Here Is How You Create Lasting Social Equality In Society

There's nothing complex about it. The ceaseless historical arguments that there is merely represent fallacies typically referred to in modern terms as being blinded by (bogus) science. All sorts of weird and wonderful reasons are offered by those in power as to why true social equality is unattainable, but the reality is that this is flatly untrue. Social equality is achieved with just one change.

You abandon the use of money. Not just cash -- everything. No credits, no debits, no cheques, no invoices, no bills, no IOUs, no nothing. You scrap it all and make life free. Life and everything in it. You want a car? Take one. A new TV? Take one. You go to work every day as usual, but you don't get paid at the end of the week, and everyone gets the stuff you make for free. Sounds like a bum deal, until you factor in the fact that everything is free so you don't need to get paid.

There are a few arguments against this which spring to mind, but I don't think they can be defended for long. Ultimately, this would work. Crime would be crippled overnight, and poverty would be completely and entirely eradicated. Unemployment would be gone, too. My suggestion is that you do not waste too much time attacking this notion, because it's pretty solid if we understand this new freedom only as a basic concept, with the details to be ironed out later.

So if it's that simple, why isn't it being done? That would be the pertinent question here.

This I believe, is unfortunately an answer which is genuinely complex if we intend to thoroughly understand it, but the basic grasp is simple enough: why would the people with the potential power to orchestrate this (our corporate and political leaders) ever do something so contrary to their own best interests? They have the power in society, so it is in their interests to keep it that way. Like I said, we can go on forever about the ins and outs of it, but ultimately, despite nearly every groundbreaking politician in American history running on some derivation of social change, this directly contradicts their own interests in retaining a system where they have power.

Thus, despite virtually everyone being quite happy to ignore it, there does appear to be a demonstrable inverse square law in society stipulating that, the more power an individual acquires, the less incentive he or she has to want to make the system fairer for other people.

Any thoughts?

 

This is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

 

I note you took precisely zero time explaining why, which is generally a good indication that you aren't arguing from a point of logic or reason. What precisely is so stupid about eradicating poverty, crime and unemployment overnight?

 

That would require an enlightened society and species which understood that life is for joy, contribution, learning, exploration, and freedom for all. Humans are far too psychologically awry for that to become a reality any time soon.

 

Oh, I agree. But again, I think that can be attributed to the ceaseless indoctrination into the principles of capitalist consumerism which our society is bombarded with. I do not believe that people would necessarily hold the same values were it not for capitalism's influence in the first place. I think capitalism is something society has been forced to adapt into by the selfish and persistent actions of small group of people.

 

I wish I could like this twice.

Sure. I will go work out on the sea so some guy sitting around taking things all day can live much more comfortably then me.

This is even worse then communism. This is just a call for massive looting.

 

How crazy it is that you should have to provide yourself with your own living by trading with people who are doing the same. The horror! So much easier to steal huh? Crazy. Why would a farmer break his back when he can just take whatever the hell he wants? Why would he grow more then he needs and make it available to you if it gives him nothing extra and is a big hassle to get it to the looters market?

If you like communism go live on a commune. "Put up or shut up" isnt just a clever motto, it is a political litmus test. If you aren't willing to subject yourself for what you want to impose you shouldn't do that thing. Treat others the way you want to be treated my hipster comrade.

 

It's stupid because we have decided since the DAWN OF CIVILIZATION to use money. It's a well-established concept with an entirely rational reason for existing that would handicap our society should it be eliminated. If you get rid of money, all crimes committed in the name of money would simply be committed against actual wealth instead of a placeholder for it. Poverty would still exist: there would be those with things, and those without things. You are so deep in this society of money you can't even realize anymore that money doesn't cause poverty. Someone's lack of money simply means their stockpile of placeholders for their wealth is smaller, meaning that they in fact have less wealth. It is wealth that creates rich-poor distinctions, not the placeholder for said wealth so we can exchange value easily and stockpile it for later use, that makes no sense.

 

called communism

 

1. Resources are finite.
2. Why work/produce goods if there is no benefit other than having someone take it away who spends zero time working on anything?

In the end such a society only exists in the future when matter conversion is commonplace and energy is absolutely free to allow for that possibility.

 

Lol

So what's your plan when everyone decides they're just going to quit their job and take what they want?

- - - Updated - - -

I see you're a Star Trek fan.

 

My plan is to provide my beer tasting quality control services for free. I will let you suckers work in the auto plant and do all those dirty jobs Mike Rowe talks about.

 

Interesting, but what is to stop people from taking more than they deserve? Doesn't this just create the same problems of exploitation and abuse that capitalism creates.

 

Why do you only target capitalism? True, capitalism focuses on the greed of the individual, however, socialism does the EXACT same thing. That is why the federal government in the US has the Ben Barnanke printing press in the Fed. They give money to the rich, the poor, and internationally. Why? It is because they care so much about us? No, it is because they wish to have power and influence over us all.

For example, Obama cares no more about our health care than Hitler did when Nazi Germany mandated health insurance to their people. In fact, Hitler taxed to death the top 4% of wealth in Nazi Germany. It really did not generate that much revenue for them, however, it was highly popular and a great propaganda tool. People just love it when those above them are taken down a notch or two, and then given some of their money. Coveting is just the other side of greed and is no better. The people of Germany loved their nanny state and free handouts so much, they were willing to overcome their war wearing existence and overlook the greatest genocide of our time.

 

Check the 'money' thread at JREF for some plausible counter-arguments, particularly by 'Dinwar'. At some point, I will have to consider your proposal and see if I can make sense of what you say above.

 

It has been tried several times in the past. It has never worked out well. The main reason being that if there is no tangible reward for work people cease to do any more than is absolutely necessary for survival.

 

I think OP is in the right path , you can use work vouchers as money so nobody can hoard it and those who do not contribute ( lazy capitalists for example) are marginalized and starve to death . To separate ditch diggers from scientists you can give 1.5 hours per hour working time to the second.

 

Maybe one day money will be obsolete. I think that people will be just as likely to work for prestige, rank, opportunity, etc.

Besides, how does a multi-billionaire actually use that extra billion dollars? How does it benefit them? Does it increase their quality of life?

Success isn't all about money (at least for normal people), and I'd prefer to live in a world where everyone had opportunity rather than a super-capitalist world where a select few had a monopoly on opportunity.

 

Exchange tools will always be there but they don't have to be money , resources or knowledge can be traded as well .
We live in a world where money can buy anything and to bring a bit of Marxist theory in the more successful this system is the faster it undermines it's existence , we can never be sure what the next day will be but we can be sure that it won't be like the current.

 

Oh good, then we can have government bureaucrats tell us what we are worth! No need to ever work again! Bet you would be better off with who you know than what you can do.

 

Who's going to build those cars and tv,s your giving out for free and why would they?
Yep, there's a lot of wrinkles to iron out in your kindergarten theory.
Survival is a fact of life. Remove the need to survive and you'll soon find you perish.
Now have mommy get you one of those free ice creams.

 

Capitalism does not create problems of abuse and exploitation governments do.

 

So basically you have money in everything but name... And who's going to decide which job should be more valuable...

 

Good question .
Think which type of society would accept to eliminate virtual wealth , probably a society operating in direct democratic terms (of any kind) and definitely not an elitist or representative one . So there is your answer : people will decide the value in referendums according to their needs.

 

Hang on, are you saying that doesn't happen right now? What I am proposing is the precise opposite to what you just said, because nobody will be able to live more comfortably than anyone else, and everybody will have to contribute.

I politely suggest that you learn to understand an argument before you attempt to criticise it. You are criticising the present system, not my idea.