Money is an illusion to hide the fact that you're basically a slave to our current system.
Now this might sound crazy, but to me at least makes perfect sense. Prove me otherwise if you can.
Our society's valuation about humans is very highly based on the fact that we're supposed to work, otherwise we are valueless to the society. Well this way of thinking might have worked in the past, when everyone still had to work for the society to develop and maintain itself. Nowadays it is not necessary for every single human to work for a society to work. It has been proven in the time that i have been alive, that our society can provide enough money for basic necessities needed for life and it will have a little to no impact in the overall health of our society. We are the most civilized race of beings that we know of. How is it that the definition of civilized is "the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced" doesn't make sense when you actually think about it. If what i'm about to assume based on the information i've gathered can't be proven to me otherwise. It'd be the biggest scam of my life.
Money is an illusion.
Illusion because of the fact that the definition of slavery is "Slavery and enslavement are both the state and the condition of being a slave, who is someone forbidden to quit their service for an enslaver, and who is treated by the enslaver as their property Slavery typically involves the enslaved person being made to perform some form of work while also having their location or residence dictated by the enslaver." It makes perfect sense to think of working in a sufficiently advanced civilization being as not a necessity, but a choice, which would motivate you to make better choices to gain a benefit to yourself or others around you. On today's standards we're forced to work to sustain ourselves, even though our society could provide for you if they deem you beneficial enough for them to provide such assistance. If you try to be the best person you are and improve yourself to benefit those around you, because by benefitting others you will gain benefits from them aswell. Otherwise it would be extremely rude for that person to not try to benefit the one from which he gained benefits. Now you can do a favor and that is fine, but if you're only taking from others and not providing anything back. You've now became a weight to your society. Based on our current evaluation of human value, this does not mean that to sustain yourself you have to work. If your existence otherwise benefits those around you, you are still worth the benefits gained from our society just because your existence is a benefit in some way to our species. Nowadays we do not have a choice in this matter. You're deemed worthless to society if you can't for some reason or another work to sustain yourself. Even if you could still be beneficial to others in many ways, in some ways being way more beneficial than you doing a job that you hate causing you to hate your existence, which is one of the most important things a human should value in life, just because you're forced to based on our current standards of what we value in others and ourselves. Our current standards implies that a human has no other aspect in them, except work. In our current model of undestanding about what is beneficial for species advancement. This doesn't make sense based on the facts that i've provided in this post. Is money the only thing that is valuble to others about your existence? meaning that our purpose in life is to only live for others and to generate money to the society, because there is no other way of living respectably. Meaning that our existences only purpose is to generate money to others. This is the biggest realization i've had in a while. Even though as a person i'm in no way beneficial to humanity as a workforce, simply based on the fact that i'm pretty much bad at everything except thinking logically and i haven't found a job in which i could be a beneficial aspect. Being forced to work to sustain myself, even though i could be way more beneficial to the humanity if i tried my best to improve myself for the benefit of others and myself. I'd expect a decent human in our civilized community to value me in some way to see it beneficial to themselves to provide money for me to sustain myself. Even though i can't pay back the money i gained from you. Are you implying that my time and other actions which benefit you aren't worth the money to you. it is possible for you to obtain money. For some it is not possible. So why is it thought that a human, who is not compatible with our current work society is worthless as a human. This can only mean one thing. Money is the only thing that matters in life, which in my mind should not be a definition of good individual life. Rather a motivator to keep on existing.
If we aren't allowed to choose how we live our lives. Why is it ok for our species to expect that every individual should works as a slave to those who are in power, just to sustain themselves. Literally the definition of slavery if you think about it logically, based on our current beliefs in ethics and morals. If we aren't allowed to remove our existence via euthanasia or another way, why is it ok to think like this as a civilized species. We are forced to do something our whole lives, even though it could be more beneficial to the overall health of humanity to give value to things that actually matter in a good individual life. By providing better experiences to humans, you'll most likely gain more benefits to yourself.
Money is just numbers these days. Before our modern society had developed. We'd value others features, because they were beneficial to ourselves and to others around us. It'd be correct to assume that everyone should work to provide for itself and others when this was the only way to sustain yourself. As we have advanced as a species. This is hugely undervaluing for the individual based on our current ethics and morals. You're supposed to spend your most valuable resource in the world and the only one that actually should matter to people, which is your time. Your existence is the biggest advantage an individual could hope to have. For you to waste that potential doing something you hate, because you must, based on our current standards on how a human should behave in modern society, just because you have to live. Your life was never your choice and you're still forced to work for you to sustain your existence and this is based on our highly respected ethics and morals. It could be possible to sustain our species existence while making an individual experience better, which in fact would reflect itself back into the society making everything a little better for everyone living in this world.. Wouldn't it be wrong that in this case we wouldn't change our perspective and ideology into the better one if it's benefit could be massive?
Our society's valuation about humans is very highly based on the fact that we're supposed to work, otherwise we are valueless to the society. Well this way of thinking might have worked in the past, when everyone still had to work for the society to develop and maintain itself. Nowadays it is not necessary for every single human to work for a society to work. It has been proven in the time that i have been alive, that our society can provide enough money for basic necessities needed for life and it will have a little to no impact in the overall health of our society. We are the most civilized race of beings that we know of. How is it that the definition of civilized is "the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced" doesn't make sense when you actually think about it. If what i'm about to assume based on the information i've gathered can't be proven to me otherwise. It'd be the biggest scam of my life.
Money is an illusion.
Illusion because of the fact that the definition of slavery is "Slavery and enslavement are both the state and the condition of being a slave, who is someone forbidden to quit their service for an enslaver, and who is treated by the enslaver as their property Slavery typically involves the enslaved person being made to perform some form of work while also having their location or residence dictated by the enslaver." It makes perfect sense to think of working in a sufficiently advanced civilization being as not a necessity, but a choice, which would motivate you to make better choices to gain a benefit to yourself or others around you. On today's standards we're forced to work to sustain ourselves, even though our society could provide for you if they deem you beneficial enough for them to provide such assistance. If you try to be the best person you are and improve yourself to benefit those around you, because by benefitting others you will gain benefits from them aswell. Otherwise it would be extremely rude for that person to not try to benefit the one from which he gained benefits. Now you can do a favor and that is fine, but if you're only taking from others and not providing anything back. You've now became a weight to your society. Based on our current evaluation of human value, this does not mean that to sustain yourself you have to work. If your existence otherwise benefits those around you, you are still worth the benefits gained from our society just because your existence is a benefit in some way to our species. Nowadays we do not have a choice in this matter. You're deemed worthless to society if you can't for some reason or another work to sustain yourself. Even if you could still be beneficial to others in many ways, in some ways being way more beneficial than you doing a job that you hate causing you to hate your existence, which is one of the most important things a human should value in life, just because you're forced to based on our current standards of what we value in others and ourselves. Our current standards implies that a human has no other aspect in them, except work. In our current model of undestanding about what is beneficial for species advancement. This doesn't make sense based on the facts that i've provided in this post. Is money the only thing that is valuble to others about your existence? meaning that our purpose in life is to only live for others and to generate money to the society, because there is no other way of living respectably. Meaning that our existences only purpose is to generate money to others. This is the biggest realization i've had in a while. Even though as a person i'm in no way beneficial to humanity as a workforce, simply based on the fact that i'm pretty much bad at everything except thinking logically and i haven't found a job in which i could be a beneficial aspect. Being forced to work to sustain myself, even though i could be way more beneficial to the humanity if i tried my best to improve myself for the benefit of others and myself. I'd expect a decent human in our civilized community to value me in some way to see it beneficial to themselves to provide money for me to sustain myself. Even though i can't pay back the money i gained from you. Are you implying that my time and other actions which benefit you aren't worth the money to you. it is possible for you to obtain money. For some it is not possible. So why is it thought that a human, who is not compatible with our current work society is worthless as a human. This can only mean one thing. Money is the only thing that matters in life, which in my mind should not be a definition of good individual life. Rather a motivator to keep on existing.
