Money in anarchy?

I agree that most people wouldn't do work that didn't directly benefit them (a doctor or teacher) or that we have been taught to be "low" work (taking care of trash and recycling)for free, and that if there was a society with no money tomorrow, a vast majority wouldn't continue those jobs. But after sometime when trash piles up, friends and peers become sick, etc would people start doing that kind of work again out of duty to the community? I may not want to be close to someone who is sick but i would help because i don't want others to get sick. I'll help with trash because i want to keep our community clean. Maybe this is just a very optimistic train of thought, but i figured it was worth asking.

 

I agree that some public services will be needed after a revolution and technology as well. I just feel that when society collapses (if it gets that far, a revolution could still happen without this happening i think) the people who work at power stations and other places of the generation of electricity and other components to run all sorts of technology will cease to be for whatever reason. I mean if were talking the abolishing of money, cops, structures etc. etc., now unless a band of rebels takes it over and knows how to keep it functioning, i feel that a major portion of our technology thats controlled by someone else will cease to be, ESPECIALLY if they aint getting money or shit gets blown the fuck up while revolution is at hand (green anarchists will probably blow this shit up if noone was there to legally stop them).

Being from the boonies, growing food, constructing things, getting clean water, etc. etc., i could do without technology personally.

Id like to see some survive afterwards, it'd be nice to keep up hospitals and cell phone towers and shit but i dont think it will, and if it does, it wouldnt be for long.

And as for money in anarchy... i feel that some type of reward or gift system should be set up. But if there is any system other than money that is established, then eventually it'll turn back into money which then comes more greed and shit.

 

About my previous post, I meant to say technology should NOT be eliminated, sorry for the mistake .

 

Some sort of labor notes that translate actual labor into actual worth might be workable. They have to be implemented in such a way that they aren't hoardable, and that traditional economic profit is not a consideration. Your "profit" is the tranference of the worth of your labor into the worth of a good. There are all kinds of complications with this idea. How do you compare the worth of eight hours of indifferent labor that produces one inferior-to-mediocore widget to three hours of highly-skilled widgetry that results in a superior product? And that's only labor that has a one-producer-to-one-product relationship. When you consider the complications of a team of people laboring on a product, some of whom are gifted, some of whom are lazy, some of whom are incompetent, all of the loose ends start looking a bit threatening. Still, I think there is potential in this very old idea.

Oh, and I also think that computing ability should be a right like food and shelter. In the society we currently live in it's becoming just about that important, and I think that the free dissemination of knowledge should always be fostered.

 

I think T.V. is slowly brainwashing you to require it as a need. I believe that, in anarchy, if you want something, you either make it or trade. No money.

Money=Capitalism=Government=Rulers= Not Anarcy.
And in retrospect, you have your own life. Why do you need TV to hear about others?

Besides. What corporation is gonna make a TV channel in an ANARCHIST society?

 

if we wear to have any money i say it should be caps
buttttttttt i do believe money should be abolished completely we should all share what we have(but what if someone gets greedy) why would you need to steal you got the same amount as everybody
idk how it would work exactly but fuck money

 

Keep the money (what if someone doesn't have anything to trade for something they need), destroy the system.

 

And when I say keep the money I mean for the unnecessary things, ie what someone wants, not needs, I think necessities should be free/provided.

 

No, the only thing money gives us is power, greed and violence. We dont need money. If someone doesnt have anything to trade, we are going to help him, we will work "for" him, until he gets something - or he will get food and water for free ( only for sometime ) until he has something to offer. It wouldnt be like today, we wouldnt concentrate on our products, but our lives. Helping others, making everyone happy, be happy - and socialize. Nowdays, its important to sell, to buy, to make profit. And thats what are we against. We can live without money, not today, not tomorrow - but someday..

 

My opinion is that there should be money , provided to every single person the same amount, that money should be use to buy things not primary , like a computer....and the money that those companys ( public ofc) won would be used to give that "salary" to the people.
The rest of the products should circulate without any kind of money just the necessity of the people , like food , clothes , a house , ...

