Some people live without money. They live in very remote areas and their lives a tenuous but they live without money.<br />
Um there are no solutions other than the retun of Jesus and a changed humanity. <br />
People have tried some of the things you mentioned and it always ends with some dictator ruling over the people with the backing of a pack of brutal secret police. <br />
Idealistic ventures always end like that because ldealisim denys the reality that in any group of people, there are always crafty scumbags who will manipulate and corrupt any theoretical community that is established.
no we can't and the enclosed community sounds good at first but then it grows exponentialy and there is way to many people for the system to work properly and management becomes a hassle and it falls apart ie society today
the produce and design might not be sufficient for all and trade or the barter system will not work if every one has the same things and greed sadly will always remain
Go to forest and hunt- u need a money only if you stuck in civilisation ;)
hm. well, what would you do with ppl who like to do nothing?
True. But how will you make sure not all of us stuck in for exmpl art?
true but lazy ppl who want to avoid doing anything will go for art. I know that for a fact because I am artist and I know many ppl in my organization who r there just to do - nothing. So let's say you can't control that. But it was a nice try :)And if you tell them- ok, you're not a artist go for a "next best thing" u will get society same as it is today :)
it was like that before we knew- money got it's full importance just recently - so we sould go back to beggining- and tell me is anyone into jobs like cleaning public places,toilets, taking care of mentaly ill ppl, serving drinks .. who would do that?
What you are describing is a "Commune." Trendy and useful for small cooperative groups but not feasible on the large scale. Hence the fall of Communism...
I'm having trouble finding it, but there's a documentary on Youtube somewhere I saw about an experimental commune in Britain, run by homeless people and disillusioned youngsters and hippies. It's basically a communal shantytown where everybody has to pitch in to take care of each other. It works because everybody wants to be there and wants to make it work. But It wouldn't work for everybody. They take a lot of donated food and aren't very productive people. It's possible, but very impractical and economically inefficient.
Money is a tool to facilitate the exchange of commodies. I believe it is necessary because different products have different value, and exchanging equal value for equal value is difficult and may saddle you with an excessive amount of something. Of course, that only holds for a capitalistic enclave, and what you're suggesting is a socialist enclave.<br />
The problem I have with a socialist enclave is somebody is bound to slack off and not do their share of the work. Should they still be able to access the same value of commodities as those who do pull their weight?
Correct. In order to pull it off, I believe you have to have an actual "popular vote" instead of a group of elected representatives, else the representatives themselves would be guilty of slacking off.
For me,no.I will die because of lacking food.Only money can buy food.