Would it really be for others? Maybe family and friends. But the same things that motivate people now -- desires for comfort, food, water, and so forth. Material comforts.

n a moneyless society, what could motivate people to make goods for others?

I can think a society might be built (we are already partly there) within the structure of a diversified corporation where the corporation provides for all the employees needs based on merit, so that someone works to earn respect, power, management...position.

Do you think such a society could be just?

In a moneyless society, what could motivate people to make goods for others? — GreenPhilosophy

Humans are pushed by desires toward cooperation. An individual can accomplish only so much alone. Only through working together can surpluses be created which allow for greater satisfactions.

Questions: Is a lack of currency the critical factor here, or is it a lack of social organization?

Motivation to make goods for others has been around a lot longer than money.

Money is merely a symbol. Human beings are motivated by the need to satisfy instinctual imperative.


What is the point you are trying to make? Or the question you are asking?

Nothing, you'd have to genetically re-engineer people to work as drones.

There's nothing special about money, it's just a medium of exchange that facilitates division of labour, capitalization, etc., the point is that human beings have always in general (with notable exceptions like parents of children, very close friends, etc.) acted reciprocally (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). If that reciprocity, that exchange of one thing or deed for another isn't there, people won't do stuff.

Connected with this is the point that human beings do things with the expectation of improvement in some way - improvement in their personal lot, in their surroundings, their comfort, their entertainment, etc., etc. This is the real meaning of "profit" in the generalized economic sense. That doesn't mean that there was a cigar-chomping capitalist pig in every caveman, it just means that if we don't expect something to get better from our actions, we won't act, and in the context of reciprocity, that means we give up something (an action, an object) in the expectation of getting an action or object in return that makes our situation better than it was when we did the action or object that we gave up.

The only way Communism would work is with an AI that has a direct feed from everyone's consciousness (so it's aware of what individuals who would otherwise use prices to guide their making/doing decisions would be aware of) that's advanced enough to "solve" an economy continuously. Under those circumstances, if you could trust that your doing stuff will be rewarded by the fact of others doing stuff meshing in such a way that everyone gets what they want, when they want it, then and only then would Communism work. It's possible, but we're a long way off.

In general, one might say that Communism was a vague vision of a better, more rationally organized way of doing things, but the Commies underestimated the complexity of what would have to be done even to match a capitalist economy, far less surpass it (which was Communism's early promise to its dupes) by several orders of magnitude.

It is to say the least unfortunate that so many millions had to die to demonstrate the pants-on-head-retarded fatuousness of the ideology.

It is to say the least unfortunate that so many millions had to die to demonstrate the pants-on-head-retarded fatuousness of the ideology. — gurugeorge

Of what ideology? The USSR and Communist China were state capitalist. None of their economic or social ends were communist ( as Marx described it), nor were they by anyone's definitions. They used propaganda to get their power ( a state that controls the means of production), and their complete control leading to a failed state.

I agree on the AI you mentioned above however. Humans are incapable of replicating leaders. A benevolent ruler has no guarantee of leaving behind wise/benevolent leadership in their passing. An AI would solve this issue. It would also most likely be in a world with huge amounts of surplus for all. Where maybe working really hard would be rewarded, but that hard work would not be the norm or necessitated. A far away place indeed.

In a moneyless society, what could motivate people to make goods for others? — GreenPhilosophy

The exact same motivations that motivate people to make goods in a society with money, Money is just a practical solution to trade. Without money the trade is still there, it's just harder to determine the exact value of something that's traded, and even harder harder than that to give change in return.

The only difference might be that people who are confused about what money is, and have money as a god, those will need to find another god. Most of them will probably go for hoarding something else of value that only slowly deminishes in value.

Of what ideology? The USSR and Communist China were state capitalist. None of their economic or social ends were communist ( as Marx described it), nor were they by anyone's definitions. — yatagarasu

Look into "War Communism." Upon accession to power, the Communists immediately put into practice the full Communist manifesto, more or less by the book, including an attempt to implement a moneyless economy, using something like labour tokens (IIRC). They did this because they were high on their own supply and sincerely believed the new system would be immensely more successful than capitalism, and give them the wherewithal to fight the war. But of course it was a total disaster, and something called the "New Economic Policy" had to be put into place, which was the seed of what later came to be called "State Capitalism." IOW "State Capitalism" was the practically necessary climb-down from unworkable full Communism - and of course it was shit too, because it was a centrally planned economy, and central planners cannot plan centrally (note: economies of scale have diminishing returns beyond a certain point, partly for the same reason that Communism is unworkable - businesses found that out too in the course of the 20th century).

