SmithW6079

I'm currently reading The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris, which examines human behaviour from an evolutionary standpoint. Morris argues that despite all our advancements and civilized trappings, we are essentially still a tribal species. Morris believes that most of us either:

a) prefer having someone make our decisions for us (our "leaders", elected or otherwise")
b) prefer telling others what they should do (we want to lead, climb the social ladder)

So whether we have a "Capitalist" system as defined by TimJ where a wealthy minority are in charge, or a "Communist" system where a small minority are still in charge, someone else is telling us how we should live. Even under a perfect socialist system as some have mentioned (which I found intriguing), what prevents one group (or "pseudotribe" as Morris would call it) within the society voting for what they want, and what others want be damned? In other words, there's no escape from "leaders".

This discussion also brings to mind a quote by Daniel Quinn (author of Ishmael), "There is no one right way to live." Maybe that's the problem. Many think that they know the right way to live, and that every one else should live in the same manner. But if Morris is right and we are truly tribal, then there should literally be thousands of ways to live. I think the problems occur when one tribe tries to impose its way on the others.

That being said, I've often thought that there must be a better system than we have currently, but I'll be damned if I could figure out what it might be...

CaptainTandem

We are all in the same boat that needs to stay afloat or we all perish. Nobody can truly live alone and stay truly sane and healthy.

Action will only be taken when the boat is sinking and everyone, and I mean everyone, finally realizes that their skin is on the line now too. Or, will it be every person for themselves? I doubt it. We're so intertwined now in this complex society.

makeinu

I can compute the tax equivalent yield just fine by myself. But that's not the point. You can get a 1000% return at a casino. To accurately compare rates of return you need to adjust for the risk. Simply observing that you've never been the victim of a natural disaster or a dishonest management company is not a good measure of the risk.

Do you buy any kind of insurance? Have you ever had to file a claim? What would be the difference in your rate of return if you put the money in your sock drawer instead? 100%. And the taxable equivalent? About 133%. Wow, what a great investment it is to cancel all your insurance.

CommuterRun

I think the aboriginal peoples are the only ones to get it right. As far as having a society that can govern itself and does not destroy the evironment that it depends on to live. But subsistence living is a heck of a tough way to do things, and the planet is far to over-populated with people for this to currently be feasible.

acroy

+1 - but even aboriginal peoples, from what I understand, tend to be ruled by semi-religious fanatcis, and have their tribal differences.
As attractive as a return-to-the-earth society sounds in some respects, i'm not sure i'm willing to give up air conditioning, modern medicine, and take-out Chinese food.

Freud

Is this thread even about frugal living anymore? Or did I wander into the wrong thread?

TimJ

Not to be pendantic, but just because it's interesting... actually traditional hunter/gathering lifestyles enjoyed far more leisure time than any other lifestyle system out there. Basically you "work" an hour or two a day and that's it, you're done. Hunter/gatherer societies also trend more egalitarian than others, so it's not a tough way to make a living at all, really. But that's from a completely dispassionate view, most people in the world, even if they had the option of living that way, probably wouldn't find it an attractive lifestyle. And of course that lifestyle hasn't been practical for a long time except in some rare cases. But I've always found that interesting. The common wisdom is some dude in the bush has to struggle each day to barely survive, when in fact they get more time to hang out than we do.

Ekdog

Without access to modern healthcare, I imagine their life expectancy is much lower than that of members of modern, industrialized societies, so in the long run they probably have less leisure time on their hands.

vulpes

As a cultural anthropologist (at least that's what my degree is in), I can confirm that that is the case. That's how they had the time to develop such rich ceremonial cultures. I am of the opinion that returning to something similar is not entirely out of the question. A great many people work at jobs that exist solely to maintain the capitalist system of production for profit; jobs devoted to the daily operation and maintenance of the market system and to protecting and expanding its markets. These include jobs in banking and finance, accounting, insurance, sales and marketing, real estate, law, taxation, the armed forces, and many others. We can readily see that this represents a huge number of workers. When we factor in the additional workers, materials and energy it takes to support them in their work we begin to see how enormous the cost of simply maintaining the capitalist system actually is. These include transportation to and from their places of work (including off site meetings and business travel, troop deployments, etc.), the buildings they occupy and the maintenance of those buildings, the office equipment, information systems, and supplies they use, and the mining, manufacturing, energy and natural resources that all these represent. A socialist system, comprised of production strictly for use and free access to goods and services, will render these jobs unnecessary. Consequently, the workforce and resources available for work that directly benefits society will increase tremendously. It will at least double! With the available workforce doubled and unemployment eliminated, each of us will only need to work, on average, two or three days a week to produce an abundance of everything everyone needs. So even a modern world of billions of people could be be organized in such a way that all members of society could live in relative abundance and have plenty of leisure time to boot.