Idk if this is a good idea i thought about it for a second and this came to my mind xD
But maybe this will make all this need to sell and to buy come back and capitalism is back again =(

P.S: Sorry DirtyRottenThrashPunk i haven't read your post when i posted this , what you are saying is the same i'm

 

That is exactly my opinion. ever since man began saying "i'll give you this if you give me that" it's been a downhill ride. when money didnt yet exist, a hunter hunted so that his tribe had something to eat. he didnt want 5 stones or something from everybody for his good deed. nowadays it's much more complicated. everybody wants something for everything, and as long as we keep this mentality the system has all it needs to sustain itself. we can preach and ramble all we want but if we still pay for food or shelter, it isn't going to change. there's always someone wo will make more money than you, and that gives him power which in turn makes him the man.

 

the idea of modern bartering is so unrealistic and stupid, it's even more ridiculous than the idea of money. Look, I know we all hate money blah blah blah (it looks like some of you don't even know why) but it's a necessary evil. Someone mentioned labor notes, but that's basically what money is only a lot less efficient. It's not the idea of money itself that's flawed, it's the emphasis that's put on it (like saying guns kill people). If we lived in a society where wealth couldn't translate into power money wouldn't be an issue at all. I like the idea of labor notes or other alternatives, but they are just as likely to be manipulated and money is the only guarantee of fairness. In an ideal system, it would be much easier to maintain the integrity of power than come up with an entirely new functional reward system.

 

@sludgefuck : I see you point, but one question remains : how would you make a lets say "system" (society, however you like it) in which money wouldn't make power. It wouldn't in common life, in our life. But there will be coruption, and power (much more than in bartering ! ). Ok, maybe this is pesimistic question, but anarchy won't be easy to make (if ever) and it will be harder to live in it, and keep it peacful.

 

No property
No monopolies
No politicians
No TV

When anarchy is put in place it already starts to limit the possibilities and extent of greed and corruption. The problem with anarchy is that it's too utopian. It begins to lose more and more practicality when it's applied to the scale of the problem we're currently facing. I advocate anarchist ideals in an open, much reformed system of government than flat out anarchy.

 

That still doesn't mean that there won't be crimes. Crimes made becouse of money. How long will it take for people to adjust to anarchy ? Maybe too long. And in that time, they will be still manipulated with money, power. As someone already said on this forum, we should take down 90% of human population to achive anarchy as in full meaning of the word. If there was NO money, we could adjust much faster to our new lives. Many people will find it very good becouse there's no money, which nowdays is simbol of classes. So the poor and the mid-ones will now feel free. I'm just talking about human mentality, about our own. About human nature, not about facts. There would be no tv, politicians as you said, but you can't change man nor his nature.

 

I personally think that there would be some manipulation whether their is money or not ,
the main point of people not being able to manage their own life is the lack of culture .
I mean of course people can survive like when they were living in the caverns ,
but that is not what we're seeking is it ? People need more education ,
so they won't be deceived or manipulated easily .
Crime are not things you could totally wipe of , but with more culture , you can avoid the most stupid ones .
For the question of money , there's one point that is bugging me .
What is the point of having money in a system were there is no property right ?

 

crimes are not caused by money. Crimes are caused by poverty and personal irresponsibility. And you can't simplify it into "their lack of money is causing crime", it boils down to people being unable to provide for themselves which turns to desperation. If necessities were provided, there wouldn't be any need for poverty based crimes. Anything outside of that is something even in a utopia you wouldn't be able to control.

It's not about adjustment. The people need to WANT IT for it to even be put into place, and for that to happen they need to realize the benefits our alternative provides. That's why I push more for reform than anarchy. Anarchism just isn't simply functional at the moment, and if it's going to be accomplished if at all we have to play their game and put our cause in a better position for it to take ground.

 

has anyone ever read The Pearl by John Steinbeck? it fits in well with the current discussions

 

off topic (becouse I couldn't think of an answer, but I will in the morning ) :
What kind of reform are you talking about ? If you think about changing the political leaders or somthing then that's bullshit, but I'll not comment until I know what are you talking about.

Also I find this question

[/quote]

very interesting.