free society works in the idea that money must be abolished as it is the cause of the majority of the problems in the world. it reinforces poverty and prevents the sustainability of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. think of a begger outside a grocery store. he is prevented from eating because of money. think of a minimum wage worker. he would love to take a trip to the bahamas but he cant because he lacks money. someone who dreams of being a scientist, but cant pay the tuition needed to educate himself is also a victim of money

we labor so that we can have money, using that money to sustain our lifestyles

with no money, we can not sustain those lifestyles. we feed ourselves, house ourselves, clothe ourselves, get ourselves nice things, with money. 

we are essentially dependent on money

and how does money relate to labor? more valuable labor is given more money to compensate it. 

but what is more valuable labor? 

it is more "skilled labor."

 what makes that labor skilled? 


if we start from that everything is free, then we can say that equal opportunity for education is established and labor relations become a 1 to 1 ratio. 

what?? theres no way! doctors are way more valuable than burger flippers right?

well, only in the same way that models are more valuable than teachers, and actors  and athletes are more important than social workers. in reality, everyone is needed. doctors send their children to school and need teachers who go to the movies and need entertainers who have leaky faucets and need plumbers whose houses burn down and need firefighters whos own houses get dirty and need housekeepers and so on. besides, mcdonalds is a huge corporation and probably one of the wealthiest in the world. if the worker is making that happen, why shouldnt he be the richest in the world in the same way that the ceo is the richest? the ceo depends on the worker as much as the worker depends on the ceo. without one, the other would have no work.

the point is that demand is created and therefore must be supplied. economics are based on this simple rule. through demand, supply is created and sustained through labor.

in FREE SOCIETY, the labor relations are basically broken down into a system like this:

if i supply the demands of society with my own area of expertise (practicing law or medicine, educating people, fighting fires, running a restaurant etc...), my own demands will be supplied by society in return. it is in this way, all demands are free, paid for not by money, but by productivity and labor. 

give me a break. everyone knows that doctors are inherently MORE VALUABLE than burger flippers.

but why is that?

um, let me think...because its skilled labor and not everyone can do it?

why not?

because not everyone has the opportunity to get schooled as a doctor

exactly. not everyone has the resources to go to school to become a doctor. studying takes time, effort, and money. you are not making any money as a student and since your studying all the time you have to choose making money to sustain yourself or spend money to educate yourself. doctors are paid well because not everyone can pay to get the education needed or has the time to spend getting the knowledge needed to become a doctor


so if education was free, everyone would have equal opportunity to pursue being a doctor, or a lawyer for that matter, or a scientist or whatever. in fact, some people hate school. some people dont want to do anything but a low skilled job so they can get back home and get on with their life. 

just as it prevents people from eating, money prevents people from being educated. with equal opportunity for education, people are free to do what they want to do, without worrying about making enough money to survive. when you were six, and your teacher asked you what you wanted to be when you grew up, imagine saying a bus driver, and not changing it to a corporate litigator 10 years later just because you wanted a big screen tv.

money says one person is more important than another, when really they need each other to be productive: the bus driver drives the corporate litigator to work who in turn runs the bus company. FREE SOCIETY works on the supposition that all labor, as it is now freely available, reaches a 1 to 1 relationship.

why wouldnt everyone pick apples then if you dont have to work hard for your money?

because some people dont want to pick apples.  competition today works in the way that says, if i work harder than you, ill make more money, and i can buy more things, and have more stuff. FREE SOCIETY says that my incentive is no longer to make enough money to survive and buy the things i want. because i can survive and have the things i want anyway, i am free to be competitive in that now i can be the best doctor i can be, the best banker i can be, the best orange picker i can be etcetera.

hell no, people would not do shit if they didnt have to because everything would be free. everything would fall apart

your right, everything would fall apart if everybody did not do enough and demand was not supplied. which is why to sustain this economy, people would have to do the bare minimum at least. thats how a lot of people regard work now anyway. FREE SOCIETY makes the incentive to work the idea that if you do, everything will be free for you. therefore you will make good on your contract. also, if you go above and beyond, you are accepted as more relevant and necessary in that now you are a part of society that is more greatly desired, depended on, whatever. this is again what is reality now, except that the incentive is money. it is a false incentive that is actually a ceiling. tycoons often times expand and expand their businesses with no consideration of money. their business has gotten to be so huge, there is no real difference between 50 billion and 100 billion. your not going to need money. they simply do it for the advancement of their enterprise, which promotes the advancement of civilization. on the otherhand, many people work simply to sustain themselves and dont do anything once they have enough money to get by. once you ensure people will get by regardless and have everything they need, people are going do what they love, and do it to the best of their ability. no one wants to be mediocre at what they choose to do, and if they are, thats fine too. 

let me give you an example, or maybe an analogy....

let's take two card games and assign a social structure to each

we'll equivocate capitalism with texas holdem poker and FREE SOCIETY with blackjack. in texas hold em' everyone starts off with 20,000 dollars we'll say. the object of the game for the individual is slowly but surely get money from every single person until the winner has all the money 12 million dollars, and everyone else has nothing. sure the rich have it good, but everyone else has nothing.  theres only so much money to go around and one person wants it all, because what he can do with 12 million is way better than what he can do with 50 thousand, 100 thosand, and way better than nothing. his value is related to other people through his relation to money.

