June 15th, 2011
Posted June 17th, 2011
The other day, my father and I were talking about politics, people, and philosophy, as we often do. During the conversation, I brought up how much money frustrates me and how it has to be the backbone to everything in society. All anyone seems to ever worry about is money, rather than the simple, beautiful things in life.
I talked about how I had often thought about a society without money. In my head, this is what I imagined. A society almost exactly like it is now, but without money. People would still work and do their jobs, and as long as they continued to contribute to society in some way, they could continue to receive the things they needed for their family. You could simply walk into, say Wal-Mart, get your groceries, and walk out. What would the people that run Wal-Mart get, then? Well, they would get the same. For helping provide for the people, they can have what they need for themselves and their family. As long as you contribute, you can have wants too. Like televisions and Ipods, etc. I felt this would eliminate that power struggle that constantly goes on today... everyone would be mostly equal, no one would be better than anyone else due to having more cash. I guess this idea is almost Karl Marx's original portrayal of communism. Not the negative communism we see that was carried out by figures like Stalin.
My dad then pointed out that the system I had in mind would still be a form of money, only bartering. Trading time and effort for supplies. My main point though was the hope that the elimination of money would help eliminate man's constant power struggle, and maybe even materialistic greed. But I would never truly know if that's what the result would be.
He also pointed out that people wouldn't want that. Because of our natural greed that can be traced back to animal instinct (if a lion can get more meat, wouldn't he fight another lion for it?), we wouldn't be satisfied with this set up. This concept was then applied later in the conversation to a different matter. Most everyone can agree, for example, that child hunger is awful, correct? And most everyone can agree that we'd like to see it stopped, correct? Well, my dad said something along these lines, and it stuck with me. If we sat down and had a meeting with everyone to solve this problem, and the leader of the group were to say "In order to save these kids, I need you to give up some things. In order to have enough supplies for these kids (in say, Africa), I need you to give up ice cream, some types of fruits and vegetables, and of your three meals a day, you must have water for two. The third meal, you can only have one drink such as coffee, orange juice, wine, beer, cranberry juice, etc. Also, steak will only be allowed once a month, and chicken twice a month."
At this point, many people would drop out of the effort to help these kids. Why? Because they're required to make changes and give up some things to benefit others. They like the idea, but they don't like actually following through with it.
And once he said this, this really lit a fire cracker under my ass, for lack of better words.
So what? So what if you have to give up ice cream and only have steak once a month and drink water most of the time? SO WHAT? You still have your televisions, your houses, your pets, your warm bed at night, your comfort and security. No matter what you're eating, you still have a family to sit down with and laugh with and have a good time with. You're stomach is still full and you're not starving.These kids probably don't have any of that, if they can't afford to even eat. They spend every day wondering if they'll live to see the next one! They might not even have a family to sit with and enjoy what little food they do get. They're parents may be victims of genocide, or dead because they starved to death!
I would give up all the food mentioned above and more, if it meant someone else could have a second chance at life. If a child could have a second chance at childhood.
What would you give up?
I would give up brussel sprouts :-) While your idea of a world without money may be a good one it would never work..Man with his natural greed would ruin it.At Wal mart or ant shop he would be walking out with trollies overloaded with things just because they were there. A single man who works 40 hours would wonder why he only gets the same as a man with a wife and 6 kids who works the same hours etc...As with hunger in this world sadly that will never stop..We grow or produce food to feed the country but can not grow enough to feed all countries...Some countries with money (the thing you do not like) have the money to buy the food others produce as thier population is larger then their farmlands can handle but if they produce cars or televisions they export and sell them to make the money to buy the food..so sort of like the bartering system your dad mentioned...But with places like in africa or a lot of the poorer asian countries or india they have a poor health system and are over populated and this all contributes to people dieing early or going hungry...So yes we do help by sending staple food (rice or flour) to them to help them survive but it will not stop the hunger problem...BUT young people with ideas like this can change the world in the future or find a solution...an old aussie
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't work because money = motivation. And feeding people so they wouldn't starve would take away motivation. Walmart would never go for that. Walmart didn't get into business to feel good, they want to make money. BUT the money they and other companies make create jobs so people can earn money to buy food and stuff. As a country we advanced so far because of money that motivated people and cars that transported people to be able to find jobs farther away. If we were still bartering, there would be jobs that would be unfilled due to the difficulty in paying them. 150 yrs ago people paid the doctor with chickens. But chickens don't pay for medical school tuition. So not many went into that profession. After a while the chickens were dead or rotten so not useful as trade anymore. Money is easier to carry than chickens or other tradable items. Also what if you wanted to trade chickens to the doctor for your sick kid but the doctor already had more chicken than he wanted but needed new wheels for his wagon or horse shoes? Money is a way of making it so you can make choices with what you get so that you can have what you want not what people are willing to give you.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm saying that bothers me. We would be getting everything we normally get and needed, just without the money factor. There would be nothing missing in our lives except the money. We would contribute because we wanted to, not for motivation. That's what bothers me about society today. Almost no one does anything helpful anymore without motivation and 'incentive'. Barely anyone does anything just for that 'feel good' sensation you get after you've helped someone out. We're a greedy, needy species, and money just adds fuel to the fire. Everyone wants the kids in Africa, for example, to stop starving. But only a few brave people actually DO something, because no one cares to put forth the time and effort to make a difference.
ReplyDelete-Faith
Faith even if we take the money factor out it would still be a world where "he with the most toys win" Yes we can give to the needy to help but also make ourselves feel better but there would always be the people who would need more cows in his herd then someone else or more land or chickens...More cars or televisions and the biggest and best laptop...So many things can be subsituted for money...But I agree todays society is not in a good place...Also not all but a lot or organisations that we donate money to the help the children in Africa lets say... Subtract their wages and running costs from the money before it is used to buy food etc..So with some only 20cents in the dollar reaches the ones needing it....
ReplyDeleteoops forgot to say who it was....The old guy :-)
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, people may be dissatisfied with current life styles, but they hate change even more. You think a capitalist nation like ourselves would gladly embrace socialism, like what you described?
ReplyDeleteYes, because change requires people to give up things and get off their lazy bums to do stuff. And no we wouldn't.
ReplyDelete-Faith