An issue though is governments will inevitably get corrupted, there is no way to ensure positions of power don’t fall into the wrong hands. So to combat this, I feel the only decent solution is anarchist means of organization. The issue now is that because the economy is still controlled by money, there is inentive and thus risk of hoarding money which would create hierarchy and thus bring us back to systems of unconsentual government. And as I said, abolition of money would remove that. I ain’t suggesting we just go ham with unregulated production and thus create scarcities, like you say. But the solution is to have people solve that themselves, not relying on money and government to regulate it. Kroptkin talks about much of this in Conquest of Bread. If you’re interested, I would encourage a read, but I ain’t gonna just say “read theory” and drop it cause I know that accomplishes nothing in reaching understandings. Its in the end, to me, an issue of money will always create inequality, and governments will always become corrupt. So what do you do?
Corruption happens because of consolidation of power. The abolition of money wouldn’t prevent that, not even a little. Similarly, anarchy also doesn’t prevent corruption, as anarchy doesn’t prevent a consolidation of power.
The issue of hoarding money doesn’t go away if we abolish money, either. Remember, money is nothing more than a storage of value. If there’s no money, a person seeking power can hoard other things of value to create leverage and power over others. This hoarding of value, whether it’s in the form of money or not, is what’s detrimental to the economy.
And economies are not controlled by money, they’re controlled by people as a group.
I ain’t suggesting we just go ham with unregulated production
But you just suggested anarchy, so yes you are.
the solution is to have people solve that themselves
Yes yes, by forming committees to gather data, debate solutions, pick a solution, and then enforce their decision. Exactly.
That’s government.
Again, because money is just a storage of value, things like inequality will be possible with our without it. Abolishing money wouldn’t get rid of inequality.
You’re giving me “money is the source of all evil” vibes because a lot of your arguments seem to be coming from ideology as opposed to an actual understanding of what money is. If I may, let me share something seemingly unrelated with you.
A reporter by the name of G.M. Gilbert sat through the Nuremberg trials, and wrote a book called the Nuremberg Diary in which he discusses his experience watching the most heinous Nazis attempt to justify their actions. After making such a study of human kind, he had this to say: “In my work with the defendants I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Money is an economic tool. It is a thing. It has no inherent power; without people to use it, money just sits still the same as a book or a shoe. As a tool, it enables certain behaviors, but it doesn’t create them.
This conversation started as a mere discussion of how an economy would work, but you’re taking it in the direction of right and wrong, good and evil. Well, those are human things that existed before money and will exist after money. Money is not the source of evil, and getting rid of it would do more harm to the average human than it would do good.
I’m not saying money is the source of evil, but it is a tool used by it. It heavily centralizes value making it easier to hoard. The other part of that being positions of power. Without money someone would have to hoard a valued resource like foods. What would allow someone to hoard enough food to affect others is authority. Anarchy tries to address both these issues. Some versions like Mutualism do keep money, and even anarcho-communists have used money through an anarchist market socialism to transition to a moneyless society. Anarchy does not mean no rules and no organization. It means consentual and horizontal organization. Rules that the community consent to, not forced upon them.
And I think it is naive of you to think your position isn’t idealogically influenced. We both want an ethical way to run an economy and there are ethical and unethical ways of doing that. The difference between us is what we view as an ethical and possible economic system. If you are interested in reaching an understanding of each others views I do not mind continuing this conversation. But if you are just trying to win a fight, I am not interested in continuing this.
My point about the presence of ideology in this discussion is that it started without ideology being a factor, that I was discussing economics the same way one might discuss physics out biology. You brought ideology into it, and I answered those points as best as I could given the blatant misunderstandings that I perceived regarding the economic aspects of your ideology. As an avowed socialist myself, I won’t try to claim that I don’t have views impacted by ideology but that doesn’t mean ideology can’t be set aside when discussing sciences like economics. Indeed, seeing ideology aside is imperative to understanding the real nature of the observable world, and these observations must inform one’s ideology least one start saying things like “2+2=5”. Which is precisely what I feel you’ve been doing. You’re rejecting explanations of how economies work because it doesn’t fit your ideological views. That is folly.
Given that your original question has been answered repeatedly, and you’ve rejected those answers, I can only conclude that the questions were asked in bad faith. I don’t think further conversation will be productive. The only “fight” to be “won” is one that you started, and I’m tired of playing chess with pigeons. If you feel that means you “won” the discussion, then more power to you. Feel free to hit me up again when you want to actually understand things as they are, instead of how you think they ought to be.
I was never disagreeing with you out of ideological difference. I simply disagreed with the logic. Granted this discussion is over text and there are a lot of different ways for both of us to misunderstand the other. I did not go into this trying to win a fight, and never intended it to go in that direction. I feel it is best to end it with “agree to disagree” as I feel one or both of us is misunderstanding each other because of the communication barrier that comes with text.