FREE SOCIETY or black jack is not this kind of individualistic, darwinian strong survives kind of mentality that inherently creates poverty. all the players are next to each other and playing simply to get more for themselves, regardless of, or at least independent of, the person next to them. each person is getting his chips from the bank, and each can potentially triple their money. in fact they actually help each other.  if one person gets a two, the other has a better chance of getting a king. if one sees the other get a king, they can strategically decide whether they want to hit again or not. in this way of competition with people rather than against people can everyone benefit. the bank is their own money anyway, provided by their own chips, their own labor

money prevents this joint partnership because money says that one person is better than another. if two people want a glass of milk, the one who can pay more for it, the "privileged" one, will get it. does he "deserve" it more? no. weve just discussed why everyone is necessary and how everyone needs each other. the elimination simply provides a more fair and balanced way to determine who gets what.

let me give you an example. 

ants are a more rudimentary civilizaiton in itself. or so we will accept for the purpose of this argument. there are certain ants who go out, scout, and find food, there are ants that make sure the population is created through reproduction, there is the queen and the ones that create the home for the ants. in this idea there are 4 types of ants. (im obviously not an ant specialist)

pretend for a moment one of these groups of ants decided their labor was more important than another groups. the ants who scout for food realize that everyone is dependent on food for survival, so they want to be priviliged. scout ants say that they get first priority on the food, or perhaps create a currency that dictates how much food will be provided in relation to the other ants work, which is not as inherently valuable, so they dont get as much money. the other groups of ants are only allowed to eat if they have money, even though their labor is just as important and without them there would be no ant species/population as the ants would have nowhere to sustain.  as  the scout ants become the privileged "guardians" because they are the ones who provide food for everyone, ant life becomes too oppressive to continue, and the species either goes to war to establish their rights, die off in a darwinistic model of the strong survive, or live in slavery to service the strong ants

just as in the ant population, the human population has a "guardian" class to. it is the educated class. once we establish the ability for anyone to become a guardian (equal opportunity for education-FREE SOCIETY!!) then all labor becomes inherently equal to itself. we do things not because it is affordable to do so, but because it simply needs to be done. it is in this way that humankind is finally granted equality by all members, and the problems that pose serious threat to our continued existence are alleviated. 

people supply demand, and supply demands people (or labor)

dude, that all sounds like commy bullshit. didnt they try this?

no, they tried a authoritative, abolishment of private property, government controls everything, type of deal. FREE SOCIETY says that you barter with your private property, to get other property that becomes your private property. you barter your labor for what you want. 

in communism, there was no private property. whereas before, the owners had the mode of production and the laborers provided the means, now the workers owned the means and the mode. workers became the owners. this was contradicted by the governments authority in its ability to dictate quotas, and what was necessary and what wasnt. in this way, the government became the REAL owners, and the workers, though they "owned" the work they were doing, were at the mercy of those who dictated how much of what was needed, and rationed products accordingly

this entire system is based on capitalism, but without money. we already trade with each other- our labor for money for consuming things, but what money does is prohibit certain people from having things. this is discrimination and must be abolished as it is the cause of crime. people wouldnt steal if they could have what they want themselves. 

i dont expect anyone to agree to this idea because it is so ludicrous, outlandish, extreme and radical, but so was the abolishment of slavery. the difference is that slavery is reproduced through money. if abolished, we can all contribute to the development of the country and the world.

our wars are fought because of money. no one wants to stop global warming because people would lose money. if money was abolished, they would have no reason to not stop it. they would have no reason to war, because there is nothing to fight over. 

in fact the majority of problems could potentially be alleviated- prisons are related to crime- most specifically theft and drugs.

in FREE SOCIETY, you recognize that demand requires supply. despite the war on drugs, demand has not decreased. therefore supply has not decreased. eliminate war on drugs, you eliminate drug crime. theft comes from poverty, if you want something and you cant afford it, you steal it. eliminate poverty and you eliminate crime pretty much. 

our country is housing an entire population, mostly minorities, simply because we have declared a demand to be illegal. poverty comes from lack of education also, proven by a decline in recidivism due to education. in FREE SOCIETY, these people would have no reason to be in jail and produce for the common good of society. billions of dollars and lives are being wasted when we could potentially alleviate the entire problem with a solution like abolition of money

my point about slavery through money is this. 

