Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 39. (Read 288375 times)

My point is that when you demand change you have to demand change to something, and the something must work just as well, in both the long-term and the immediate senses, both to the society at large *AND* to the individual, as what you're changing from. 

That isn't defeatism; that's just acknowledging that the set of ideas that has competitive and practical advantages,  will, in the long run, win.

So develop an alternate proposal and show why it's in the self-interest of individuals in the middle of a capitalist society to switch to it.  Then show why it's also in the self-interest of family-size units in the middle of a capitalist society to change to it.  Then show why a whole society that changes to it will work more effectively than a society that doesn't, in such a way that the society that doesn't will progressively be disempowered relative to the one organized on the new paradigm. 

That is the absolute minimum requirement for a new idea to replace the idea of money.  It must first be a better idea than money.

Money is the most horrible way to manage anything - except for all the other ways we, as a global civilization, have ever attempted.

That's the kind of reasoning and defeatest attitude that will be our undoing. Where will you live on an uninhabitable planet? What will your children eat when we over consume the earth's resources for profit? Talking engaging and educating is all we have right now but saying nothing won't inspire people to seek and demand change.

You're probably right that the current system is heading for destruction. That doesn't change the fact that there is no way to change it until there is something that provides the same or better advantages that can stand as a replacement. Believing that the current system is bad will not provide a way for the believer to pay the bills and feed the family.

Even if you convince people of the coming and current destruction, they will need a way to interact with those who aren't convinced. And it has to be a way that doesn't diminish their power,or they will soon be eliminated. So if you don't have something like that, you may as well stop talking. Because if you don't,you can have no effect.

I understood, but it's irrelevant in the face of our impending fate if we don't shift away from this system. There is a plan to develop a model city that proves the fundamental designs of an rbe, but without popular support, it will likely not be built in time. People will ultimately be better served by understanding reality rather than believing in convenient fictions.

Your answer reveals that you did not understand.  Whatever you want to replace money with, has to work better than money in terms of allocating resources.  Your belief that money is doing a bad job will get you nowhere near breaking it unless you can cast something that does a better job in terms of self-interest and productivity, *EVEN FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT WILLING TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO IT*.  That's the self-reinforcement loop I was talking about.

That's why money is so powerful.  Even those who don't want to be subject to its limitations, ARE best served by paying attention to it.

It is not self sustaining, it is self defeating. More over, it is killing every one on the planet. No magic spell is going to change that.

Anyway, the whole point of mentioning that is to remind the OP what he's up against when he goes to try and break that spell.  That spell is millennia old, self-sustaining, and provides an organizing principle for most of our productivity and for most of the world's population.

Previous attempts to break that spell have caused the psychic infrastructure that depended on it (and the productivity of the people for whom it was broken, and the quality of their lives) to be significantly degraded.  The fact that these attempts have had so much influence is itself astonishing considering how ancient and powerful the spell is at this point. 

But the negation cannot persist in direct contact with the spell, because the negation does not have anything resembling an equally strong self-reinforcing feedback mechanism.  It may have superior memetic penetration, but it does not provide the organizing and structuring principles that Money does, and so those under the influence of the Money spell, consistently outcompete those who are not, eventually draining all vitality (and most physical resources as well) from those under the counterspell, inevitably eventually to the collapse of the counterspell itself.

I think the only way to counter the Money spell is to cast something greater.  What that would be I cannot imagine.  But it would have to provide the same kind of compelling organizing principle money provides - and the same kind of "inevitable win" in terms of resource allocation over those not subject to it that Money provides against all the counterspells that have been attempted so far.  In other words, it would have to be something that would allow a single family living in a society firmly committed to the principle of money, to allocate more resources than their competitors, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop of superior power.

It may happen in the future if someone can develop an equally compelling spell, but I think that it's beyond anything that Humans can do at our current level of capabilities.

As every magician knows, "Money" is probably the most powerful spell ever cast. Whoever invented it, whether he (or she) realized it or not, thereby made himself (or herself) one of the most potent magicians in history.  Along with all the other magicians who cast it, in whatever places and at whatever times they did.

