The Moneyless Economy

The Moneyless Economy

The moneyless economy (perhaps a contradiction in terms) could function in part based on the planned distribution and/or saturation of the market with free goods and services. Planned distribution and saturation have drawbacks, however. Planned distribution is often limited by the existence of only enough resources (while obtaining the Ideal Environmental Impact) for an individual to subsist and not enough to live within a comfortable margin of resources. Saturation is limited by Ideal Environmental Impact in that to free enough resources for ideal saturation, Ideal Environmental Impact would have to be exceeded. There are solutions for the resource requirements of both, but let us for a minute examine the reasoning for a moneyless economy and how such an economy would work.
The moneyless economy is the logical next step in the constant ethical and quality of life evolution in human society. Although capitalism has to a certain extent helped to “modernize” the world and link it closer together, it has many negative effects centered from its core constituent, the corporation. The corporation has a detrimental effect on the world because of its sole reason for existence: monetary profit. Such a central drive excludes all other drives, altruistic or otherwise, as profit is its central reason for existence. With such a myopic focus on profit, it becomes easy for a corporation to build negative impacts on humanity and the Earth into its profit model, provided it makes the company money. One of the classic instances of this phenomenon is sweat shop labor.
Let’s imagine a hypothetical corporation that manufactures sporting goods. Because the corporation is focused so intently on profit and minimizing loss, it will seek cost reductions in all of its manufacturing processes. Considering all other incidental losses, a company will find it better for its goal to have cheaper labor. One cost rears its ugly head, though. This cost is the labor conditions that contractors in cheaper labor companies provide their employees. These include dangerous machinery, industrial waste exposure, poor pay, child labor, and even near slavery like indenture-ship. Although these conditions may have a slight impact on productivity in the production of sporting goods, the company decides that productivity is still greater in these cheaper labor countries than it is in its native, First World nation. The only cost that remains now is that of negative publicity due to the conditions of the contractors. But, the sporting goods corporation does not even pause in their move to the country with cheaper labor. This cost is offset by the fact that all its competitors engage in similar labor cost reduction and by the fact that the consumers of sporting goods are kept blissfully unaware, or with only the tiniest ray of enlightenment as to the conditions in these foreign factories.
Although the above is the one of the more visible negative effect of capitalism, there are others, some much worse. These include toxic waste exposure by chemical companies to innocent civilians, human rights abuse, even genocide and warfare. In fact, a disturbing incidence of massacres of innocent Native American tribes in Brazil by beef producers was reported by Amnesty International a few years ago. Simply put, profit means that means to an end that might not be ethical or in good spirit will be employed in the pursuit of profit. Profit and immediate altruism cannot, in practically all, cases exist. Furthermore, in the spirit of Marx, if money is power, then the wealthy oppress the poor for the wealthy person’s own gain. The corporation is considered by many to be the dominant institution of this era. Yet it does not truly serve the interests of others. Instead, it only serves its own narrow minded interests. Breaking the constituent elements of capitalism even further, the old saying “Money is the root of all evil” most certainly holds true in this day and age. The pursuit of monetary gain tears up North American inner cities with virtual warfare between competing drug dealers. It causes powerful nations to go to war with other nations for control of certain profitable resources. It almost single handedly leads the environment in which we must continue to rely on for our being towards further destruction. It even stifles innovation in the name of guaranteed profitability (see the airline industry, which continues to rely on legacy technology instead of taking the risk to develop advanced new operational technology). And, as mentioned before, creates unjust, unethical scenarios that act against the People.
A moneyless economy eliminates the poisonous and single-minded focus on profit by ensuring that the resources, services, and goods previously provided by corporations are provided automatically by a new system without the exchange of trade trackers, such as money and most certainly without the partially hidden costs of capitalism. A moneyless economy could produce goods and services as part of the essential governing structure OR even by “nonprofit” organizations. As mentioned in the first paragraph of this entry, such resources could saturate the “market” or they could be equitably distributed. Saturating the market would mean less infrastructure spent on planning and more on production. Structuring a system of rationing and equitable distribution would create a large, potentially cumbersome bureaucratic infrastructure as well as limit the individual’s choice in resource and service use. But such a system would ensure that the stronger, better social placed individuals would not receive an advantage over the weaker, less socially placed individuals. But, as mentioned, saturation would provide more individual choice as well more resources available (at least in theory) to the individual. Concerns about the powerful achieving more wealth under a system of non-monetary saturation might be alleviated by ensuring a system of protected and enforced social equality among all individuals. In fact, with the decline of birthright government and (with a hypothetical introduction of a moneyless system) the elimination of disproportionately wealthy classes, such protected and enforced social equality might be automatic.