If we aren't allowed to choose how we live our lives. Why is it ok for our species to expect that every individual should works as a slave to those who are in power, just to sustain themselves. Literally the definition of slavery if you think about it logically, based on our current beliefs in ethics and morals. If we aren't allowed to remove our existence via euthanasia or another way, why is it ok to think like this as a civilized species. We are forced to do something our whole lives, even though it could be more beneficial to the overall health of humanity to give value to things that actually matter in a good individual life. By providing better experiences to humans, you'll most likely gain more benefits to yourself.
Money is just numbers these days. Before our modern society had developed. We'd value others features, because they were beneficial to ourselves and to others around us. It'd be correct to assume that everyone should work to provide for itself and others when this was the only way to sustain yourself. As we have advanced as a species. This is hugely undervaluing for the individual based on our current ethics and morals. You're supposed to spend your most valuable resource in the world and the only one that actually should matter to people, which is your time. Your existence is the biggest advantage an individual could hope to have. For you to waste that potential doing something you hate, because you must, based on our current standards on how a human should behave in modern society, just because you have to live. Your life was never your choice and you're still forced to work for you to sustain your existence and this is based on our highly respected ethics and morals. It could be possible to sustain our species existence while making an individual experience better, which in fact would reflect itself back into the society making everything a little better for everyone living in this world.. Wouldn't it be wrong that in this case we wouldn't change our perspective and ideology into the better one if it's benefit could be massive?
Comments (85)
Capitalism has been called 'wage slavery' since the 19th century.
I'm talking about a fact, which would break the world and our undestanding as we know it.
If true is actually true. One could call such a thing "Absolute truth". Meaning that my way of thinking logically would be the most optimal way of thinking when it comes to logic.
Humans, like all living organisms, have to procure food, water, and other resources to live. That's what we mean when we say "work." Does that make us slaves or just living creatures living like all the rest?
I really cant make heads or tails of any of this either.
Your understanding with our current knowledge about logic fails. This means that you simply can't comprehend the fact that i exist, just because you were programmed to think that way.
Are you OK buddy?
This is obviously true. I like money because the the nice people at Walmart give me stuff in exchange for it, and they like it because other people give them stuff for it and so on. We call things like this "a social construct" rather than an illusion, because our valuing gives it real value, and one cannot manage without it these days. Economists call it "confidence", and when confidence is lacking, value is lost and inflation occurs.
Quoting Yozhura
This is not quite true, and there is a big difference between the wage-slave and the historic slave. Here are a couple for you to consider: wage-slaves are not beaten or tortured, and if they escape, they are not chased and recaptured and brought back by force: if they choose to starve themselves, they are not force-fed.
However, depending on where you live in the world, things can still be dire. It is the measure of a civilised society that we do provide for and look after those who cannot work for whatever reason. If this does not happen where you live, then your first job should be to make it happen.
However, there is no reason why society should deliver food to folks who simply cannot be bothered to lend a hand. Our cooperation multiplies our efforts to an abundance unthinkable for an individual. We are both using the internet and the labour of unknown workers that produce our devices, and thus we incur a debt (a real debt of gratitude) to others.
Quoting Yozhura
It isn't. Divest yourself immediately of everything made by these slaves, and go forth moneyless and jobless to live a free life. (Perhaps hang on to a pair of pants until you have time to fashion a flint so as to kill an animal and make your own leather trousers.)
Do you value the lives of others or do you mean 'value' as in what you can exchange for it?
Just a question of interest on my part. Are you for or against the idea of a UBI (universal basic income) for all as being trialed in a few projects now.
Anything we value becomes our master and we its slave. On some occasions, we're willing to enter into such a relationship (healthy up to a point) and at times we're not (toxic).
Do you think money or its like as the main means of controlling exchange cannot be improved upon?
I have no clue. I'm not so well-versed in economics.
For. I can even make an economic argument for it , though with the caveat that when one changes society in one way it can have all sorts unforeseen consequences. It goes something like this:
The human need is for security in relation to basics - food, shelter, and protection against marauders. These days, we spend such an inordinate amount of our economic activity on security against others, that it would be more cost effective to deprive the world of desperate people, instead of stockpiling weaponry, and building ever higher walls and stronger locks. If everyone had enough to eat, somewhere to live, and access to entertainment and perhaps cheap travel, along with already available education and health services, the attractions of robbery, piracy, and so on would be vastly reduced.
We can well afford layabouts, much easier than we can afford vandals and robbers. But one effect is that workers would be harder to exploit, if they had an alternative.
My local scheme: https://gov.wales/wales-pilots-basic-income-scheme
Fair enough:
What do you think of the following, based on the concept of the money trick:
[b]Owen starts to play a game
Owen represents the capitalist class so he claims the bread, the pennies and the knives all belong to him. He casts his friends as the working class, and generously employs them to use the knives to turn the bread into little squares, to represent the necessities of life. He pays them a penny each for a weeks work, which is to produce three little squares.
The workers are hungry. They each buy one square from Owen, with the penny they earned. They eat the bread, and finish the week with nothing. Owen ends the week with the pennies, and more bread squares than he can eat. This is repeated, until Owen decides to take the pocketknives back and close down production, blaming foreigners for the situation.
And just like that the working class become destitute. They are stuck so they try marching, then begging. When Owen allows them a crumb of charity they glorify his kindness and generosity.[/b]
Very difficult, because you already have said that "to you it makes perfect sense". How could anybody then alter your thinking? Really? Are you open to other ideas than yours? Just a question.
