples by saying that was not the socialism you are talking about. A money using system has not to be identical with a no-reins capitalism.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:02 PM

Ideal is the main word here. As it was in Karl Marx's writings.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:40 PM

Ideal"istic"

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:52 PM

I've been called worse. ;-) *BG*


Back to the original question. Let's say we have a whole village of people and all of them are tomato farmers. Maybe even a little corn thrown in. Maybe a couple of them can write computer programs, or cobble shoes. Maybe a couple of them can tan leather and everyone has a cow or two, a couple of pigs, some chickens. Where the heck are they going to get Smarties, with or without the tube???

That's why we need money, sillies!

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 05:02 PM

Ok, so here is more from Ayn:

Ayn's speech

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 05:40 PM

I think if the idea is to to turn people against capitalism, it's probably better to quote Ayn Rand than Karl Marx.

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 05:46 PM

Ok, I don't want to fight. It's too nice a day. I've made money, and I've not made money. It really depends on what you do with it. Do you use it or does it use you? I had a lot of fun with it when I had it, and I'm having a lot of fun now that I don't have it. I guess you'll be the same person with it or without it. Either you like yourself and life or you don't.

Me, I like myself and life, with or without money.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: Piers
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 06:06 PM

Wolfgang, thanks for taking the time to read our stuff, I appreciate some of it is a bit old. Apart from that the efficiency of production has been allowed to increase to a point where the basic needs, at least, could be met and in much of the world there is a democratic structure where socialists can democratically bring in socialism I don't think it has much going for it. We stick to our definition of socialism, common ownership of the means of production, democratic control, free access to goods and services which has never existed, this is not to try and get round the fact eastern european state capitalism, it has been the party's position since 1904. Incidentally we are [in]famous on the left for denouncing the Russian revolution as not socialist within forty-eight hours. This is because unlike the other 'socialist'/'communist' parties that supported Russian state capitalism our analysis is based on Marxian principles of the materialist conception of history, class analysis and the labour theory of value whereas Leninist theory consists of trying to interpret Marx in ways that would justify running state capitalism as Marxist. So we are not idealists because our analysis is based evidence based.

We have a booklet called 'Are we prisoners of our genes?' which is more up-to-date but it isn't on-line. Have you read 'Alas, poor Darwin' edited by S and H Rose, it is a collection of essays critcising evolutionary psychology?

Annamill, they could get their smarties from a smartie factory, and the people in the smartie factory could get their tomatoes and computer programs from them. It's what happens now with a major differences - production is based on need (e.g. the amount of tomatoes produced is based on the amount of tomatoes that are consumed, whereas the market system only responds to signals of monetary demand and supply), production is democratically controlled (workers make decisions on how much land they will grow tomatoes on and how much corn they will need) and access to goods and services is free (so if it is a bad year for tomatoes they don't face poverty they can still get what they want).

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 05:41 AM

why do we need money?
well..our needs are our choices !!

:)
sugandh
india

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: annamill
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 02:30 PM

NEVER has the phrase "Get a life" been more meaningful then right now.

Love, annamill
101 WOW!

Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money?
From: jimmyt
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM

I have tried the no money part for 30 years I have tried the money part for 26 years. It is much nicer to have than to not. I can help a hell of a lot more people, institutions, touch more lives take care of my needs as opposed to when I did not have the stuff.

I have a staff of people who work for me who appreciate it and me very much. I can see the evils of the worst of capitalism but I can also see the wonderful parts of societies that are based on capitalism and how vastly superior to the ones where other government and economic systems were in force in the eastern bloc 15 years ago. You may be able to make some cases on theory only but reality makes money seem to be a pretty good idea.