One might wonder what would persuade people and organizations to pursue employment in support of the moneyless economy if there is, in fact, no money or reward exchanged for work. This could be solved by introducing a volunteer system where occupations and professions volunteer their time in support of the system that allows all individuals to live a comfortable, productive, healthy life free of the blight of capitalism. Furthermore, even the most menial, non-intellectually stimulating occupations could be professionalized as to create a much more rewarding work experience and an increased sense of doing something for the world. For instance, an assembly line worker in a factory producing kitchen appliances would no longer be just a simple assembly worker, but a fully educated, trained, and certified product engineer constantly improving the product, testing for quality, and even designing new appliances. Likewise, one of the world’s most common occupations, that of the farmer, could become a full fledged profession dedicated to the optimization of farming techniques and processes using solid scientific principles as an underpinning. Such “professionalization” of occupations would require an extensive, global public educational system, one that I will discuss in another entry.
In terms of organizational incentive for contributing to the moneyless economy, the drive of altruism and goodwill could be a strong factor, much as it is for modern day nonprofit charitable entities. Another method of insuring the proper infrastructure for the production of goods and resources would be to combine it with the governmental structure. Although this has been experimented (and in my opinion, failed) with “communist” governments of near history, such as the USSR, it could have a benefit in that it would allow direct, day to day participation and governance by the People leading to a more purely democratic government. Such a government would be truly by the People and for the People. The best option seems to be a combination of a structure run by a People’s government and an atmosphere that encourages the development of independent, nonprofit organizations and service providers. This would spark innovation by allowing for an independent spirit and a collective spirit to coexist.
But, without harming the environment, how can one obtain the necessary resources for such a moneyless economy? After all, despite all its negative environmental impacts, capitalism does act to limit resource use by pricing based on supply and demand. The answer to that is to seek renewable resources and indeed to look beyond the narrow confines of Earth in order to achieve an environmental impact equal to or lower than the Ideal Environmental Impact. Renewable resources available today, such as hydrogen, solar power, and wind energy (for power) and wood (provided it is not clear cut and uses responsible harvesting techniques) and other Earth driven renewables could provide part of the solution. If anything, they could at least reduce the environmental impact of humanity on the Earth. For the Ideal Environmental Impact, though, this would not be enough. For the Ideal Environmental Impact, we should investigate the technology required for access to bountiful materials of outer space. As only one “small” incidence of the resources available in space, the near Earth asteroid Amun contains, according to once source, more material (in this case, naturally occurring stainless steel) than all the material ever mined on Earth in humanity’s history. In addition to all this raw material available in space, one important resource that we can in part collect here on Earth originates in the sky. This is solar energy. As far as humanity is concerned, the Sun is a practically unlimited resource. Although Earth based solar energy collectors might not have the efficiency or direct solar access needed for all the energy a moneyless economy would require to ensure equitability of resource dissemination, space based solar collectors could make up the difference.
It is very important to note that opening up space resources IS NOT an exclusive condition for implementing the moneyless economy without exceeding the Ideal Environmental Impact. Although it would be extremely beneficial to the cause of the moneyless economy, renewable resources could provide the necessary resource provisions to, at the very least, reduce our impact on the Earth and provide enough subsistence resources for everyone. Exploitation of space based resources might not be efficient enough initially to justify it. However, it may at some point become imperative, in which case it is necessary to place an emphasis on developing the technology to achieve such a goal.
On that note, as society shifts away from having to meet its basic, capitalistic imposed, monetary subsistence needs when it moves to a moneyless economy, it can begin shifting its collective focus towards strengthening society (i.e. eliminating prejudice and crime, for instance) as well as to scientific advancement. Scientific advancement will improve the individual condition even more by introducing defenses against natural disaster and by increasing the level of available medical science and technology, to name a few advancements.
What will humanity look like if it resists the natural evolution towards a more ethical system? The wealthy will become even more powerful while the working classes on whose backs wealth is built upon will be forced into more abject poverty as our nonrenewable resources deplete themselves. The environment will become irreversibly poisoned. Corporations will gain even more power, indeed, they may even replace government. Imagine, if you will, a government where citizens are subject to the whims of profit and not national benefit. Imagine a government not made of the People but of the wealthy and thus powerful. If this isn’t already happening in some countries, it is coming if we don’t raise our voices against the selfish greed of capitalism and capitalistic institutions. Instead, let us throw this burden off of our shoulders and rise to meet the next stage of civilization. Let us put the power with the People and let us ensure that everyone has a right to a comfortable, just life free of the pitfalls of monetary systems. After all, does it make sense that simple market fluctuations can throw many people from a comfortable life into poverty when the same amount of resources remain available? Is it right to for the wealthy to have a disproportionate amount of power? Is it fair? Is it just and right? The answer, I believe, is a resounding NO!