![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"No money in the future" is a common thread in parts of the Left. I think it's in Marx's communism, if not a lot older. In science fiction, we've got Star Trek (at least ST IV and TNG/DS9), Banks' Culture ("money is a sign of poverty"), MacLeod's Solar Union, probably LeGuin's Anarres, and "post-scarcity" economies in general -- which tend to mumble if you take them literally and ask for a planet.
But why? Why is this so popular, as opposed to the leftism where everyone has enough money?
The way I see it, any group that has a lot of trade will have a money, hacked out of fungible high-demand goods or IOU time-labor scrip if nothing else. So to me saying "no money" is effectively saying "no trade", which doesn't sound very attractive.
One might appeal to computers and advanced barter exchanges, but while that might make it possible to work out "you give an IOU to make A in return for B, to trade for C, to trade for D, to trade for E which you actually want", I suspect a money would arise anyway.
There's so much automation that no one ever does anything useful, but that doesn't seem fun. There's that plus people doing things just for fun, and I don't rule it out entirely... but if there's a high-demand artist, maybe people end up bribing her to help on their projects.
"To each according to their need" is great and all, but what about getting what you *want*?
[This was better written in my head, I may revise later]
[Edit: discussion on RPG.net is circling around "post-scarcity" being the key: it's not that money is to be gotten rid of (well, that probably is an appeal some of the time) but that post-scarcity is the appeal, after which there's no role for money. Whether post-scarcity is realistic, even at personal nanoforge tech levels, is another matter.]
But why? Why is this so popular, as opposed to the leftism where everyone has enough money?
The way I see it, any group that has a lot of trade will have a money, hacked out of fungible high-demand goods or IOU time-labor scrip if nothing else. So to me saying "no money" is effectively saying "no trade", which doesn't sound very attractive.
One might appeal to computers and advanced barter exchanges, but while that might make it possible to work out "you give an IOU to make A in return for B, to trade for C, to trade for D, to trade for E which you actually want", I suspect a money would arise anyway.
There's so much automation that no one ever does anything useful, but that doesn't seem fun. There's that plus people doing things just for fun, and I don't rule it out entirely... but if there's a high-demand artist, maybe people end up bribing her to help on their projects.
"To each according to their need" is great and all, but what about getting what you *want*?
[This was better written in my head, I may revise later]
[Edit: discussion on RPG.net is circling around "post-scarcity" being the key: it's not that money is to be gotten rid of (well, that probably is an appeal some of the time) but that post-scarcity is the appeal, after which there's no role for money. Whether post-scarcity is realistic, even at personal nanoforge tech levels, is another matter.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 22:37 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 22:42 (UTC)From:Great care must however be taken to keep the cost of the social safety nets, both in financial and behavior-distortion terms, fairly small. Otherwise, you can crash not only your economy but also your culture. I point to modern Britain as a good example of such a catastrophe.