An issue though is governments will inevitably get corrupted, there is no way to ensure positions of power don’t fall into the wrong hands. So to combat this, I feel the only decent solution is anarchist means of organization. The issue now is that because the economy is still controlled by money, there is inentive and thus risk of hoarding money which would create hierarchy and thus bring us back to systems of unconsentual government. And as I said, abolition of money would remove that. I ain’t suggesting we just go ham with unregulated production and thus create scarcities, like you say. But the solution is to have people solve that themselves, not relying on money and government to regulate it. Kroptkin talks about much of this in Conquest of Bread. If you’re interested, I would encourage a read, but I ain’t gonna just say “read theory” and drop it cause I know that accomplishes nothing in reaching understandings. Its in the end, to me, an issue of money will always create inequality, and governments will always become corrupt. So what do you do?
Corruption happens because of consolidation of power. The abolition of money wouldn’t prevent that, not even a little. Similarly, anarchy also doesn’t prevent corruption, as anarchy doesn’t prevent a consolidation of power.
The issue of hoarding money doesn’t go away if we abolish money, either. Remember, money is nothing more than a storage of value. If there’s no money, a person seeking power can hoard other things of value to create leverage and power over others. This hoarding of value, whether it’s in the form of money or not, is what’s detrimental to the economy.
And economies are not controlled by money, they’re controlled by people as a group.
But you just suggested anarchy, so yes you are.
Yes yes, by forming committees to gather data, debate solutions, pick a solution, and then enforce their decision. Exactly.
That’s government.
Again, because money is just a storage of value, things like inequality will be possible with our without it. Abolishing money wouldn’t get rid of inequality.
You’re giving me “money is the source of all evil” vibes because a lot of your arguments seem to be coming from ideology as opposed to an actual understanding of what money is. If I may, let me share something seemingly unrelated with you.
A reporter by the name of G.M. Gilbert sat through the Nuremberg trials, and wrote a book called the Nuremberg Diary in which he discusses his experience watching the most heinous Nazis attempt to justify their actions. After making such a study of human kind, he had this to say: “In my work with the defendants I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Money is an economic tool. It is a thing. It has no inherent power; without people to use it, money just sits still the same as a book or a shoe. As a tool, it enables certain behaviors, but it doesn’t create them.
This conversation started as a mere discussion of how an economy would work, but you’re taking it in the direction of right and wrong, good and evil. Well, those are human things that existed before money and will exist after money. Money is not the source of evil, and getting rid of it would do more harm to the average human than it would do good.
I’m not saying money is the source of evil, but it is a tool used by it. It heavily centralizes value making it easier to hoard. The other part of that being positions of power. Without money someone would have to hoard a valued resource like foods. What would allow someone to hoard enough food to affect others is authority. Anarchy tries to address both these issues. Some versions like Mutualism do keep money, and even anarcho-communists have used money through an anarchist market socialism to transition to a moneyless society. Anarchy does not mean no rules and no organization. It means consentual and horizontal organization. Rules that the community consent to, not forced upon them. And I think it is naive of you to think your position isn’t idealogically influenced. We both want an ethical way to run an economy and there are ethical and unethical ways of doing that. The difference between us is what we view as an ethical and possible economic system. If you are interested in reaching an understanding of each others views I do not mind continuing this conversation. But if you are just trying to win a fight, I am not interested in continuing this.
My point about the presence of ideology in this discussion is that it started without ideology being a factor, that I was discussing economics the same way one might discuss physics out biology. You brought ideology into it, and I answered those points as best as I could given the blatant misunderstandings that I perceived regarding the economic aspects of your ideology. As an avowed socialist myself, I won’t try to claim that I don’t have views impacted by ideology but that doesn’t mean ideology can’t be set aside when discussing sciences like economics. Indeed, seeing ideology aside is imperative to understanding the real nature of the observable world, and these observations must inform one’s ideology least one start saying things like “2+2=5”. Which is precisely what I feel you’ve been doing. You’re rejecting explanations of how economies work because it doesn’t fit your ideological views. That is folly.
Given that your original question has been answered repeatedly, and you’ve rejected those answers, I can only conclude that the questions were asked in bad faith. I don’t think further conversation will be productive. The only “fight” to be “won” is one that you started, and I’m tired of playing chess with pigeons. If you feel that means you “won” the discussion, then more power to you. Feel free to hit me up again when you want to actually understand things as they are, instead of how you think they ought to be.
I was never disagreeing with you out of ideological difference. I simply disagreed with the logic. Granted this discussion is over text and there are a lot of different ways for both of us to misunderstand the other. I did not go into this trying to win a fight, and never intended it to go in that direction. I feel it is best to end it with “agree to disagree” as I feel one or both of us is misunderstanding each other because of the communication barrier that comes with text.