For one thing, technology has advanced over the last century or so to the point that far less human labor is required to produce food and material goods. When electronics, computers and robotics first came on the scene, everyone heard a great deal about how these new labor saving devices would result in a sharp increase in leisure time. And in a way they have, but not for many working people. They have simply resulted in an increase in productivity. All of the boring, repetitive jobs as well as the unpleasant and dangerous ones can be done with automation. To some extent, this is already happening, but mainly as a cost cutting measure to increase the profitability (and lower the liability) of industrial and business concerns. Fewer workers are employed in automated plants and computerized offices, but they work at least as hard and as long as they did before automation was introduced. Workers displaced by automation are simply unemployed until they acquire new skills or find a job similar to the one they lost that has not yet been automated. In a society where no one is forced to work in order to live, everyone will enjoy the leisure time afforded by labor saving automation.

The distinction between work and leisure activity would blur as the alienation and dissociation that results from economically forced labor gives way to voluntary involvement in useful activities that benefit the community. Community, itself, would once again be the center of human activity as it was before the industrial revolution.

acroy

heck, seems we all just want to debate societal issues anyway... maybe we should rename it the Living Car Free / Societal Debate Forum

vulpes

For me, at least, it's a bit more interesting than talking about calculating tax equivalents or debating the relative merits of different types of investments and crap like that. Booooooorrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg.

makeinu

Wow, that's just fascinating. Why do you suppose most societies chose to move away from such ways of life towards more work?

I'm not saying that the capitalist system doesn't require a lot of resources to keep it running smoothly, but I think it's a bit misleading to say that all these jobs would be completely eliminated. Keeping track of resources is still useful (and perhaps necessary) outside of capitalism. So I don't think it's fair to say that jobs in banking, finance, accounting, real estate, and taxation could be eliminated per say. For example, although a book shop might become a communal library, eliminating the need for a cashier, you'd still need a librarian. Similarly, sales and marketing also has value outside of capitalism. Attractive presentation can be desirable regardless of whether or not money is changing hands and marketers do just that. Moreover, there's nothing particularly capitalistic about law. Sure, many of our society's laws exist to preserve the capitalist system, but that doesn't mean that eliminating capitalism would eliminate the need for workers in law.

All societal systems have operational overhead. What makes you so sure that the overhead of the capitalist system is greater?

vulpes

That has been the subject of a great deal of debate in the anthropological community for many years. I don't think it can attributed to any one cause. It was probably a combination of conditions that developed during the later paleolithic and into the mesolithic periods. Population pressure was probably a major contributing factor.

In the hypothetical utopian society I have been describing on this forum, money would be completely eliminated as would markets and the profit motive. In a society based on democratically controlled production for use (as opposed to for profit) and equal free access to the goods and services produced, money has no purpose. And competition would be replaced by cooperation. Certainly some form of tracking and accounting would still be necessary but everything would be accounted for in kind rather than in the terms monetary value. In fact the means to do this already exists. Economist Wassily Leontief was awarded a Nobel prize in 1973 for formulating a methodology for input-output analysis based on just such a quantitative basis, partly inspired by the Marxian and Walrasian analysis of general equilibrium via interindustry flows.