Quoting Yozhura
It has always been, what else would be something that is a) a medium of exchange b) a unit of account and c) a store of value. All of those are quite imaginary, basically advance agreements in our society that humans have built. And it isn't a tool for slavery, as you might think. Debt can be slavery, but it's also the way to become rich.
Quoting Yozhura
Could it, really? If nobody would work and do anything, likely then we'd die quite quickly.
Anyway, just few comments, then it's hard to follow your argument.
I so hope your viewpoint in this area reaches 'vast majority' status asap.
It would be such an enormous step forwards in creating a positive human life experience imo.
I agree that it UBI will not be completely problem free but it would change much more for the better than it would for the worse in my opinion.
I don't think Yozhura can answer you as according to their profile info, they have been banned.
Hopefully we can still get a good discussion. Money is an interesting phenomenon in our society.
Yeah I am familiar with the Welsh trial. What a good beginning for those young people just coming out of the care system.
Quoting ssu
I thought we could possibly refocus the thread onto a discussion on the money trick and UBI.
Do you really think that something like UBI would mean that most people would choose not to work or take part in activities which would help the society they live in and benefit from?
What would you do if you were as rich as Bill Gates?
Let's say you have made sure everyone you care about has been made economically secure.
You have spent a few years sating your private fantasies.
You can buy a rolls royce in the same way as I can buy a small packet of peanuts, so for you, purchasing a Rolls Royce or sleeping with a beautiful woman etc is very trivial.
How would you spend your time and what would your purpose be?
I think it comes with the territory and I would never compare the rich (especially the super rich) to ar**holes as that particular system is a very vital and effective waste disposal system. The rich are a waste that certainly requires some kind of effective disposal short of physical termination.
Did the money trick example not exemplify for you that the status, power and wealth of the rich is gained by their sycophantic manipulation of the labour of the majority poor?
Bill Gates so called 'charity work,' is explained by: Quoting universeness
If he is a genuine philantrophist ln the way I think Joseph Rowntree or Paul Newman was, then fine, to me, that's the absolute least they could do and this should be expected and not praised because to do otherwise would make them vile.
I am more interested in what you would do in his position but you seem reluctant to answer, so I am at a loss as to why you seem to covet being rich so much. I know you enjoy playing the stealth game and if you wont engage in discussion of how you would 'be' as a rich man in today's world, then we have very little to build upon. I think there are many many people who are not economically rich but have experienced lives as happy, useful, fulfilled and significant as any rich or rich and famous person ever has, in all of time.
First of all, gracias for attempting to make me see the light. I feel capitalism is all about competition and it models evolution in my humble opinion. The spirit of competition can be summed up in may the "best" man win. Unfortunately, ethics is sidelined or demoted (re all is fair in love & war) and thus the disgruntlement rife among the people.
I concur that just like how evolution can be improved upon, capitalism can be too. How exactly is beyond me, but there is a clear & present danger which you've tried to bring into the light - the time bomb is ticking!
For me, your response might seem very reasonable to many. The rich are indeed a product of the 'law of the jungle rules' and this is one of the main reasons why the majority of the worlds population continue to suffer under that exact uncivilised, savage law. It's a bad law which can, should and must be broken and destroyed. My only argument with you is that you present this law as an excuse for the behaviour of the rich instead of using it to condemn them for living by jungle instincts rather than by a sense of human civilised justice. In the USA does the words "all men are created equal" (as part of a sentence in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 at the beginning of the American Revolution) not gnaw against the 'law of the jungle' approach applied by the American rich?
The fact that they do not care that it does deserves your strongest condemnation towards them, does it not? So why do you want to be one of them? Are you sure you want to be rich? Are you sure you would not be content with an economic status that meant you could take the basic means of survival for granted from cradle to grave?
Not exactly 'your strongest condemnation towards them' or a reason why you want to be one of them. You also suggest 'I seem to be grumbling,' in a way that in my opinion attempts to trivialise my complaints against the nefarious rich. As I typed, you appear to be a person who works within the bounds of reasoned thought but yet you would choose to be one of the rich. Under the law of the jungle rules, do you want to be one of the lions in charge of the entire pride? Would you like the fate of all the other male lions to be under your whim and tolerance? Would you like access to any lioness in the pride? Is that your driver under all that reasonable typing?
It's ok :joke: you don't need to answer that! I am only really typing about all people who are wannabee's
I will type about me rather than focus too much about my (probably inaccurate) impressions of you.
I don't want to be rich but I would like to have the power to stop anyone from becoming too rich and too powerful, including me. Rather paradoxical on the power issue I suppose. to become so powerful that I can prevent anyone including myself from becoming omnipotent.
Money as an exchange value binds one to the monetary system in which money is exchanged for labor and goods. Labor produces goods, goods are consumed to produce labor. Its a closed system, in the sense that there are economic cycles which perpetuate its own existence. I wouldn't call it an illusion, (the monetary economic system) it is a game perhaps.
We could resort to a money-less system or in fact consume and labor without the use of an exchange value. Just as we could have governments without representatives or a sense of the world without words.
There's barter systems, gift systems, and something call an RBE (resource based economy). I think they could all operate efficiently.
In an RBE the idea is to automate or industrialize all repetitive production/work. This feature of the economy is more of an inevitability than a choice. Automated production is increasing exponentially. Before we can really economize without cash, we need to have a UBI, paid for by the profits gained by the owners of automation. So you can see that there is just this same cycle of production and labor, just with a couple of tweaks increased automation, decreased labor costs, and social security (UBI).
Having an UBI I think would be a nice and almost dogged transition to an RBE.
Most? Of course not. But it is simply a wealth transfer. And those who have no other income, it works just like an unemployment benefit. And also, important, labour is very organized hence the labour unions have a lot of say. A fixed UBI for everybody would be inflationary, for the vast lower taxes might be better.
In Finland we do have a Nordic style welfare-state, and the negative effect of it is that part of the society do become marginalized. If you don't have a home, you are subsidies from the city/community that you get a small flat (or in the country side, a small house). Unemployment is perpetual, until you die. So you can live on these meager welfare and if you can find a low income job, a cleaner or an assistants position in a hospital or pensioner's home, you really have to judge which option, taking the job or not, will you take. Your basic income will only marginally go up and then you have to work 9 to 5 or more.
Some simply give up: once they have never worked earlier, they will not get hired. And that's that. There are families in Finland where the children have not worked and where the parents have not worked. It's a huge stigma and once met these dropped out teenagers, I couldn't believe the level of apathy it takes you into. But this is only the bad side.
The good side is that there's no homeless people in the streets. The beggars that you find in the city center (if you find them) are from other EU countries, likely from Romania, not Finns. Those who are criminals, likely really want to be criminals. The era of old style homeless men (some WW2 veterans back in the age) are not so frequent in parks at summer.
Hence when you have perpetual unemployment benefits and housing is a right, it really questions why UBI?
