Welcome to Gaia! ::

Jeeze, I mean, I would have mentioned Communism (I almost wrote Condomism xd ) if I'd seen that thread... it sounded like it really, really led to the subject.

It's hard for me to imagine a society without money. I only know a little bit about Communism, but I love money, it's so stretchable and interesting, you can put it in cards and give it to your kids for allowance and it smells good. I can't imagine what communism would be like. sweatdrop I think money's going to stay for a long while, too...

i propose an even newer system, one with no profit, no money, nothing to lose or to gain, a world in which there are no wealthy, and there are no poor.

here's how it works- everyone makes things, as they do for a capitalist society. everyone produces someting which they put into the stores.

this is where the similarities end.

there is no pay for the work, not in money. not in cash. there is no trade from, say, one farmer to individuals. merely, the farmer to the entire system. there is no governer or ruler, no military or leader. simply people working, helping eachother, maintaining the society by watching over everyone else. mch like a neighborhood watch system, but instead of keeping thieves out, putting food and clothing and cars in.

factories would be built by builders, who would have homes built by other builders, who would be paid in the food produced by the famers, who would have their homes built by more builders. produce and be served.

when a job was saturated, when there was no more room for workers, say all theh omes were built for a while, they would produce in fields or factories, wherever they were needed.

and since all items are pre-paid by work, (think of working, if you must, as paying a million dollars an hour, since you could literally go in to the store, take what you want, and leave) there can be no poor so long as they are willing to work.

where do ideas of slavery show up in this plan? to me, it looks like unbridled freedom. All items are free, there are no poor, no rulers, no governing, no republic, no taxation, no profit, no war or abortion or starvation.

again, who is telling anyone where they need to work?

i'm sure you've had a factory or low-end job, burger king or a warehouse. we all have one at one point. why did you have it? because that's the job that paid the most and had great benefits?

no. because it was available and that reason only.

there will be no telling where to work. only open jobs which people can take- first come, first serve, of course.

and the difference is- people make more money than others in capitalism. simple as that. some work hard and still don't have enough, while others never work and get everything. again, paris hilton.

there will be police, and the most basic of basic laws- no killing for any reason (including war, abortion, mercy killing, suicide), no stealing, the likes.

and those who choosen ot to work don't need to be involved in the society. some pople are poor here because they are simply unlucky. once you fall down that slope ,who will hire you? you can't jsut tell a hobo to get a job, where will he get one? which mcdonalds, even, would hire a man who can't afford a pair of pants, who smells from months of exposure?

and again, a worker's union would ensure that people work- every worker would, hopefully ,take pride in their work and their workplace. they would all individually ensure that the others work, everyone would be a manager and a worker.

So that means that someone is making the rules, and enforcing them, and thus, that group has more power than everyone else. The police and the worker's union have more power than the other people. And the judges, unless the police act as judge, jury, and executioner.

And honestly? I wouldn't work my hardest. I'd just work to get by. Why put the effort in when you get the same thing no matter how much you put in? I might if I was in a job I was happy with, but even then, if I can get the same thing by showing up that I can get by working my butt off, which one am I going to choose? The one that doesn't involve as much effort, put me at more risk, take away from my happiness, etc. If I enjoy my work, then I might work my hardest because I'd enjoy it. I'm certainly not going to do my best at a job I hate and am only taking because it's available, not if I get paid the same when I just get by. If I was the only selfish b***h in the world, that'd be okay, but I'm not.

I honestly haven't had a job like that. I've taken odd jobs, but I'm not healthy enough to take a steady job...or really, I haven't been since before I was old enough to work. I'm getting well enough though, so soon I will, but I don't intend to spend my entire life working in retail. I have a plan to go to school, do my best, and eventually get a PhD. Some people like working retail and they're happy doing it, but I wouldn't be. Why go to school for 4-10 years to learn something you're not ever going to use because you won't get to prove you're the best for the job, you'll just be stuck somewhere, and someone who's 10 times less qualified than you gets the job because either you feel an obligation to not just up and quit your job at the drop of a hat or you don't get there fast enough?

How fair. You get assigned something to do according to what's available, not according to your skills, knowledge, and just plain being the best person for the job.

What about people who CAN'T work? What happens to them? Are they put out of the society because they're useless?

On a side note, I always thought it was really silly to make suicide illegal. "You're dead, let's arrest you now."

You're wrong, though.

