From: "Travis Bemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Can you THINK outside of your Libertarian/"anarcho"capitalist box for
>a second?! Anarchism (not that "anarcho"capitalism shit, which really
>isn't anarchism) is socialist, but does not use government (socialism
>is worker control of the means of production, not necessarily the
>welfare state).
I certainly do acknowledge the evils which have been wreaked on society in
the name of financial greed.
But I'm not sure I'd want a society without money (or similarly convenient
means of exchange which negotiates relative values of goods and services).
I don't have a lot of money, my financial state could be described as
"comfortably adequate", but I do appreciate the presence of a money system.
Money gives choices, and facilitates a level of freedom of association or
non-association.
Without a money system, we're back in the days of barter or community
distribution.
With barter, how the hell can you trade as conveniently as with money?
For instance, a rice-grower has harvested crops, and has rice to share. A
builder is feeling horny. A prostitute wants a new sound system. A sound
system provider wants new furniture. Prostitute can meet builder's need, but
(having already renovated her house), doesn't need building services. Sound
system vendor can't help her, since he's happily married. Builder is no good
at making furniture. So how does fair exchange happen here?
Community distribution? Sounds all nice and touchy-feely, but a stay at a
real live anarcho-collectivist community opened my eyes. With the extreme
interdependencies resulting from lack of a money system, people were forced
to co-operate and interact closely to meet their needs. The whole thing over
a period of years had degenerated into one huge dysfunctional family,
complete with mass "incest". Everybody's 'stuff' came up big time, not
healing, but festering into ever increasing resentments. People grew to hate
the forced interdependence and the lack of privacy.
What *is* good about money is the freedom of choice it offers. Once you
liquidate ideas, goods or services into money's abstract numeration, you are
free to apply your money in any way you choose. A few pieces of paper in a
wallet, or a (hopefully) secure record on a credit card database are easier
to lug around than bags of potatos. In dealing with people, you're totally
welcome to limit the interaction to the exchange. And the exchange is fast
and simple - if you like the price, you go ahead. If you don't, you can
decline. I like the fact that I can go to the corner shop and buy milk
without having to know what the grocer ate for breakfast, or having to tell
him my family background (not unless I and he want to).
Jesus said, "The love of money is the root of all evil".
I disagree totally.
I love money, but it's not an obsession. Wherever I can acquire money in
integrity, in ways that I enjoy, and allow me to look in the mirror and feel
ok and at peace with myself, I go out and get money.
It is 'attachment' to money, in the Buddhist/Hindu sense of the word, that
causes the problems.
The upstart carpenter would have been better off saying, "The fear of being
without money is the root of all evil". I was trained in this latter
principle by years of wretched poverty. That was a valuable time in my life,
which taught me to feel ok without money, even when I was homeless and
unemployed. As soon as I really learned to feel ok without money, with all
of my being, money started to flow in, and has increased more or less
logarithmically over the last few years.
Every person who possesses any fear of being without money is contributing
to the moral violations which are committed in the name of money. The need
for instant gratification - resulting from failure to heal from the
indignities one suffered as a vulnerable infant - is also a contributor. As
is 'scarcity consciousness', 'victom consciousness', denial of one's own
creative faculties, and any belief in a zero-sum or minus-sum game (such
beliefs and denials tend to be self-fulfilling). While people persist in
feeling like financial victims, they choke off their unlimited inner
creativity, and rob themselves of the abundance which would otherwise be
within their grasp.
Most 'rich' people are desperately poor. They continually fear losing their
money. This fear causes them to ignore their inner voice, and prostitute
themselves to moral states lower than many animals.
Henry Ford was wealthier than most. Asked by a young interviewer how he'd
feel at suddenly losing his billions overnight, Ford said "I'd have it all
back in five years". That's closer to *real* wealth, which I define as
knowing that if one is dumped into a strange foreign city with no money, one
can pull oneself up and thrive financially in morally wholesome ways. I know
I can.
But look at any morally objectionable 'rich' person, and you will see such
person propped up by hordes of resentful fearful people putting their social
pretentions and credit ratings ahead of their inner knowingness and moral
values. In a community of enlightened people free of financial fear, such
'rich tyrants' would be stripped of their power, and would be forced to
amend their ways fast.
David
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