Perhaps that is true, but it is also unavoidable. At the top of the pyramid, anarchy reigns, and people who excel at accumulating wealth and/or power almost always exhibit disagreeable, competitive traits. Hence the law of the jungle.
The question is whether we want these uncivilized savages to compete over wealth or over actual coercive power.
The more we transfer power to government, the more the emphasis will be on uncivilized savages (politicians) competing over the coercive power of government.
The more we transfer power away from government, the more the emphasis will be on the uncivilized savages ('the rich') competing over wealth.
When it comes down to it, there aren't many more flavors and it's a shit sandwich either way.
Among many critics of capitalism there seems to be the idea that somehow the uncivilized savages will behave in a more agreeable fashion when they're given power over government, but I fear the opposite is true. I think pretty much without exception, powerful governments have plunged into depravity.
Yes, as you suggest, this is already happening technically, the problem is that such automated systems are still owned by a nefarious few.
Quoting Josh Alfred
:clap: But how do you marry this viewpoint with your profile statement:
Politically, I am most immediately a social-capitalist. I accept free market competition while pointedly accepting that there need to be regulations over wealth, and investments of the federal banking system into things like infrastructure. See: Mixed Economics.
If you advocate for a resource based economy then would you still suggest that only a few rich should own the automated infrastructure? Can you offer some regulation idea's you would impose on wealth and investment.
Very interesting! Do you think the welfare offered should not be so meagre then? Why is unemployment perpetual until you die? Is it simply because of only been offered menial jobs which wont increase your income much? Is free training/education not also available so you can do a job you want to do?
Quoting ssu
Yep, sound like there are still problems to be solved but Finland seems so much ahead of the UK welfare system!
Quoting ssu
Well done Finland!
Quoting ssu
Not so good Finland!
Quoting ssu
Do you think the criminal mindset is born or created by experience or a bit of both?
Quoting ssu
Traumatised people need the most help and care to recover, if they even can recover from such hell as war.
Quoting ssu
The Finish system seems much better than the UK one but it seems to me from your description of it, shows that its not FINnISHed yet (sorry! :blush: ), perhaps a UBI which is enough for an individual to live 'in comfort,' is needed. Is your health service free at point of delivery?
If you advocate for a resource based economy then would you still suggest that only a few rich should own the automated infrastructure? Can you offer some regulation idea's you would impose on wealth and investment.
Some one is going to own of the automation, rather it be of higher class, or some collective insured ownership. In either case the mind-set behind both is simple enough. A UBI tax seems to logically follow from either case.
There's plenty on youtube about the RBE system:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGHqghNqwSM
Do you really think that the human race is powerless to change this?
Quoting Tzeentch
I posted this on quora! I would be interested in your opinion of the idea.
[b]Party politics and the first past the post voting system is not working for the benefit of the majority in the UK.
There is the old posit that in certain constituencies, if you selected a donkey to stand in the election, it would be voted in as long as it had the correct party rosette affixed to it.
650 seats in the house of commons. How about this:
1. Each constituency has an official political debating group that anyone in the constituency can join. The constituency group can have as many district branches as are required. No political parties would be allowed. You become nominated for local or national elections through your branch and constituency group. Each candidate would stand as an independent.
2. The 650 elected to the house of commons for a 4 year term would all be independents. The first job would be for the 650 to elect a prime minister and a deputy PM from their number. These two would then choose their cabinet from the remaining 648 based on their profiles, personal discussions, personal preference etc. The cabinet, Pm and deputy would then invite others to become the government backbench until they numbered 326. The official opposition would then be made up of the remaining 324 MPs.
3. No house of lords but a citizens house made of elected members. This second house would be made up of stakeholder groups of equal size. Group names such as science, military, police, educators, construction industry, business, etc. This house would function much like the house of lords does now but with much more ability to apply checks and balances to the house of commons.
Would this system not offer a better way to do politics in the UK?[/b]
Why not 'owned by the people?' I try never to use the word 'class' as a label to categorise people, it seems almost like a caste system to me.
Quoting Josh Alfred
Yeah, and some are even worth watching, but I prefer to read about your personal interpretations.
Here is a nice vision of the future and its only 4 mins long:
Social unrest is caused by economic disparity more than absolute levels of poverty. Absolute wealth today in terms of available resources is greater for those we consider in poverty than 100 years ago. That is. I have more in my home today than nobility had in years past.
I'm not opposed to providing for those without, but I have no illusions that this base level existence we're creating will become content. You still have a underclass in your envisioned society. It's just a bit higher an underclass than what currently exists
Perhaps in functionality or technicality but not in exchange value, not if converted to currency compared to the exchange power any noble had during any era you care to mention.
Quoting Hanover
I think this would only be in a similar sense that a wine buff might refer to those who drink wine as a weekend plonk. If you can take the basic means of survival for granted and live a 'comfortable' lifestyle then who cares if some di**head calls you part of an underclass as they think you have no class! As I typed before, I think we should stop using the word 'class' to categorise people.
If you mean the fact that the disagreeable, competitive, competent types get to rule, yes, I think mankind is unable to change that except if it somehow this personality type would cease to exist.
They excel by nature at accruing wealth and/or power, and it seems impossible to prevent this from happening because to do so would mean one has to employ coercive measures, and that power then has to be wielded by someone - who is going to do that? The exact same type of person.
Quoting universeness
I'm not that familiar with the UK system, but reading your idea I like the idea of not allowing political parties. At the same time I'm not sure if the formation of political parties is another natural tendency within human politics, which will just find another outlet in an unforeseen way.
And while this isn't a criticism of your idea, I would note the following:
- No system is immune to corruption. It seems even systems that disemminate power, feature short terms and plenty of checks & balances, etc. eventually fall to corruption.
- Decentralized systems are, in my eyes, more legitimate. However, they also tend to be less efficient. When a system comes under pressure of crises, often the drive towards greater efficiency trumps all else, and power is allowed to centralize. That centralization concentrates power in the hands of fewer people, and will speed up the process of corruption. Additionally, taking this power away again rarely happens, not in the least because those in power will try to consolidate.
It seems to me that mankind is a slave to power dynamics, and that the best we can hope for is to delay the inevitable.
I disagree. I think that the future effects of global social media and its resultant global organisation of the masses will drown out such small minority self-serving individuals.
Quoting Tzeentch
There is a great deal of historical evidence to back-up what you type here but I don't think it will be ever thus. Social justice and an acceptable level of economic parity has been fought for since we left the wilds. Progress has been slow, but there has been clear, undeniable progress and 2022 years or even 10,000 years of tears is only a few seconds in the cosmic calendar.
Quoting Tzeentch
:up:
Quoting Tzeentch
I cant claim the 'no more political parties' as my idea as it has been around for a long time but I certainly do support it. People are corruptible and people can corrupt systems. I refuse to believe that problem has no solution.
