[MD] A society without money

[Ham Priday]

On 10/11 Andre wrote --


> Imagine all patterns of value the way they are at the moment
> but now without money as a social benefit. What will be different?
> There is no financial incentive/ necessity to do anything...not even
> financial consequences attached to not doing anything.
> Anything and everything is all of a sudden possible for many people.
> The question "Why" am I doing what I am doing becomes important.
> (along the lines of the fictitional character in ZMM: our early
> school drop-out, who works him/herself up from unskilled to
> semi-skilled to skilled to perhaps an academic career).
> Quite a number of people will continue doing what they are doing
> because they like it. They like their work because through it they
> can express themselves. Other people will now have access to
> goods and services previously inaccessable because they are not
> quite happy with what they are doing and would like to change
> (eg some study at Uni level which at the moment costs 3000 euros
>/ half year). They do this because they see and feel the necessity
> for this not only for themselves but also for "the greater good".
> People will be able to respond freely to their dharma and can
> now act on this.  It will be a different and dynamic place to work,
> live and be born into. People will care for the environment,
> themselves and others because not money but the principle of
> rta will be the guiding torch. People will naturally want to improve
> themselves because it is good.

In embracing the purported "benefits" of Marxist socialism you dismiss the 
value of man's contribution to society.  This is a utopian pipedream.  It 
assumes that the production of goods and services will be sustained by 
people "liking what they do", while those who "are not happy doing" reap the 
same benefits.  Have you not read Orwell's 'Animal Farm' or the tale of "The 
Little Red Hen"?  If given  a comfortable life-style with the option of 
working or not working, how many do you think will choose the former?  And 
if every person has the same value, regardless of his/her contribution, what 
incentive does anybody have to pursue an education and learn productive 
skills?

Like it or not, the measure of a man's worth is what he achieves, not how he 
"expresses himself" or how he "responds to his dharma".  In civilized 
society, the value of one's efforts and contributions must have some medium 
of exchange, which is either bartering in the trade of goods, gold or 
monetary currency, or dependence on the State for subsistence.  Modern 
civilization would not have been feasible without a standard of exchange and 
credit by which individuals "can have access" to goods and services.  There 
is a price to be paid for power, comfort and freedom, and that price is 
human effort and the achievements that accrue from it.

Life is a struggle for all creatures, and only the fittest survive and 
flourish.  The disparity of wealth is as fundamental to a collective human 
system as Darwin's law of natural selection.  In a civilized society the 
rewards of industry are meted out to the industrious.  The ideal society 
would be a meritocracy where one's "marketable value" would be a direct 
measure of one's efforts and contributions.  To say that monetary inducement 
is not necessary for self-improvement, care of the environment, and the 
advancement of society is a naive assertion.  What you are advocating is the 
socialist ideology of redistributed wealth which Marx postulated as "From 
each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  As we have 
seen from history, this kills incentive, fosters a dependent underclass, and 
leads to fascist statism at the expense of individual liberty.

Regards,
Ham