Laws exist mainly to protect property and propery rights. The vast majority of crimes are crimes against property and are primarily due to the uneven distribution of wealth in capitalist society. In a classless, money-less, society of common ownership and free access, crime against property is not even a possibility and there will be no motive for property related crimes against individuals. Common ownership would not include personal possessions, but why would anyone steal something they can easily get for themselves for free? Killing someone or doing violence to them to get their money or collect on a life insurance policy would certainly be a thing of the past. Drug trafficking and drug related crimes will disappear with the profit motive. The drug lords and dealers aren't in it for their health, after all. The socioeconomic root causes of street gang formation and violence will disappear as well. Crimes against humanity like mass murder, forced labor, and imposed starvation perpetrated by capitalist governments and corporations will finally come to an end once and for all. Generally accepted custom will replace criminal law. Censure by the community will replace adjudication. Procedural rules for the administration of the democratic system and the smooth operation of society will of course be required, but laws to protect property and the hegemony of the owning class will go by the wayside along with their police, lawyers, judges, courts and prisons. Litigiousness and the odd notion of intellectual property will give way to freely sharing ideas for the common good.

gwd

Two things. The native Americans did some pretty nasty things like hunt by setting fires and driving herds over cliffs killing far more than they could consume. They didn't destroy the environment because their population was so low. It is interesting to me that in Florida the Seminoles as part of treaties with whites insisted that blacksmiths and other technicians be sent to them to teach them more productive ways of farming and living.

Second thing, I read an article by Benjamin Franklin where he pointed out that in his time young people were taken from their culture and brought up in the other culture. Both from Native to European and from European to Native. He claimed that invariably when these bi-cultural people were given a choice, the people originally from the Native culture returned to that culture and people originally from the European culture returned to the Native culture. I came to car free culture from being brought up in a car dependent culture and don't want to return to car dependency.

gwd

Well the thread was about frugal living and in order to decide between two alternative uses of money you need to be able to rationally and consistently compare two sequences of cash flows. Those who can't are at the mercy of those who can.

gwd

Well, it was the point. Roody was describing adjusting his rental payment schedule and I pointed out how he can come out ahead by paying by the year. You took it as a reason to mislead people by fantasizing risks of financial loss that are so small as to be practically non-existent.

Tell us how you measure risks when you consider alternative uses for money? Especially risks of events that as far as you can tell have never been observed? In 28 years of renting I've heard and experienced bad landlord stories but not a landlord abandoning property occupied by tenants in such a way that the tenants would suffer un compensated financial loss AND no government or non profit tenant advocacy group could help. What evidence do you have that the probability of this event you describe is significant? How do you adjust the rate of return so it can be compared with investments that your broker presents to you? For that matter how does your broker describe risk to you and how does he use it to adjust rates of return say in comparing investments in for example in a REIT compared to a utility holding company? Some of the posts here in this thread have been concerned with investing money. Teach them a better way if you know one.

makeinu

But it requires time and effort to democratically control those resources. People have to analyze and decide which course of action to take. Then there needs to be a mechanism for resolving disagreement. Money is one such mechanism. What mechanism are you proposing to resolve disagreement and how does it entail less overhead than the money system?

Once again, you're very keen on pointing out what would be done away with, but fail to specify what would need to be done. The fact that violation of ownership has been the biggest source of lawlessness under capitalism does not mean that there could not be a bigger source of lawlessness under your system. What will ensure that the procedural rules for the administration are followed? What of those that don't follow generally accepted custom despite censure by the community? What of those that might seek to overthrow the system in favor of capitalism? What of those that do harm unintentionally? For example, a scientist seeking to run a nuclear reactor for the good of his community might be transporting radioactive materials across the continent, possibly killing thousands in the process. Who will stop him? The community could tell him that he is killing thousands, but he may think the ends justify the means. His whole local community may agree with him. What if the world community formally disagrees by democratic vote? How would their decision be enforced?

You assume consensus for all mankind, but almost any system imaginable would work under such an assumption (after all, how could you argue there is a problem is everyone agrees there are no problems?). Eliminating capitalism will not eliminate disagreement. In fact, disagreement and competing interest is the beast that capitalism seeks to tame. All the vices, sacrifices, and compromises of capitalism are made in an attempt to tame this beast. How would your system tame it?

Yes, there is an overabundance of the resources needed to meet most basic human needs, but there isn't an overabundance of everything. Scarcity will always be a reality for some resources and that will inevitably lead to disagreement.

makeinu

I generally take insurance on my investments. But when I invest in stocks I have all the historical trends available to me showing exactly how that stock has performed. Thousands of data points. With my landlord I don't have any data points on how prepayments have worked out historically. If I'm lucky I might be able to get a few data points from other tenants, but it would still take hundreds of years for me to reach the same level of certainty about the likelihood of loss.

