Yes, and about nature, and about the “free” things it supposedly gives you - except Nature doesn’t ‘give’ us anything, it just exists. And if we want to get useful things from it, it’s usually not free, we have to pay with our labour and time - and money is just the capitalist proxy for labour and time that enables people to have specialised jobs while still getting all the different types of things people need. Alternate systems could distribute the resources more equitably, but it would still require time and labour to extract it from Nature.
So ‘pay’ with labour, no one is arguing against that here. Do you think the housing this person is standing in formed naturally or that they have an issue with working? The issues they are talking about are money and ownership of resources.
Money (and capitalism) is a terrible way to abstract labour value, and as we can see it leads to hoarding by people who do no work.
We tried that before. It ends up in gangs, fiefdoms and kingships. You all act like we walked out of the forest with money and government already in place
Trading is the wrong paradigm already. Medical research is already publicly funded, too.
It’s basically councils all the way down. A consumer council decides that a power plant is needed. It declares the powers and limits that a group of delegates has in order to facilitate the building of the plant. This includes the request for/acquisition of the necessary materials and needed workforce.
A peasant in the 1500s wouldn’t ever have been able to predict how capitalism would work out in the end. How am I supposed to explain in a detailed manner how production would work in a society that has superceeded capitalism?
If you want to read further, there are two recommendations:
Money at its most simplest it’s just a representation of labour to facilitate trade. Hell, depending on how you define “money”, there’s a good chance the quote source uses it happily too.
Your gripe appears to be with capitalism, and maybe fiat currency.
Yes, and about nature, and about the “free” things it supposedly gives you - except Nature doesn’t ‘give’ us anything, it just exists. And if we want to get useful things from it, it’s usually not free, we have to pay with our labour and time - and money is just the capitalist proxy for labour and time that enables people to have specialised jobs while still getting all the different types of things people need. Alternate systems could distribute the resources more equitably, but it would still require time and labour to extract it from Nature.
So ‘pay’ with labour, no one is arguing against that here. Do you think the housing this person is standing in formed naturally or that they have an issue with working? The issues they are talking about are money and ownership of resources.
Money (and capitalism) is a terrible way to abstract labour value, and as we can see it leads to hoarding by people who do no work.
Genuine question: how would you replace money in a complex society? Exchanging favors and services works only on a very small scale.
Mutual cooperation as seen in anarchism.
This is a fantasy.
We tried that before. It ends up in gangs, fiefdoms and kingships. You all act like we walked out of the forest with money and government already in place
All the rules are written in blood.
Walk me trough a simple chain of trades that results in the building of a power plant. An automobile. Medical research.
Trading is the wrong paradigm already. Medical research is already publicly funded, too.
It’s basically councils all the way down. A consumer council decides that a power plant is needed. It declares the powers and limits that a group of delegates has in order to facilitate the building of the plant. This includes the request for/acquisition of the necessary materials and needed workforce.
And if people don’t want to build a power plant? Does your council beat them until they do?
If they don’t want to build a power plant, why would they decide to build one? The council is made up of the people.
(You’re kind of describing capitalism, btw)
So what are you going to give the people who build the power plant? Who will give them resources? How much?
Counter question. Care to explain how this would work on global scale? For instance, how would travelling for leisure work?
How what would work on a global scale?
A peasant in the 1500s wouldn’t ever have been able to predict how capitalism would work out in the end. How am I supposed to explain in a detailed manner how production would work in a society that has superceeded capitalism?
If you want to read further, there are two recommendations:
About travel: What exactly do you mean? You would simply travel. It’s even easier without borders.
Money at its most simplest it’s just a representation of labour to facilitate trade. Hell, depending on how you define “money”, there’s a good chance the quote source uses it happily too.
Your gripe appears to be with capitalism, and maybe fiat currency.
Yeah… and the quote says “nature doesn’t trade”.