government wants to increase spending on education but it cant because that would take away money from the people through taxes. people do not ever want to give up their money unless they see a return. most people with large amounts of money that are taxed do not utilize these public schools or their children because they go to private school, because those educationa facilities are better recommended. the problem here we can see, is money. money is all the time trying to be redistributed "fairly", so poor people can have social security, educaiton, medical aid, food, housing... money is then taken from the rich and given to the poor, creating one group essentially supporting the other. this is essentially the reality that we are living in today. and by the way, america is leading in the grossest display of this-only one without healthcare this class is dependent as long as there is a difference in money between differnt people. if i rely on money to feed me, clothe me, educate me, house me, and generally support me, then its absence puts me at risk.  

immigration can be solved too. the main problem with immigrants is that they want to come here because we oppress their governments and wont let their economies flourish and thrive. if we invested in their countries, not because we could afford to, but because people would want to live south of us if they could, then immigration would decline and our own economy would be strengthened because our partner is stronger. think black jack again. 

FREE SOCIETY is not an off the wall utopian concept of a universe that never will be. it is simply an alternative to a social system that is perpetuating world war, poverty, and hunger, destroying billions of lives, and will eventually destroy the world. think of us as a bunch of separate groups of ants right now, red, black, yellow, brown, etc with little hierarchies within each group. 

now imagine if all of them realized that the only way to survive and avoid nuclear war, famine, global catastrophe, and general disintegration of ant kind was to work together to propagate the ant species. 

reality, i think, has set the stage for that realization. 


buddy said...

what if everyone wants to be a doctor. or everyone wants to pick apples?

ender said...

this problem can be fixed in the same way it is being fixed right now. if 10 million doctors are needed and there are 15 million doctors around, the 10 million best doctors will be employed. the 5 million other doctors are recycled back into the work force and will do the jobs that are demanded but are not being supplied, jobs that no one wants, until that individual can identify another demand his labor can supply.

the beauty of this system is that it is a smooth transition from capitalism, the only difference is the elimination of money and being dependent on your own labor to survive, rather than money. we are dependent on our labor true, but it is re-evaluated and marginalized by money which is what creates discrepencies between individuals and how they relate to each other.

actionjacson420 said...

dude your crazy, everyone would go out and just buy all the tvs and shit they wanted. there is no way that our economy could supply the demand!!

ender said...

the point is that if something is available to you all the time, there is no real reason to over accumulate because if you run out of bread, you can go to the store and get bread anytime! this prevents people from hording, simply because they have no reason too.

i have no doubt that initially, demand for things would go up. this is simply because people have not been getting the things they need/want up until now

but, again, demand requires supply, creating new jobs and new reasons for labor. also, our government pays people not to farm because if they do, it makes farmers wages go down. similarly, diamond dealers control the supply of diamonds, because if they didnt, the prices would go down drastically because the market is inflated. if we farmed and made sure supply was more than demand, or made sure everyone got the diamonds they needed, with the surplus jobs of those farmers being released, we could create new jobs and new markets. this is how civilizations have progressed from a hunter gatherer state, to an agricultural one, because with increased efficiency in providing food for yourself, you are freed up to do other things, like invent machines or write books or do whatever it is people do.

the problem that it seems like you are addressing is the idea of scarcity. if there is only one loaf of bread left and two people want it, what happens? who gets it?

what FREE SOCIETY does is recognize that one person should not get that loaf of bread just because he has money. the fact remains that there is still one loaf, but now, money is not the sole decision maker in who gets it, providing a fair and equal way to determine it. in FREE SOCIETY, the demand for that bread would provide the reason for an increase in supply and another person would be employed because of it. technology has gotten to the point where if we have a problem, we can fix it. right now however, we have to decide whether it is "worth it" to fix it, or if we can "afford" to fix it. when peoples lives are subjected to the whims of money, it creates problems. if two people need houses, two houses will be built because there is a demand for houses, and society demands the labor of an architect and construction crew. everyone wins.

if one person wants one house and the other person wants that same house, money is not used to determine who gets it, but rather a more fair way: a coin flip (although coins are pretty useless at this point), pick a number, whatever you want

this is perhaps the craziest part about the system, in that it maintains pure equality between its citizens, an idea not present in a society with money.

finally let me just say that i think your crazy, if you think a world made of money is the best the human species can come up with. i want nothing more than to have everything i want, and to use my time and labor to do it.

what FREE SOCIETY does is eliminate money. people like 50 cent have insane amounts of money and ask themselves what they should do with it. money provides the framework for a neverending sense of meaningless consumption. "well, i have 25 million dollars, i might as well spend it on a 8 million dollar house and 6 cars." senseless materialism is discontinued, not because human nature is changed, but because their is not a constant influx of money, and the fear of not having anythign to do with it is gone.