"As far as I can tell have never been observed" and "never been observed" are vastly different things. The fact that I've never seen my neighbors ******* means that I've never cared to look. If it were the case that no one has ever seen her ******* then that would mean she probably doesn't have one. Vastly different conclusions.

I'm not interested in the probability of this event. I'm interested in the risk of loss (the probability multiplied by the money invested). No matter how small the probability of the event is, the risk can be made significant by increasing the size of the investment. For most people, a year's worth of housing expenses is a relatively sizable investment.

Also, your landlord skipping town isn't the only thing you have to worry about. What if you need to skip town due to an emergency? Even if you could get the money back at a later date, I would think that having it available would be a godsend for whatever emergency compelled you to leave in the first place.

Comparing investments at different risk levels is not a simple matter. That's why fund managers make a lot of money. That's also why I prefer to invest in FDIC insured accounts. I figure my time is better spent saving/earning money elsewhere than analyzing my exposure to risk and my expected returns.

All I'm looking for is recognition that you can't directly compare your rate of return from prepayment with your rate of return in an FDIC insured savings account (and I would hope that no one is investing their monthly housing money in anything more risky than an FDIC insured account). I'm not saying it's a bad idea to do the prepayment. In fact, I will most definitely be mentioning it next time I'm negotiating a lease, thanks to you. But when I mention it I'll be sure to keep in mind the additional risk involved (perhaps I would get renter's insurance to hedge some of the risk...but of course that would eat into my discount).

Uhh, ok. My advice to anyone looking to invest money is to pay attention to your risk exposure (hedge your bets) and try to think outside of the box. The total amount of your money doesn't matter. What matters is how that amount compares to what everyone else has. Therefore, if you invest in what everyone else invests in then you'll never get ahead. In my opinion, everything else boils down to personal preference (your appetite for risk, the amount of time you want to spend tending to your investments, etc).

vulpes

Democracy. And a simple straightforward bottom-up administrative mechanism geared to implementing the decisions of the people. We already have a global communications and information infrastructure in place that is well suited for adaptation from capitalist commerce to this type of administration. The global communications infrastructure can serve as an extension of local town and neighborhood meetings allowing issues to be defined and discussed over as wide an area as needed to arrive at a consensus. Data communications will facilitate ratification of consensus in very short order whether on a local, regional or global level. Information regarding the production and distribution of goods and services including, for example, needs for manpower, equipment and materials, availability of goods and services, and of educational opportunities, etc., can be quickly and efficiently communicated.

One possibility for such an administrative system is one comprised of elected delegates, who would be subject to immediate recall at any time, would be entrusted solely with delivering the decisions of local or regional committees to more general administrative bodies, and then, only if a more general level of cooperation was necessary to effect the decisions of the locale or region. Decisions made at the community level would only need to be escalated to a more general level if it requires a more general level of cooperation to be acted upon or if it would affect more than the community that approved it. In such cases escalation to a higher level would require a more general vote but every member of the affected region would have an equal vote.


[QUOTE]Once again, you're very keen on pointing out what would be done away with, but fail to specify what would need to be done. The fact that violation of ownership has been the biggest source of lawlessness under capitalism does not mean that there could not be a bigger source of lawlessness under your system. What will ensure that the procedural rules for the administration are followed? What of those that don't follow generally accepted custom despite censure by the community? What of those that might seek to overthrow the system in favor of capitalism? What of those that do harm unintentionally? For example, a scientist seeking to run a nuclear reactor for the good of his community might be transporting radioactive materials across the continent, possibly killing thousands in the process. Who will stop him? The community could tell him that he is killing thousands, but he may think the ends justify the means. His whole local community may agree with him. What if the world community formally disagrees by democratic vote? How would their decision be enforced?[/QOUTE]

In the first place, for a system like this to come into existence in the first place, a overwhelming majority would have to understand what it entails and want it. Anything short of this would likely result in a level of dissent, and the kinds of issues you use as examples, within the new organization of society that it would seriously hinder its functioning and stability. In this regard, one might say that abolishing capital and property would be the end, not the beginning, of a "transitional period" of replacing of capitalist values and consciousness with those of this new socioeconomic system.