The way it works now is NOT "This many slots, first come first serve." It's, "This many slots, most qualified gets the job." So yes, you ARE saying that people need to be in jobs they hate even if they can do the job they want 100 times better than the people already working there. You are assigned to any job that's available. Go take it, do it, because you can't do what you were trained to do since someone else got their first. It doesn't matter that you're the best brain surgeon in the world, someone much worse than you is operating on people because he happened to apply first. If you don't want to spend the rest of your life flipping burgers despite your PhD, then get out because you're not willing to work.

That's what I mean by jobs being assigned. People need to take jobs or they get kicked out. They can't save up money to sit on in case such a thing happens where they go without a job in their field for awhile. In your system, these people will have to take other jobs. You ARE telling them where they need to work, because if they don't work, they're out of the community, and if there are only a few places to work and none of them are in the field of the person searching for a job, too bad. Some freedom.

I also love the assumption that everyone qualified to build is qualified to work in the fields. To be done well, both of them require study, technique, and dedication. Is everyone going to go to school to learn to do everything since they can't really choose what to do with their lives (since, you can't work where you want to work, you just work where you have to work, and you never know what's going to be open so there's no point in picking a profession, chances are you won't be allowed to work there since there is no competing for jobs and you get in based on luck)?

Know why not everyone is a rockstar? Because most people suck at it. Of course if you want someone to be a rockstar based on possessing a set of vocal chords, then I suppose you'd like this system. I'll invest in earplugs and steer clear of radios.

If you think the current system is, "Show up first and you get the job," then I must ask. Have you ever written a resume? Have you ever seen the stacks of resumes employers get now when there's a job opening? Why are those stacks there, what's the point, if it's "first come, first serve?"

If the union encompasses everyone, then it doesn't really change anything if no one is heading the union. It's just giving the same group of people another title...nothing is accomplished unless everyone wants to work their best, and if the union really does have no more power than the average workman, they can't change it when someone decides not to put in 100%, or even 70%. So what's the point of having one? So a group of people can be powerless together?

In your system, though, you're claiming no one would have more power. I do not claim this about mine. But in your system, people DO have more power if it works the same here. Judges would. Police officers would. Average citizens certainly don't have the power to arrest people, or take them to jail against their will. Average citizens can't make a determination of what punishment to give.

So yes. Some people will have more power than others do, whether you want to admit it or not. The worst part is? These people won't have it because of responsibility, respect from the community, dedication, etc. They'll have it because of pure dumb luck of getting there first.

The reason I'm not working with you is because I think it's not otherwise perfect. I think it's far from perfect and I'd shudder to have to live in such a society. There's so much room for corruption.

And almost everything requires skill. That's what makes products good. It encourages mediocrity to say in anything, first come first serve. Here's a slot, let's fill it. Good products are made by good people. Even right now, for production based jobs, it isn't first come first serve. Otherwise it'd be completely plausible to tell a hobo "Go get a job," and have him go get one. If it's really first come, first serve, then your comment about people like that not being able to get jobs is false. If an employer gets 10 applications, and one of them has had extensive factory experience before, the employer isn't going to say, "That's the best person for the job, but unfortunately, I picked up another application first, so I'm taking that guy."

I think it would be a good idea if everyone truly was equal, but we're not. As human beings, we're each unique. We don't all have the same aptitudes and abilities, everyone is different. Some people are wonderful at factory jobs, and some people really do suck at it. Some people have the kind of self-motivation it takes to make your system work in terms of working and taking from the communal store, but many people don't. Someday, I think it will be possible...I just don't think it is now.

If I found something in your system that I liked and thought was possible, then I'd certainly work with you...but I don't. I also have a lot of questions still unanswered. I also think it's oversimplifying things to say there will be no more starvation, abortion, theft, or war. Problems in life don't always come from want of possessions or lack of finances. There are many people who steal just to steal, who go to war to defend themselves, who wouldn't be willing to work and will therefore be denied access to food, who just plain don't want to be pregnant and or mothers. People can want things that can't be replicated and mass-produced, like other people or an original work of art.

exactly- now just take the money out of it. if there is nothing to steal and noting to trade- it is perfection.

i just hate money, really. it controls people, enslaves them, makes them do disgusting things. not only for opulence, but for a societal neccesity. it is NEEDED, and i find it wrong that some people can be born into a life with no want or need, while others can lose everything through scams and loopholes and regulations and accidents.

how could a system in which thete is no gain or loss be corrupt? there is nothing to pervert, nothing to take advantage of.