Like most magic, It is an idea.  Nothing more than that.  It happens purely inside people's heads, with absolutely no basis in physics or the world.   But its existence provides an organizing principle for all resource allocation, trade, and economics.   And therefore an organizing principle for many people's lives and a telling influence on all lives that have any contact with it.

Its value creates a self-sustaining feedback loop in which the fact that it *has* value, is itself valued.  To live among those who value money (and who value the fact that money has value) if you yourself are not subject to that spell, is to live at a disadvantage.  Not because of anything that's real in the world of physics and objective reality, but because of the idea itself.  Each generation teaches it to the generation that comes after, and each generation is deeply influenced by it in terms of their lives and capabilities and freedom. 

As a minor magician, I am sometimes able to say things that, by virtue of having been said, cause themselves to become true.  It's not exactly lying, and it's not exactly telling the truth.  Mostly I use it to enhance my partners' sexual pleasure - I tell her what I'm doing and the effect it's going to have on her, and behold -- I do the thing and exactly that effect happens.  Call it hypnosis if you like, I don't mind.  Magic is nothing less than using your mind, your power of communication, and the minds of others to sculpt the universe to conform to your will - and mostly consists in recognizing the relatively rare opportunities to do so. 

If, say, Ben Bernanke were an evil magician, he could say publicly, "The economy is going to tank in one week's time" and his statement, itself, would make his statement true.  But Bernanke isn't going to do that, because he's under the influence of a much larger, much older spell, which will not permit it.  And the name of that spell is Money. 

He doesn't want to live in a financially impoverished future and therefore, insofar as he is able, he avoids creating one.  At least he avoids doing so deliberately.  Doing so via incompetence can't really be helped by any spell cast by someone else besides him.

Capitalism isn't dying you guys. It's still good! It's still good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guSdjsctrUQ

Who holds the authority in a capitalist society? If you're intellectually honest, it's the monied interests that use capitalism to exploit and destroy the community and environment in order to make profits.

 Socialism is sooo terrible you guys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_lamS0kHdQ

Oh no! You have trapped me in a false dilemma! What am I to do?! I can only agree with either terrible option...

But wait! I can think of another choice! What about a system that doesn't require violence, in which all human needs are provided for and the mindless drive to pointless competition and dominance is not focused on but instead avoided. Let's do that instead! What do you think?

Don't just let this douchebag impose his language on you.  Capitalism is not structural violence.

authority = violence

Capitalism seeks to minimize authority and thus violence.  The rest seek to maximize (or at the very least increase).  When violence is a critical and necessary part of the system, it is structural.

Through the miracle of Orwellian doublespeak, "freedom" means making others work for your benefit, against their will if necessary.

Some of the videos are interesting.  You might want to watch one.  It is always useful knowing what the left is thinking, and the guy in the videos is far less annoying that the guys here on the forums.

The only reason I didn't bother watching those videos is because they are 1.5 hours long. If you can't make your point in 10 or 15 minutes, you don't know how to make your point, or you don't have one to begin with.

I guess in your view it's a choice between structural violence and authoritarian physical violence, and you prefer the authoritarian physical violence?

BTW, what would you call the starvation in USSR from a badly planned economy that killed millions? Was that structural violence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6WVLftjwhA

Another interesting video for those interested in learning instead of wallowing in ignorance.

It is trivial.

I am free to produce structural violence and deprive people to death = capitalism

Then you'd be happy to add capitalist to the list I'm sure.

My reason is actually trivially simple.

I am free to make and trade stuff - Capitalism
I need someone else's permission to make and trade stuff - Not capitalism (i.e. socialism, communism, whatever)

That's it. I've never been one for authority, or requiring permission for how to live my life. Slippery slope (a logical falacy, I know) tends to gegress to the question, "May I be allowed to live?"

There just isn't much reason to carefully differentiate the precise motives of murderers.