Quoting Tzeentch
I actually support getting rid of all concepts of nationhood and I support world government. Perhaps the biggest hierarchy possible on the planet is the best way to go. Who will we compete with when we are united as one planet and one species? Especially if we have also got rid of money and party politics.
We would still need powerful checks & balances and strong local authority systems but we would also have a fully socially networked global population to keep the nefarious in check and as time goes on, more and more people are becoming educated in the methods the nefarious use and how they can be stopped
Well, it does feel terrible to be at the bottom of the food chain. However, it seems to be the way nature works - its gotten us this far hasn't it? Your own family tree is probably marked by many ruthless, brutish characters - you wouldn't be here otherwise, oui monsieur? I once said in another thread that I'm no longer "happy to be alive" for this reason.
In short, on the matter of survival (of one's genes), morality is a hindrance; that's how I explain this to myself anyway. It's in our nature to, well, "neutralize" competitors.
[quote=Agent Smith]Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program.[/quote]
Can you hear all the animals protest at your claim, especially the chickens!
Quoting Agent Smith
Well, the chickens are also still here and not extinct but they don't have the freedoms most humans do.
Quoting Agent Smith
That's a dark and rather depressing claim Mr Smith! I think the past also has a healthy number of loving, gentle, altruistic people who I can claim as ancestral in my family who are also the reason I am here now.
Quoting Agent Smith
It is so recorded in our law of the jungle heritage BUT we have also united tribes we have warred with, by such concepts as 'treaty,' 'marriage (joining bloodlines), surrender and then merging with the victors etc. Finding ways to unite and grow into nation sized groups. Perhaps just one main competitive style barrier to get over, nations merging into one planet!
Yeah, the christians call it The garden of Eden but just like the first matrix, its a fable. There has never been a perfect human world and I don't think there ever will be but we can create a much better human world than we have now. Help, by condemning in your strongest terms possible, the rich and powerful who still follow the law of the jungle policy!
Won't those just be bought and paid for by those same self-serving individuals, like most media is today?
Though, I think today we're seeing a challenge by more independent and critical news outlets. Lots of independent podcasters and people making their voice heard and gathering a following. It's a good trend. If it can withstand the powers that be remains to be soon, though.
It's worrying to me how quickly things like freedom of speech end up on the chopping block when it suits the powerful, and what worries me even more is how easily people accept it.
Quoting universeness
There has been some progress. That's fair enough.
Quoting universeness
Playing the advocate of the devil here; wouldn't world domination be the wet dream of any uncivilized savage?
Its very reasonable to raise such 'alarm flags.' You go on to suggest one or two examples of where such circumstances may be bypassed or avoided. I would like to see a national computing infrastructure owned by the public and monitored by the elected authorities. A public computer network (pcn), free of charge to all users, no adverts. There would be standard topics set up, 'politics,' 'Science,' 'philosophy,' 'sports,' psychology' etc. Any member of the public could start their own group on any topic and the rules would be similar or perhaps better than those available on typical discussion sites today. The government would not have full control over this system it would have joint control with an elected citizens group made up of stakeholder groups.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree. BUT I don't think anyone should have the freedom to incite violence or spread hatred and that can be a complicated one to enforce fairly, but we must always try our best to.
Quoting Tzeentch
Absolutely, there will always be such individuals and even some significant groups with such plans but I hope for a system which can identify them and stop them. It is the responsibility of us all to decide EXACTLY WHO the enemy is. WE MUST get that part right!
Well the important activity is to keep trying Mr Smith. I always liked Obama's call of 'yes we can!' I personally support the main tenets of socialism and humanism. I also like some of the ideas being put forward by those who talk about a resource based economy, such as @Josh Alfred I am a little suspicious of characters such as Jacque Fresco, having read some more details about his life based on watching this 8 minute clip some time ago:
I preferred this 18 mins one by Sue Everatt, even though she is connected to Jacque. My mind is not yet made up about Jacque as a benevolent force or not.
[quote=Deng Xiaoping]To get rich is glorious.[/quote]
In my humble opinion, under capitalism,
1. To get rich is ethical (equal opportunity).
2. To stay rich is unethical (you'll have to meddle in politics).
3. To get richer is unethical (ditto).
This is probably just the tip of the iceberg as regards the complexity of the problem of money tending to accumulate in the hands of the few at the cost of massive poverty and hand-to-mouth existence.
I agree totally, if your measure of 'rich' is a human right and is the measure of economic parity for all and I think your second and third criteria sound good to me but I don't think any capitalist would recognise or accept any of your typed criteria. Especially number 1, as interpreted by me. I think they would require your criteria altered to.
1, To get rich is ethical no matter how you achieve it and there must be a majority of poor, inferior undeserving unfortunates for the rich to compare themselves to.
2. To stay rich is ethical.
3. To get richer is even more ethical as the rich are chosen to be so or are the only ones who have the wits to become so. You think your gonna stop us? :lol:
So, should all us inferior, undeserving, unfortunates accept the dictates of the rich 'law of the jungle' predators or should we keep fighting against them?
Pecunia non olet. :snicker:
Quoting universeness
I'm not saying we should let injustice continue but I don't see an alternative; if there's one then it's communism OR capitalism and we seem to have opted for the latter. Perhaps my ignorance of economics & politics is showing.
If you get more as unemployed than working at McDonalds, who would work at McDonalds? It's not an awesome bonus on your CV. Or at least when your in your 20's. Why just hmmm... enjoy sports or discuss things on a Philosophy Forum than take those orders at the drive in?
Quoting universeness
Unemployment benefit is never taken away. Naturally they urge you to look for jobs, provide courses, but there's no penalties like being kicked out of the system. So basically, you'll get unemployement benefits until 65 years, and then you get state pension. Although they have, I guess, taken the American statistical gimmick that over certain period people aren't unemployed, they are just discouraged workers. As if those looking for jobs are just the ones unemployed.
Quoting universeness
In fact they experimented with UBI here in Finland. The results were a mixed bag, but not so hugely positive that UBI would be implemented in Finland. Here's an official video of the experiment results:
:lol: I always need an on-line translator when exchanging with you Mr Smith. Money does stink in every sense of the word, including the fact that it does have an actual odour.
Quoting Agent Smith
So why not socialism/humanism and a resource based economy?
People are so afeared of communism that they wouldn't touch these ideologies with a barge pole. It's kinda a slippery slope fallacy but they want to play it safe, the risks are just too high to take the gamble. Apparently suffering outside a gulag is better than suffering inside one. My two cents.
The free rider problem, among others. And the incentive problem.
If how much I do work (or not) doesn't show in my income, wealth position or status, why would anyone try harder? Especially when the other guy next to me doesn't do shit and gets the same wage.