It would also most likely be in a world with huge amounts of surplus for all. — yatagarasu

This is another Communist illusion: that scarcity is caused by capitalism. Capitalism is actually just the best coping mechanism we have for a scarcity that falls out of the limited nature of the means of production in relation to clashing, and continually expanding human wants and needs. You can't magic a surplus into existence.

The AI idea is sort of workable, and I can definitely see it being tried in the future with some dedicated space colonies. Iain M. Banks, a Commie himself, showed something like such a system in his s-f novels. But he still underestimated the task: the AI would very definitely need a feed from every individual's experience to match the local and tacit knowledge that every individual who faces prices in the market brings to the massively parallel computation of the economy under capitalism, so bang goes any concept of privacy. And that would only just match the present performance of capitalism (And of course at that point, the AI might as well simply teleoperate the humans anyway, or do away with them altogether, replace them with robotics and treat the economy as a "paperclip maximizing" exercise.)

But yeah, the AI idea (short of the intrusive feed) would be workable on condition that the society was resigned to still having a massive amount of economic inefficiency and waste compared to capitalism - it would be a poorer society, but if the people were ok with the trade-off, it might be quite attractive for those who prefer a simpler way of living.

They need to eat and survive and without currency you have the barter system.

Is a lack of currency the critical factor here — Bitter Crank

Yes. I'm just trying to figure out how to make a moneyless society function. After all, many people think money is the root of all evil. I'm trying to make up a better system for the people.

the question you are asking? — Marcus de Brun

How do you motivate people to work in a moneyless society? For example, in a capitalist society, money motivates people to work. I'm looking for creative feasible answers, sorta like:

Humans are pushed by desires toward cooperation. — Bitter Crank

or
"What about a robotic AI workforce capable of building more AI robots? People would never have to work again."

Do you think such a society could be just? — Cavacava

My main problem with money is that it's really dirty (circulates living flu viruses in society) and that capitalism causes a 15% poverty rate in the USA. Capitalism it it's current form is certainly not just. And Communism isn't the answer either because it doesn't adequately motivate people to help others.

What if going to work was designed to be as enjoyable as eating ice cream? Like, what if the workplace really got those dopamine receptors firing? Then the problem would be getting people to stop working. It'd be like the obesity crisis all over again, except instead of people eating too much... They'd be working too much. But at least it'd be voluntary work.

What if going to work was designed to be as enjoyable as eating ice cream? Like, what if the workplace really got those dopamine receptors firing? Then the problem would be getting people to stop working. It'd be like the obesity crisis all over again, except instead of people eating too much... They'd be working too much. But at least it'd be voluntary work. — GreenPhilosophy

The problem is the modern workforce needs precision and detail-oriented tasks that are neither creative or inherently meaningful. A lot of times they have to be done in a timely fashion, and to the customer and manager's satisfaction. You simply have to do it because it is required by the manager/owner. Who would do such things? This of course and the classic examples of sewer guys, clean-up crews, back breaking labor in 100 degree or 20 degree weather. Ya know, the stuff people might not like but have to. That's not going away anytime soon.

My main problem with money is that it's really dirty (circulates living flu viruses in society) and that capitalism causes a 15% poverty rate in the USA. Capitalism it it's current form is certainly not just. And Communism isn't the answer either because it doesn't adequately motivate people to help others. — GreenPhilosophy

I see.. your question is more practical than philosophical. Evolution is currently working on this. The practice of coin exchange is very primitive and more advanced societies New Zealand for example are making strident moves towards this global inevitability. NZ uses an EFPOS system which is essentially a bank card, the difference being that the card machines are ubiquitous, and mostly wireless, even hotdog vendors have them and tradesmen have them.

The preservation of cash is physically dirty and socially/morally dysfunctional in that it merely facilitates tax evasion and crime. Be patient ....evolution moves things when human intelligence fails.

M

many people think money is the root of all evil — GreenPhilosophy

The Latin proverb is "Radix malorum est cupiditas" -- The love of money is the root of evil, not money itself.

