Moneyless Society: The Next Economic Evolution

Product Information

a b c d e Seyfang, Gill. "Time Banks and the Social Economy: Exploring the UK Policy Context" (PDF). www.cserge.ac.uk. CSERGE. The themes explored in the descriptive text associated with your question reminded me of a description of communism in Russia, during the earlier days of the Soviet system, that Ayn Rand described in her book Atlas Shrugged:

Training humanity to accept the lowest-common-denominator when it comes to living would require training them to accept the drudgery of effort without finding the joy of life. As soon as someone tells a friend across the country that they saw a beautiful butterfly, that friend will want to change locations because (true or not) they will believe there are no beautiful butterflies where they live. Of course this criticism is still rather philosophical—capitalism (a term which Marx doesn’t even use) is identified with individualism, “a world of atomistic individuals who are inimically opposed to one another” (p.173). Marx argues that in such a world it is money that emerges as the god to which everything else is subordinated and which completely dominates people’s lives. Barter economies also constitute an important form of non-monetized interaction, although for the most part this kind of interaction is viewed [ by whom?] largely as a temporary fix as an economic system is in transition. It is also usually considered a side effect of a tight monetary policy such as in a liquidity crisis, like that of 1990s Russia where barter transactions accounted for 50 percent of sales for midsize enterprises and 75 percent for large ones. [15] Moneyless interaction of individuals with the monetary economy [ edit ] It is also worth considering that for the most part of human history, people worked without being paid any money. Salaried jobs (with salaries paid in money) became common only after the Industrial Revolution. And even with salaried jobs being the norm today, a significant amount of work 1 is done without being paid: Domestic labour, child and elderly care, volunteer work, hobbies, and so on.

Is a moneyless society possible?

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). There still be some people with a strong sense of responsibility who will work because they believe that it is something they ought to do. There will be some people who work because it is the lesser of the two evils (I hate dirt more than cleaning toilets). And, of course, all those people who work because they enjoy it, find it personally gratifying, fulfilling, etc. will continue working. However, there will be quite a few people who do not work at all because they are not being rewarded. Organizations that administer time banks, barter networks, or currencies may register for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) as non-profit organizations working to benefit the community. [33] The IRS has recognized some time banks as tax exempt; it is harder to obtain exemptions for a barter network or local currency, as they are harder to prove as operating purely on a basis of service to the community. Natural economy, where resources are allocated through direct bartering, entitlement by law, or sharing out according to traditional custom.

Publius Ovidius Naso wrote "Fertilior seges est alenis semper in agris" (the harvest is always more fruitful in another man's fields). Which is where the modern proverb, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" is believed to have come from. What both mean is that it's human nature to believe their life would be better if they have something they don't currently have. There has never been a civilization on Earth — at any time in history — where someone walking down the street wouldn't see something they want... and want it. It's similar to a society where robots/machines produce everything, except that there are already many goods that modern machines can't fully produce without human work and slaves would fill that gap. Large-scale algorithmic distribution (as envisaged by Stefan Heidenreich) for negotiating "matched transactions," each of which "has effects beyond all immediate participants." Yet, the procedure emulates money "when our profiles, our likes, and our consumer histories are used to calculate who will buy what and where." [20] The transactions are recorded and, along with utility/urgency and reputation/personal history, the "matches" are determined. [21] The other form of home-based nurturing also serves benefits society as a whole. Care giving provides assistance for those who are elderly, disabled, suffering terminal illness or chronic illness, or are generally frail or in need of assistance. Someone who cares for someone in any of these positions is a caregiver. This is largely provided unpaid by friends or family of the patient.

Communities that live without money

The greatest advocate of the communist society, Karl Marx, himself emphasised that such society is possible only is some kind of post-scarcity world. He claimed that social structure is a result of material conditions and posession-free society could not emerge in the medieval times when even the food was scarce. He claimed that capitalism is a necessary step toward the communism because it creates the means of production necessary to enter the communist stage. But with time, the capitalist regime becomes obsolote, as it is no longer suitable to control these forces of production - in the same way as medieval nobility was not able to control the industrial forces of early capitalism. One could say, that we in fact already observe this situation, as competition between small capitalists (what is a definition of the capitalism) is currently replaced by monopoly of huge corporations. Marks believed that is will be replaced by property-free comunist society. The most importat aspect here is the fact, that Marks was seeing the capitalism as a force which creates this post-scarcity society which will be able to satisfy the needs of the people without the rule of the capitalist bourgeoisie. So whenever you speak about society without money, you have to speak about (at least in some sense) post-scarcity society. One could argue whether we are already in this stage - current food production is enough to end the world hunger and the wealth created is enough to eliminate the global poverty.