[QUOTE]You assume consensus for all mankind, but almost any system imaginable would work under such an assumption (after all, how could you argue there is a problem is everyone agrees there are no problems?). Eliminating capitalism will not eliminate disagreement. In fact, disagreement and competing interest is the beast that capitalism seeks to tame. All the vices, sacrifices, and compromises of capitalism are made in an attempt to tame this beast. How would your system tame it?

Yes, there is an overabundance of the resources needed to meet most basic human needs, but there isn't an overabundance of everything. Scarcity will always be a reality for some resources and that will inevitably lead to disagreement.[/QOUTE]

Actually capitalism thrives on competing interests. In a classless society where everyone the world over has equal free access to all goods and services and an equal voice and vote in their administration, civil conflicts, whether regional or global, would be minimal. All that would be needed to resolve disagreements and distributional disputes would be an ideal political process to settle them: true democracy. There would be no powerful, privileged class to violently struggle against just to get what is needed for a satisfying and fulfilling life. For the first time in human history the entire population of the Earth would be one people working in concert to meet the challenges that are common to us all. For the first time in our history our commonality would unite all of us, and our differences, illusory as they are, would truly enrich us rather than divide us.

bhtooefr

But you have to have a leader to guide such a system into place... and having a leader makes the system break down, as there's two classes - the leader (and his cronies,) and everyone else.

Sure, once it's in place, the government could be a bunch of computers... but how do you get it in place?

Platy

There was once a place where money was for all practical purposes forbidden, all citizens were equal, life was frugal, and the prime social values were honor and virture.

Sparta

Maintaining that society required a large slave population and cultural isolation. Ultimately, their system did not survive contact with the rest of the world.

squegeeboo

Wow, talk about pipe dream. True Democracy? Dude, true democracy is just mob rule, and mobs rarely end well.
Have you ever taken a look at the people who you see every day? The ones who feel voting in American Idol or who won the latest ball game is more important than health care or economics or foreign policy or a myriad of other real issues?

Additionally why would any one manage or run any of the processes needed to make your system work if they don't get anything extra out of it? And if they do, then suddenly you have a class structure again.

Why even bother discussing Utopian ideas that have 0 chance of ever occurring? Just do what you can to make the current world better.

makeinu

Fair enough, but it's not clear that such a system would have a lower overhead than the capitalist system.

Yeah I know, but that doesn't address the question of overhead. You talk about how efficient it would be to shed the overhead of the capitalist system, but what would be the overhead of maintaining an ideal true democracy?

Yup.

Why does anyone do anything? Personal satisfaction. I mean, it's not like the retired community doesn't contribute to society. Why would anyone do a better than minimal job if the only thing they're getting out of it is money? At least people motivated by personal satisfaction take pride in their work.

Of course, the question is, will enough people find personal satisfaction in maintaining the system? Will enough people find personal satisfaction in participating in the democracy (or is it even a true and ideal democracy if every last person doesn't participate)? Maybe, maybe not. At least capitalism has a plan of action for such scenarios (raise the wages).

vulpes

Well, with half or more of all current employees working just to maintain the system, it shouldn't be hard to fathom. For example, since all wars are fought solely to protect and expand capital interests (sources of energy, labor, materials, markets, etc.), war would be eliminated. During the 1990s the United States alone spent $3.3 trillion on “defense” and they've probably spent that mush just the Iraq oil war. The current world aggregate of defense spending must be truly staggering. If “defense” were unnecessary, what would you vote to devote several trillion dollars worth of resources to? The truly vast resources now devoted to maintaining standing armies and munitions, and fighting wars would be available for useful and productive efforts like natural disaster preparedness and relief, food production and distribution, housing construction, infrastructure construction and maintenance, scientific research, developing new technologies, space exploration, and/or to whatever else we collectively decided to devote those resources.

makeinu

I don't know, you tell me. How many days of lost work would it take for the entire population of Israel and the entire population of Palestine to sit down and talk until they agreed on a compromise (ideal true democracy style)? Weeks? Years? Decades? How many dollars of lost productivity? Billions? Trillions?

No. Once again, you're neglecting to add the cost of maintaining the new system. Simply not buying weapons to resolve conflicts does not mean that the conflicts are magically resolved. How much would it cost to resolve the conflicts without weapons? Subtract that. Then see what the balance is. Of course, you save lives by not using the weapons, but from a purely financial perspective I'm not even sure the balance would be positive, nevermind vast savings.