It's not clear to me why my attempt to answer hasn't impacted the way you repeated the question. So I've copied it below. What I outline is a hand wave at a future structure not entirely without money, but with an augmented money.
I think these 5 principles also model the non-moneyed organizations Dave references. I understand that these answers aren't *complete*. But your repeating your same question without incorporating the attempts to answer it is worriesome. On May 5, 2021 5:17:00 PM PDT, "uǝlƃ ↙↙↙" <[email protected]> wrote: >Well, there are smarter people than me, who know more about Marxism >than I do, on this list. But it seems there are ~5 principles to guide >it: > >• civilization is already a cooperative enterprise, it's just a matter >of cooperation's extent/ubiquity >• there's nothing supernatural, so all solutions have to be built on >science >• innovation, technology, culture, etc. are limited only by nature; so >in principle the things we build (including governments) can be as big >and complex as the natural world >• class is a cultural construct; we create it; hence we can eliminate >it >• the spectral signature of organization sizes is present in nature and >should be mirrored in society (e.g. power laws for org sizes, small >world networks, etc) > >None of this implies the elimination of money. Reduction to a single >dimension is just fine *when* it works. But when it doesn't work, it >has to be "fleshed out" with other structure. Contracts are such a >structure. We use contracts all the time to flesh out our money-based >transactions. And contracts need not be simply pairwise (as Pieter >seemed to imply with his conception of a free market). Contracts can be >between any number of groups or individuals ... they nest. > >The trick is with the legal system and spatiotemporal extension. When >the lawyers draw up a contract and the courts judge an alleged breach, >there's spatial extent that we can't codify (unintended consequences, >externalities). And do contracts have higher order effects (extend to >descendants, siblings, business partners, etc.)? Designing a legal >system to align with the 5 basic principles above would, I think, >produce something very unlike capitalism ... but maybe not whatever it >is the Marxists imagine would emerge. > >I'm sure the above is too vague. But it's the best I can do. As I tried >to make clear *I* have no idea what could replace capitalism. I don't >even understand socialism. Smarter people than me would have to work it >out. > On May 7, 2021 10:43:35 PM PDT, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote: >Further illustration of my ignorance in these areas. > >This discussion originated with the idea that we are oppressed by >capitalism and money. My question still is, what is the (or at least >*our*) >alternative? Can you imagine converting our society into one without >money? >What could it possibly look like? Simply saying, *replace our culture >with >that of the Incas* doesn't help me to see any real alternative to where >we >are -- or a viable path from here to a non-monetary world. > >-- Russ Abbott >Professor, Computer Science >California State University, Los Angeles > > -- glen ⛧ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