Currency is dirty, for sure (literally filthy lucre) but that isn't a huge problem. Sure, money can carry flu viruses, traces of drugs, and bacteria -- but as far as I know, NO EPIDEMIC has been laid on the doorstep of currency.

"What about a robotic AI workforce capable of building more AI robots? People would never have to work again." — GreenPhilosophy

What about it? Whether we have a robotic workforce or not (and don't hold your breath waiting for it) people still have desires to interact, cooperate, share, and do all those primate-group things we like to do. Besides, the idea that robots will insure plenty for all is strictly pie-in-the-sky. What is more likely to happen is that robotic factories will make goods for the small ruling class and the rest of the population can drop dead.

Capitalism it it's current form is certainly not just. And Communism isn't the answer either because it doesn't adequately motivate people to help others. — GreenPhilosophy

Capitalism isn't just, true, and it isn't the political economic system we have (communism, capitalism) that motivates people to cooperate. People cooperate under all circumstances because they like to cooperate (do stuff together) and because it is necessary to cooperate (else we'd all starve). As a species we've been cooperating hundreds of thousands of years.

but as far as I know, NO EPIDEMIC has been laid on the doorstep of currency. — Bitter Crank

"The contamination of paper money is not limited to simply that of cocaine and other illicit drugs. Health officials in the UK warn that a silent Hepatitis-C epidemic could be brewing. Drug users with hepatitis who share with others the rolled paper note (or straw) used to snort cocaine can facilitate the transfer of the disease to thousands. As drug users are frequently impaired, they can easily fail to notice small traces of blood on these rolled banknotes. This is considered to be of particular concern, as eight out of ten carriers are unaware of their status (as hepatitis can lie dormant for decades)"
http://www.york.givebackworks.com/threads/are-you-aware-that-money-carries-many-diseases-what-can-you-do.4270/

Health officials in the UK warn that a silent Hepatitis-C epidemic could be brewing. — GreenPhilosophy

If the UK is anything like the USA, the "silent Hepatitis C epidemic" definitely IS brewing. Hep C has a very long incubation period--decades. Otherwise it is pretty much a-symptomatic. Where there is blood-born practices like sharing needles or other kinds of works, HEP B and HEP C usually show up eventually and get passed along.

Hep C is usually transmitted by blood contact; so rolling up a bank note to snort dope -- and then sharing the straw with somebody else -- would certainly suffice to transmit a virus. However, assume the note ends up in circulation later (as it almost certainly will be). The chance of someone becoming infecting by Hep C from merely handling the note is more than zero but very, very small. Hep C virus, like other tough viruses, still can't live a very long time outside of an extant cell (viruses are obligate intracellular parasites).

In order for an epidemic to get going, transmission has to be reasonably efficient. Nose to nose is reasonably efficient. So is sharing needles, and sex where blood might be present (not all that rare). As far as I know -- I'd have to check this out -- Hep C carriers are infectious for a long time. Their opportunity to transmit the virus through the most efficient means is considerable.

As paper money (or coins) pass from hand to hand, bacteria, viruses, traces of DNA, drugs, etc. are added to and taken away. Most people never catch anything from money because paper to skin just isn't the kind of contact that is likely to lead to infection -- of any kind.

Sure: if someone with Ebola Virus bled on to some coins or bills, gave them to you a little while later and you had even tiny open wounds on your hands, you would probably get infected. Most viruses aren't quite that communicable--fortunately for us. That's why most of us won't die from money-transmitted diseases.

We live in a haze of bacteria, DNA bits, skin flakes, etc. (It's appalling, really, but that's just life.)

The only reason I am arguing with you over this is that people who live in fear of getting horrible diseases from environmental contact (door knobs, money, bus hand holds, bathrooms, etc.) tend to grossly overestimate their chances of infection.

I was working in AIDS education back in the 1980s and 1990s when a lot of people were going crazy with fear that they would get AIDS from a drinking glass, a public telephone, etc. These worried well suffered a lot from their unreasonable fear. One of the problems with fear of environmental infection (i.e., touching the death dealing door knob) is that there is no real way to protect yourself except to wear a hazmat suit all the time.

At least in the case of Ebola, people do wear hazmat suits to care for patients, pick up dead bodies, and clean up hospital rooms. Ebola is an outstanding exception, though. Hep C isn't Ebola. And you probably won't die from it for 30 or 40 years.