|
U-Know! Forum » Do away with the Dough! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Jun 22, 2002, 14:23
|
||
|
Forgive me If I seem as if I am coming across all abstract, but very little is being done to put forward a MoneyLess world by those of alternative outlook to Capitalism. Many well meaning people put forward reforms based on moving money here and there - easing trade restrictions on the developing world or minimum wages, welfare etc. Also a more cynical few talk in terms of money in terms of minimal demands to act as bait to lure people to a central commitee run authoritarian party. The thing is all these people do is end up talking like BreadHeads. Surely with production so advanced and so large then we could go straight to a world without money (production is vastly greater than in Marx's day). Why put forward state capitalism when their is no need for an elite to run the state. For instance enough food is grown to feed the entire world - this is not utopian. The world could be fed easily and not in some distant state capitlaist future after a minority have imposed their will from the top down. Why talk of redistributing money here and there. No matter how good someones intentions, you are just speaking like an acountant with a conscience. People should be educated and doing away with money should be openly talked about on the Left. Obviously I won't be throwing away my money as I need it to survive in a money driven world. Peace & Love A Skint MonkeyBoy
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jun 22, 2002, 14:49
|
||
|
hey MonkeyBoy, this is something that concerns me greatly. Indeed, it's been known to open a howling pit of despair and keep me awake nights when i think about it too much. Fact is; i'm "anti-capitalist". i firmly believe that global capitalism is hurting far more people than it is benefiting, and will ultimately wind up destroying the environment of the planet and making life unbearable *even for those currently benefiting*. So clearly it's crazy to run things using this system! The massive problem, however, is that sadly, i know of no alternative. And i do not believe that the removal of a complex system like capitalism (which let us not forget is currently providing the infrastructure which feeds, clothes and manages the waste of almost every city dweller) should be even attempted before an alternative is in place. Currently the people working in Tesco's are doing so 'cos they get paid. The same goes for the delivery drivers, the management and even the factory farmers dependent upon electricity from the nuclear power station up the road, whose maintenance crews are private contractors working for a large building conglomerate, 50% owned by US corporate giant GE... etc etc etc. The system we depend upon to keep us alive is currently dependant upon the free flow of money. Take away money / abandon capitalism and it'll break down without an adequate replacement. That means i can't get my food in Tesco... and there's not much space to grow here in Hackney. Also, i wouldn't be so blasé about assuming that we grow enough food to feed all 6.5 billion of us. That may be currently true, but the planet cannot support that kind of population (still rising dramatically) without food production and distribution at an *industrial* scale. The situation is unsustainable under capitalism; but i think it may be fundamentally unsustainable under any other system too. i think that the great problem with the global anti-capitalist movement is - in fact - this lack of an alternative. We need to understand just how completely and utterly reliant the vast majority of people are on the current system (i count myself amongst them, this isn't a sermon).
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Jun 22, 2002, 15:31
|
||
|
Cheers Grufty, I might have been be being very idealistic but to be AntiCapitalst you really need an alternative. Of course capitalism keeps the entire world economic system going. I don't want to end up dreaming what an alternative world would be like but obviously we can't return to some simple, idyllic, agrian society. Such an idea is nonesense considering the advances in science and industrial production. Obviously there will have to be a transitional peiod (and I don't mean in the Leninst/Trotskyite state capitalist sense). Real basic needs of survival should be free. Food should not be limited to whether someone can afford it or not. Also means of shelter and clothing should not be limited by financial ability to pay. Money could still be of use to pay for luxuries and NonEssentials - such as a new HiFi, MobilePhones, champagne etc. Though if my Hifi broke I'd consider a replacement bloody essential. I don't think people realise the poverty millions of people are living in around the world. Millions have never made a PhoneCall in thier lives let alone have mobiles or have InterNet access. These people should get their food and basic needs for free and I don't mean by charity. If we needed the latest consumer gadget than we would have to pay for it. Eventually, after a period of trnsition then you should be able to go down to Tescos and help yourself to what you need. People won't work on the tills, only on stocking the shelves (who would be able to do other work as well). Even I would work one day a week stocking shelves if no one was exploiting me and I was allowed to do other things for the rest of the week. A couple of days of access to music to music production, another day doing CareWork etc. Obviously we need to be realistic about what can be achieved right now, with much of the people as yet very unenlightened. But we shouldn't let capitalism constrain our imagination. Viva MonkeyBoy
|
|||
|
joss 9 posts |
Jun 22, 2002, 19:35
|
||
|
capitalism annoys but it doesn't bother me YET cos it'd be too utopian to believe it is going to go in my lifetime. therefore we should begin by opposing GM companies FIRST. They are the most dangerous example of capitalist greed (aside from possible side-effects for humanity). You are so right when you say- "Why put forward state capitalism when their is no need for an elite to run the state. For instance enough food is grown to feed the entire world - this is not utopian. The world could be fed easily and not in some distant state capitlaist future after a minority have imposed their will from the top down." that defines GM greed and their hunger for world food patents so well!! how can so many people be so blind???? best wishes, joss XXX
|
|||
StarryEyes 46 posts |
Jun 23, 2002, 10:35
|
||
|
I think it was on BBC1 (Watchdog or something like that, pretty reputable / reliable) that I heard that one fifth of food produced in the UK is destroyed; a quarter in the USA. Make of that what you will. Maybe I'm being naive but, knowing the down side of human nature, the basic system of capitalism would work in theory - after all it's only an extension of the trade system which has existed for thousands of years. But humans being humans, there's always abuse. I think - without sounding too citizen smith - that some kind of revolution is inevitable and necessary. Good point (of course) about attacking GM food production - maybe one way forward to effectively attack individual parts of the 'system' - a gradual crumbling of its sad edifice. Should sneakily make those who resent change happier without them even realising. Maybe..... Freedom in small bites is preferable to the other option, which I seem to think is inevitable most of the time - that we'll bring destruction or disaster upon ourselves as a race. With 'our' wanton greed and laziness and the destruction we reek, one line from The Matrix seems particularly appropriate 'Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony'. Yep, so who'll be the one to bite a chunk out of our collective ass?