It's great to get people to do something voluntarily for the collective, but to do everything for the collective is really hard, if not possible. With the experiments it has gotten twisted, corrupt and in the end the system has to be a totalitarian system in order to survive, because otherwise it wouldn't work.
I remember what Stephen Kotkin, who has written books about Stalin, noted that it's not that the Soviet Union just stumbled to the hands of Stalin, the whole system would likely had collapsed without an organizer like Stalin.
Surely such jobs will be automated in the future, automated drive or walkthroughs.
Quoting ssu
Sounds like good jobs to me. Train in sports to represent you community in friendly physical competitions. Train in philosophy and take part is on-line debate so you can contribute to teaching others about such important topics. why can these not be called jobs for which you are pain the UBI?
Quoting ssu
so perhaps we need to redefine what a job is. a job should be something you want to do that also contributes to supporting the community/country/planet. Working should be part of living, you should not simply have to work to live, or live to work.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, Kenya is trying a 12 years experiment but the money involved seems very small to me. The Welsh are giving those involved £1600 per month but I think they are going to tax their 'overall' monthly earnings so they may lose some benefit money they also get from the UK welfare state.
It seems to me that the positives suggested in the report summary you posted were quite important and substantial ones and based on only 560 euros a month! I hope a lot more movement is made in this direction in the future.
Do you personally want everything to be an automate drive or walkthrough?
I think I'd pay that few cents (and likely more) for the smile from the human waiter/waitress gives me when giving my coffee.
Quoting universeness
Oh God, you don't know how scary that sounds! Because, they'll likely try to do that... :grimace:
Contribute to the society... by being a nice person. That's all. Thank you for existing!!!
You should write the next book in the line of "1984" by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". The next dystopian nightmare we would gladly all read.
The American right has worked very hard to portray communism and socialism as 'reds under the beds,' even going so far as the embarrassing McCarthy witch hunts and the disaster of the Vietnam war.
I don't think these are such soiled words in America as they were but I don't deny that right wing politics in America remain terrified of socialism and communism.
The regimes ran and running in Russia, China, and places like North Korea have a lot more to do with totalitarian capitalism than they do with the true tenets of communism or socialism.
The politicians in Russia/ China etc are no different in power and wealth than the rich in America or Europe. There is almost no difference at all between a Russian Oligarch and an American millionaire/billionaire. The only difference is the Russians have a single crime boss to answer to called the premier (used to be called Tzar). The label is 'chairman' or president in China I think.
:smile: Does that mean you have enjoyed the discussion or......
You need some more small change there, buddy. The US leads the world in incarceration rates. Land of the Free, except...
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=incarceration+rates+by+country+per+capita&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
It's all maya (illusion). :up:
This is a concern I have heard many many times. How did humans manage to live any kind of life of value before money was invented as an exchange mechanism? Would you not pity the guy who decides to waste his/her life as an unthinking unchallenged useless purposeless couch potato? I Would!
Status will still very much exist. I for one will still admire the people I admire. Carl Sagan remains one of my hero's and that status has zero to do with any wealth he had or position he held.
Quoting ssu
I really don't follow the logic of this. Are you jumping to some historical examples such as the system ran, running in Russia or China? These are not and never have been socialist or humanist even through they may have soiled the labels. Socialism is a democratic system. Russia and China have never employed democracy in any significant way, even under Gorbachev (their best effort in my opinion.)
The word communism comes from common/commune/community are these also bad words?
I am not a great fan of the imagery of the word 'collective' either but 'working for the common good,' is surely a good pursuit and a good purpose to have. I think individual freedom is also essential as is the entrepreneurial spirit but does a well balanced person really need to become 'the king of the world' (as portrayed in some horror story such as Al Pacino did in Scarface?) An entrepreneur should be allowed to own a small business if they want to but not become a 'king of the world' by doing so.
True socialism has never been successfully established because the nefarious global rich have always been able to stop it because they know that its global growth tolls the complete end of totalitarianism/autocracy/plutocracy/aristocracy/monarchy/theocracy and such like.
Quoting ssu
I was no fan of Stalin, Trotsky or Lenin. None of them were socialists. All three were narcissists.
The Russian revolution got rid of the monarchy and resulted in most of the Russian people being able to move away from a peasant/serf style life. Industrialisation also played a big role as it did in France eventually. Their revolution ended up replacing a king and an aristocracy with an emperor and a plutocracy but eventually, the French people also moved away from peasantry and serfdom.
You can see the slow trudge towards a united planet and one race. It will come. Global socialism/humanism is what it has always been! INEVITABLE!
I was in Buxton for a mountaineering conference in 1985, and met a number of young Brit lads who had pooled their doles to rent houses and go climbing full time. They weren't representing communities - just playing in the mountains and on the cliffs. I didn't envy them - primarily because I wanted a life with more dimensions - rather I found their lifestyles unappealing. But that's on me , not them.
I become irritated when reading in a climbing forum arguments against carrying medical insurance. Why waste the money when you can start a Gofundme account and have others pay your bills?
It's a matter of accepting or avoiding responsibility for your own actions. Call me puritanical, I suppose.
I would support a UBI if it required some sort of contribution to the common good scaled to the recipient's capabilities. Giving away money, no.
Well it wouldn't bother me if takeaway food became such, as long as its quality was maintained! So it depends what you mean by everything.
Quoting ssu
So, you advocate for a smiling human female as you pick up you automated takeaway. Maybe some pretty girls would be willing to do that for a good quality UBI and the chance to encounter amazing guys like you and I. Maybe not however, we can only request it. At my age of 58 and with any good looks I once had fading fast, I would settle for a pretty robot with limited vision or what I would consider 'good programming.'
Quoting ssu
:lol: What worries you most in the future I am trying to paint for you? Where did I propose anything akin to Orwell's or Huxley's dystopias?
I am writing a book as it happens but its about a life after death, for a few only, not a chosen few only a few who have the correct nonbaryonic foetus.
absafragginlootly!
But this was just a stage for these boys, was it not? Even the hippies had to grow up. Well, most of them anyway. I dont mind if people want to go chasing rainbows for a while, let them, if the community they come from can afford to let them. Like you, chasing rainbows or climbing wouldn't do it for me full time but if you built your climbing skills to such a level that you could become one of the best at it then would that not add to the status of the community you came from? I would insist that every news program must deliver 50% positive reports as well as 50% negative reports about what's going on in the world. BALANCE! Tell me about the climbing skills some people are gaining as well as the story about the serial killer on the loose etc. Don't just deliver 100% bad news in every broadcast as that is not a true representation of the world we live in.
Quoting jgill
UBI is about the basic means of survival as a human right, not how to fund climbing expeditions or medical insurance for such activity, all health care should be free..
I agree that people should take responsibly for their own actions but how many people do you know who deliberately cause themselves to be hungry and homeless? Are you talking of those with psychological problems, addictions etc. Are you happy to let such people self-destruct?
