TED Conversations

peter lindsay

Physics Teacher,

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is there an alternative to money?

I read many entries on this site that tell me about the evils of money and how rampant capitalism is destroying the world. SO! I'm a highschool science teacher. I teach on average100 students per day for 1 or 2 hours each. How can I be compensated for my service in a way that doesn't involve some sort of promissory note?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • 0
    Feb 28 2013: If there were the necessary shift in the cultural paradigm, the idea of money wouldn't even be part of your thinking - any more than jurgulats are today. The word "money" would be nothing more than a series of syllables without meaning. The concept of money as a medium of exchange just wouldn't exist.

    Thought experiment: You & 100 people are stranded on a tropical island and people don't know ur ship ran aground, AND (because this happened 400 years ago), no one will find you. The captain & his crew all died trying to save you & this now-unsailable ship). There is no power hierarchy in place.

    Your 1st order of business is to find fresh water, temporary shelter, fire, and food to sustain you until you find the best place for a clearing to establish a permanent settlement. Each contributes time, talent, and expertise in the name of common survival. When the absolute essentials are taken care of, there is a shift in the cultural mentality. There is a lot of free time. What will you do with it? Sit and die of boredom?

    No, you will pursue your interests and strengthen your talents. You will share them with the group. If you don't want to share them with the group until a currency is agreed upon and monetary policy established, you will be an outcast. The group will not share w/ you until you demonstrate that you want to be part of the group. Groups can do a lot more than singles - and in less time.

    If you think your talent is building homes, but you aren't good at it, no one will want your home. You'll figure out that you have much to learn or that's not 1 of your talents. In the same way, if you are a physics teacher but no student wants to learn from you, you had best find another talent to share.

    No power hierarchy. No government telling kids that they must go to you to learn even if you are not the best teacher. (hypothetically).'

    Talent, skill & creativity become the currency of the day, along with the ability to get along with others.
    • thumb

      peter lindsay 30+

      • 0
      Feb 28 2013: I agree that a pure communist leaderless. moneyless society is possible but they only seem to work upto the point where population is big enough to allow the formation of "tribes" within the group. You can't maintain a relationship with everybody once you get to 20000pop, so tribes form and you need a way of trading services between tribes.
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • 0
        Mar 1 2013: I perceive a vast difference between "tribes" and "communities". But trading services is just another form of money, so I think that the very idea of trading this for that is part of the fundamental flaw in our social system. I prefer the gift economy that comes with RATIONAL anarchy.

        I'm not sure if by pure communism you mean Marxism - that values people above all. Remember that Marx himself said that if Communism is Marxism, then he is not a Marxist.

        RATIONAL anarchy has almost nothing in common with anarchy. Anarchy is a fear-based system.
        • thumb

          peter lindsay 30+

          • 0
          Mar 4 2013: Pure communism like Australian aboriginals. They don't traditionally have a concept of personal property. Everything is about the people or the land. When they refer to country it means the area of land that they are responsible for looking after not the land they own.
        • thumb

          edward long 100+

          • 0
          Mar 4 2013: If Rational Anarchy has nothing in common with Anarchy would it not be a good idea to label it something which does not contain the word "anarchy"?
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • 0
        Mar 4 2013: Ed, If I could think of another word that would describe it, I would use it. But as no word currently exists, if I were to invent one, would you know what it means?

        Anarchy is chaos. A group of people who are controlled by their emotions, rather than own them, might well form a government that manipulates us through those emotions - as our government and religions do.

        Rational anarchy is logical, coherent, rational thought forming the basis for a ground-up (local up) government (with very few powers). It depends on the individual to be able to think rationally, thus to treat others and self well. It denies Big Brother ownership of the lives of individuals, and allows all to experience the consequences of their choices.

        The word "Libertarian" comes closest, but I know of Libertarians who do not know the difference between a thought and an emotion, so to use the word would misrepresent what I am saying.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.