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Jun 23, 2002, 16:14
|
||
|
DirectAction against GM companies is very important as some things (particularly environmental problems) can't wait for a total change in society - something has to be done about it now. The thing anti GM activists, and the Green Left, have to realise is that it is the system that creates environmental damge. Under Capitalism Profit will always come before environmental issues. This is an irreconcilable aspect of the profit system. So any attempts to protect the environment also has to see the inevitable conclusion of removing the profit system. The trade system (as it is now) hasn't existed for thousands of years. It is within the last 300 years or so that capitalism has developed. Before then the system was based enitirely on the ownership of land and the way people were tied to the land for life ie. Feudalism (check out something to do with Marx's theory of Historical Materialism). I understand the need for an alternative system to be in place, that is why the world can only be changed for the better when a majority actively or passively support change. This may be a long way off, and may not be achieved in my life time, this does not make it utopian as people need to be educated and to know what will be expected off them when the time comes. Obviously environmental concerns can't wait 'till then and direct action will also have to see the need for greater change. A truly better world may be a long way off, but this is preferable to Vanguardist, elitist parties attempting to seize power and impose there will from the top Down. Change can not be artificial! Any real change has to come from the bottom up. Yours Idealistically MonkeyBoy ps- Hope I don't sound as if I reside in Cloud Cuckoo Land xxx
|
|||
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 10:58
|
||
|
>We need to understand just how completely and utterly reliant the vast majority of people are on the current system. Only in the rich countries, which is a MINORITY of the planet's population. the MAJORITY of the world's population are actually the exploited victims of global capitalism. All the power is in the hands of a very small elite of people who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. "World inequality between households has increased, according to the latest studies. The income of the richest 1% (50m people) is the same as the income of the poorest 60% (2.7bn people). And the all the gains in world income in the middle of the last decade went to the richest 20%, while the income of those in the bottom 50% actually declined." BBC News, 18/06/02
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 11:22
|
||
|
This is a BIGGY and no mistake. I agree about the food issue - essentials should be free for everyone. And about the luxury issue - some things can't be free (yet). BUT ... and there's always one ... Who decides what foods are essentials? To some idiots a day without caviar and champagne would be hell. Also you have to think about the following. Should the state set up bakeries and dairy plants to produce state milk & bread etc for distribution to everyone? How would you manage it? Bread and milk tokens? How do you alot it? Do some high income people forfeit the right to it? Isn't that just a welfare state that ends up demeaning those who recieve it? It's all or nothing I feel and that ain't gonna happen for a loooooooong time!
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 11:40
|
||
|
To back Jim's worries up http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2062000/2062729.stm
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 11:53
|
||
|
Aye, I think you’re quite right that its pretty much all or nothing. And of course that it’s by no means simple! But it can be done. Yeah all food free – to each according to their need as the old quote has it. And I doubt there would really be much need for any kind of strict ‘rationing’. As food goes off, there is little point in buying shitloads just because you can, and I would presume that there wouldn’t really be very many ‘rich’ people around for whom caviar etc would be a requirement. A renewed emphasis on local production would be vital. Don’t forget that such system doesn’t just come out of the sky overnight, and so it wouldn’t be like what if all food were free tomorrow. Marx always talked about the need for revolution, not just because it was the only way to get rid of capitalism (tho that’s a pretty good reason in itself) but also because people need to rid themselves of ‘the shit of ages’ (or muck, depending on translation). After that, the world, and individuals attitude towards it would be a totally different place, with (hopefully) no need for a strict state imposed system, of who gets what. Now, how people should be ‘punished’ for transgressing the collective’s decisions, now that’s one that makes abolishing money easy! I think.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