If you equate I would support a UBI if it required some sort of contribution to the common good scaled to the recipient's capabilities. with something like 'From each according to their ability and too each according to their need' Then I broadly support this BUT I would not enforce anyone to do a job they did not want to do if such could be accommodated. I would prefer that people were allowed to do a job that they loved doing.
Quoting jgill
Money is bits of paper and metal coin. People need resources, not money.
Money is just a means of exchange, we can change that system all together by something like a resource based economy or give people enough numbers/credits in their account to LIVE! and obtain the resources they need to do so.
:grin:
For some, yes, for others it was the beginning of a lifestyle. Dirtbagging, on the other hand, was and is popular in the US and once again its advocates can go different directions with their lives. I've known some who never really departed that realm, even after improving their finances. And a few who were good friends became wealthy beyond reason because of their drive and intelligence. (The most spectacular being Yvon Chouinard, who, when we camped and climbed together, lived on fifty cents a day, while I lived on a dollar a day. He and his wife created Patagonia and are now billionaires.)
Quoting universeness
Of course not. I'm talking about those who are capable but do not supply goods, or services, or entertainment to society but want society to support them while they play. In an automated Utopia perhaps, but not today.
They had to barter. Simple as that. The society was totally different and nowhere near the advance system of our society.
Quoting universeness
Oh right... so a two hundred year old political ideology hasn't been just misunderstood or missused? Do you understand how much hubris is in this idea?
Quoting universeness
Really? Or do put Marxist-Leninism or Marxism not to be socialist? Interesting.
Quoting universeness
So you are talking about social democracy (or in the way they say in the US, democratic socialism)?
Well, I think there's a huge problem with that, just as is with the right-wing libertarians when they accept democracy. You see, in a democracy there will be people who oppose you. Hence in an democracy there will be both a left-wing and a right-wing, and the other simply won't fade out! And since a lot of people are OK with private capital, then socialism won't prevail. Just as in the right-wing libertarian democracy social democrats would feel totally fine to criticize the system.
Quoting universeness
Or basically having human interaction in your average daily life, yes. And do notice I said waiter / waitress.
Quoting universeness
?
Quoting universeness
When you redefine what is work, you redefine a lot in our lives.
Why is this so troublesome?
Basically there's this extremely stupid (and arrogant) idea of there not being work enough for everybody in the future. That because machines can do so much, there isn't enough for people to do, hence you will have this large idle underclass that has to be fed "tittytainment" to them or they can live all their lives in some virtual reality. Or something like it.
The idea is not only condescending, but show the arrogance and the hubris of those that believe in this. The society doesn't create such huge abundance of wealth that this would be possible. In fact we will likely see this Century peak human population, and then the demographic trend will be like in Japan. Or now in China, actually. Ageing and decreasing population is a real problem for our society, so the idea that there will be too many people and too few jobs simply isn't realistic. We can see this from history: the industrial revolution didn't create large hoards of unemployed agrarian workers roaming the land begging for food as machines had replaced their work on the fields. Computers didn't do this to typists and secretaries either.
The fact is that changes like we don't live in an agrarian society where the majority lives in the countryside and the cities are small. Change from substance farming to industrial farming has happened and that means there are fewer farmers, but the children of those farmers are just in new jobs. And people don't live in the countryside.
So when there won't be those "idle masses because of technology". Why is then redefining work so ominous?
Well, because when our leaders fuck things up and we end with high unemployment (thanks to stupid decisions), they will likely use that lie that the World has changed so much that we should redefine just what work means. If you can hide some percentage of the unemployed away with these kinds of redefinitions, they will gladly use that statistical trick to lie about how great things are and how they have tackled unemployment.
Not a term, I am familiar with but a quick internet search led me to think its similar to the term backpacking, which is very frugal living as you travel around the world by thumbing lifts and working for your passage costs.
Quoting jgill
Its interesting that you feel compelled to use words such as 'beyond reason,' when referring to such personal wealth. I agree, such examples as becoming a billionaire through making outdoor clothing is 'beyond reason,' and as such, should never be possible to achieve.
Quoting jgill
You are describing most of the children of the rich and many of the rich themselves. The workers manufacture and distribute the goods and provide the services and entertainment (so its their society that supports/maintains the rich). The rich owners quickly become little more that the conductors of the orchestra. Don't you think that the workers should get an equal share of all profits? I think we should sort out the imbalance between what owners and such people with titles like CEO or company director etc, earn first, before we worry about those who abuse basic benefits systems. It's like jailing all the junkies instead of going after the real problem of the kingpins who control drug manufacture and distribution.
So people can survive without the money trick, yes. We just need a modern system of exchange which works better than the barter system and is fair for all and provides a basic economic parity. I think the human race is smart enough to do that.
Quoting ssu
Socialism/humanism is a lot older than 200 years. Its been around since we came out of the wilds.
It is easy to understand and setup. The Epicurean commune system was an early respectable attempt at a humanist system but it was unable to defend itself against outside forces.
The servile revolts (the 1st led by Eunus, the 2nd by Salvius and Athenion and the 3rd by Spartacus), The Russian, French and Chinese revolutions, the English civil war, etc all started as socialist/humanist movements but true socialist are the first one targeted by the forces mustered against such movements.
The nefarious opportunists amongst your own rank and file often destroy the original purpose of historical attempts. So socialism/humanism has never got far enough to become fully established as a way of running a large civilisation. NOT YET anyway but as education reaches more and more people, socialist/humanist movements are not so easily usurped by outside forces or inner corruption. It therefore remains, as it has since our days in the wilds, INEVITABLE. The nefarious can only keep trying to do what they have always tried to do, DELAY IT.
Quoting ssu
Much of what Karl Marx wrote is socialism and humanism yes. Lenin sometimes spoke like a socialist but Lenin was a mass murderer who ended up personally owning 9 Rolls Royce cars. You must act like a socialist not merely talk like one. You must be judged on what you do not what you say you will do.
Quoting ssu
As I have already stated, the label socialism has be greatly soiled in the US by the capitalists because they are terrified of it, so any American description of the term will be dubious.
If socialists cannot convince a majority of the population of a society, through reasoned argument, that their tenets will benefit all and be a fair and equitable way to live then they should not gain power. If they do gain power then they must demonstrate that they can be trusted and that they will do what they said they will do and if they don't then they cannot continue to hold power and they must step down and if they don't willingly step down they are not socialist and they must be removed.
The democratic process is the core of true socialism.
Quoting ssu
What kind of life of isolation are you living? You will get lots of human interaction, if you choose to interact with real people such as friends and family and even strangers when you go out for a walk or meet socially in pubs etc. You don't need to rely on visits to takeaway food shops for your doses of human interaction so I am sure you can live with such systems becoming fully automated.
Quoting ssu
People don't need money they need resources and purpose. We need a socialist/humanist system such as a resource based economy to provide every human born with what they need to live a comfortable life from cradle to grave based on need and ability and we need to facilitate the aspirations and individual freedoms of each individual as much as is possible within the local circumstances presented.
I am not interested in those who opine that such goals are utopian. I will be a part of the group who will continue to struggle to make such a global socialist/humanist system a reality. I do not expect to see such a system fully established in my lifetime but I do expect to see further movement towards it. I am already aware of many examples of such efforts. The race remains one between a global socialist/humanist way of living and the alternative of our extinction.
There is nothing as mundane as hubris involved. Socialists and humanists simply believe we can do better than we are doing at the moment in how we live and how we enact our stewardship of this planet.
We still have not even left our little home nest. If we are to become an interplanetary/interstellar species we must first become a united species/planet.
What do you mean here by 'basic economic parity'?
And what do you have in mind when saying "a system that works better"?
With any medium of exchange there likely is a measure of value, be they dollars, pack of cigarettes or squirrel hives. What is wrong then with this having store of value?
Do you have something against money in general, or is your criticism about the current monetary system?
Quoting universeness
So just talk about then social democracy. UK Labour and the various Social Democrat Parties of Europe. Works as a political party in other Western countries and hasn't been such a ruinous totalitarian experiment as Marxism-Leninism has been every time it has been tried.
Quoting universeness
Democracy actually works by reaching some kind of consensus. Socialists can ask for something, conservatives ask for something else, some agreement has to be found between the two. It's naive to think that one side can convince everybody to back their agenda by reason, that simply doesn't happen. That's not only democracy, it is reality
Quoting universeness
So you would be fine meeting your friends in a pub that is fully automated? Would you prefer also fully automated restaurants? Yeah, I have no problem with the vending machines. Yet what you describe are a bit bigger vending machines, ones you walk into (or drive through).
Quoting universenessBut your providing, providing people what they need from cradle to grave, not that they would work for this (with their abilities and own motivation).
Quoting universeness
So your answer is what? To give a committee or some central power the role to decide about the means of production, distribution, and exchange? That's it? That will improve our stewardship of this planet?
Hasn't worked so well in history.
Free comfortable housing, food, water, power, education, medical and social care for everyone born on the Earth, from cradle to grave. Such a system would work better compared to the current one as people would not have to compete for the basic resources of life and store such in excess as they are afraid of a change in personal circumstances which would mean they can no longer provide for themselves or their dependents.
In something like a resource based economy, a method of exchange is not required. Automation would be used as much as possible to gather, manufacture, store and distribute resources to people as they require it.
When it comes to access to technology and entertainment. Any new or existing device which can assist a human in their job or their life would be given freely. Any one who wishes to collect items can collect old devices no longer in common use or used in recycling.
Anyone who wants a castle with 20 bedrooms and 8 bathrooms etc, cant have one.
Access to entertainment, social activity, alcohol, legal drugs etc would need to be debated.
For example, to go to a music concert, we might have a system where you would indicate your wish to attend and a computer might choose those who can attend to capacity. The rest will have to watch on TV or through a AR (augmented reality) system. We might even keep a small credit type system, which can be added to by earnings for doing certain jobs that the community needs. Everyone would receive a regular fixed amount of credits to spend on things like your own choice of clothing, your entertainment, your hobbies etc but you could earn extra credits for doing any required community services which currently cannot be or are not automated.
Quoting ssu
I do only type about democratic socialism/humanism, I don't advocate for any political parties. I would not allow political parties, just independents. If a majority of independents are elected who declare themselves as democratic socialists/humanists then they will influence every decision made by any authority formed from them for the fixed time frame they are in authority. New elections must be held every 4 years.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, I know how democracy works. People will vote for those who can help them live the kind of life they want to live. It's up to socialists/humanists to convince people that they can provide the best and fairest sociopolitical system that will be benevolent to the vast majority of stakeholders and prevent the nefarious few from gaining power and control over the life and fate of that vast majority I mentioned.
If the socialists cant convince the people to elect them and give them the authority to start to make the required changes then they can keep electing those who maintain the current systems and continue to suffer accordingly. Usually when they have suffered enough they will return to democratic socialism/humanism.
Quoting ssu
I tend to be interested in the people I go to a pub or restaurant with or the other people in the restaurant/pub. If your socialisation is attracted more to the pub or restaurant staff then I can appreciate your issue with an automated staff but its not a big concern of mine. Perhaps you could get a human to serve you when you go to automated pub or restaurant and give them some of your assigned credits or you could barter and they serve you then you serve them. I am sure a future automated pub or restaurant could accommodate such personal requests.
Quoting ssu
Humans need to have purpose who knows what jobs/activities there will be in the future. I would imagine that research and development would be enormous. Working with automated systems and developing more of them. Working with climate control and ecosystems would be very big, to maintain all fauna (including humans) on Earth as well as all flora. Space exploration and development would become massive as well. I would hope that each human would be able to pursue whichever activity most attracted them at whatever stage of life they are in. Have a look at the brief youtube videos I posted earlier on the Venus project (RBE).
Quoting ssu
What do you mean by your rather flippant 'That's it?' That's always been it! Control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is the core issue we have been fighting over since homo sapiens arrived on the scene. It was also a big issue for all hominid species. Yeah your right it hasn't worked so well in history, due to the rule of the nefarious few over the majority, due to totalitarianism/autocracy/monarchy/aristocracy/theocracy/plutocracy/capitalism. So the sooner we nullify such systems permanently, the better things will get for all of us.
Going off on the title of the thread, sure, money is a fiction (illusion), but it's a real fiction, just like Harry Potter is a real character in the novel, or Winston Smith is an illusion in 1984.
Doesn't make it stop working as it does, until enough people change the way they perceive the value of paper, things will remain as they are.
I can't help but recommend the Spanish series, Money Heist, on Netflix.
Yeah, but it's not the starving street dwellers that are committing the serious crimes and stirring up revolutions. They're mainly looking for their next fix.
Moving up a rung on this social ladder, we have those who already do receive public assistance, and there being a correlation between crime and poverty, we see these folks in our criminal justice system disproportionately. So you argue we need a better class of underclass, so let's increase their public assistance until they have a pleasant enough existence to be incentivized to choose their current existence over a prison cell.
The better solution, I'd suggest, is to correct the inequities so these folks can meaningfully participate in this society we've created and enjoy it's great wealth, as opposed to leaving them with few other options and then offering them just enough to pacify them. Our charity under the envisioned system of greater public assistance is not rooted so much n altruism as it is in crowd control,. But as they say, it matters less why you feed the hungry than just that you do I guess.
My concern with your suggestion is that it will ignite a different revolution, this one from the right, as it declares a fundamental failure in the system these folks are successful in. and one they have a great desire and great means to defend.