plus, without the constraints of money, architects are free to use their creativity to produce homes that dont suck like they do in the projects. everyone can have nice things and they wont feel the need to aspire to buy constantly.

let me just end by saying that we use a lot of paper in this day and age. also we use a lot of water. if we recognized the demand for these products, and understood that money is not an option, we can accomodate the increasing scarcity of these products. hemp is 5 times as efficient as trees in producing paper, not to mention it can make rope, clothing etc...the reason why hemp is still illegal is because the wood cutting people are against it, as they would lose their jobs and money. thats also why tobacco companies are against the legalization of marijuana and have launched smear campaigns against it for years. water is scarce and since it is a necessity for life, it is quite valuable. if we recognized the huge demand for pure (not poisoned) water, we could supply that demand by creating huge desalinization tanks operated by human labor to accommodate the demand. again, the reason why this doesnt happen is because of costs. just by switching to the mentality of doing something because it needs to get done, the attitude of FREE SOCIETY, we can eliminate problems by creating new solutions...

but fuck, i might be crazy too

actionjacson420 said...

i dont know, i could see malls being cleared out in no time. everyone seems to always want more and more. how can you say that people will be conscientious of each other and only take what you need?

ender said...

i dont know, i could see malls being cleared out in no time. everyone seems to always want more and more. how can you say that people will be conscientious of each other and only take what you need?

it works like this...

if i want a jacket, i will get a jacket. probably i will get the best jacket i can get, because its free for me. so i get jacket A. now, i can get jackets b, c, d, e, and f, but there is no real reason to get these other jackets, because jacket a is superior to them in every single way. it is in this way that the consumer will be influenced in buying jacket A, not because he is not allowed to get b, c, d, e, and f, but because the consumer prefers jacket A, and knows if he wants he could get the others. theres just no real reason to get them.

people are always trying to upgrade their products: houses, televisions, couches, etc... and the constant influx of money let people get what they want or need a little at a time. people then spend their entire lives buying more and more things because society tells them they should always be buying something. FREE SOCIETY says that if people get what they need to begin with, they are free to spend their lives more productively, instead of working to get what they want, they work to produce for society.

again, FREE SOCIETY becomes a deterrent for unnecessary consumption, because you have everything you want or need already.

ajohnstone said...

Free Access socialism , the abolition of buy and selling and the abolition of money and prices has been the objective of the World Socialist Movement - the establishment of common ownerhip .

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

Why we don't need money , see:-

ender said...

the one thing i disagree with you about is your idea of common ownership. i think that one of the biggest problems with communism and socialism is that there was no private property and government repossessed everything and rationed it out according to what everyone "needs."

also, i don't understand how an absence of a system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to produce would work. in this idea, i literally have no reason to work if it is on a voluntary basis. it sounds like in free access socialism, there's kind of like a big barn of "shit" that people can either work to produce things to throw in the barn, or they can choose not to, but still take things out anyway.

that also brings me to your point of "needs." who's to say what i need and don't need? someone may not really think an ipod is "necessary" but if i think it would help me out in organizing 15000 songs so i dont have to spend all my money on cds, it seems quite necessary to me. also, things with pretty colors may not be useful, but they make me happy. should i sacrifice my happiness for usefulness?

technology is always being furthered because we recognize its ability to provide more things we may not necessarily need, but want because it helps us or makes us happy or whatever. i think that capitalism does this by providing a competitive market where if you do not supply a demand, you are out of business and have to get a new job. this is when innovation happens. my point about money is that it creates a heirarchy that oppresses civil liberties. the exchange rate now is labor: money: resources/products. you use labor to get money to get resources and products. money prevents people from getting resources and products and promotes others from overconsuming. if you cut out the middle man, money, the exchange rate becomes labor: resources/ products and it is now more fair and equal. people can now work and get what they need, but more importantly, want.

FREE SOCIETY works in the idea that it is pretty much the exact same thing as capitalism, just without money. "shares" of a company can still exist, but now the company is valued in its laboring for the society, rather than its value translated in money

the united states was founded on its ability to provide and protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (later changed to happiness). property is one of the greatest things about this country. i dont want to share a house or a car. i want my own! FREE SOCIETY sustains this idea, but becomes a deterrent for mindless spending and consumption

ajohnstone said...

Your points are not new ones , after all the SPGB has been in existence since 1904 , building upon much earlier ideas , and have encountered most types of criticism over the years, from the Left and from the Right and all viewpoints in between , and have been required to answer them . But rather than go through them one by one why not go to:


Perhaps not the detailed blueprints you wish for and that some insist upon but explanations of the practicalities and suggested implementations of free access socialism .

If people decide that they (individually and as a society) need to over-consume then socialism cannot possibly work.

Under capitalism, there is a very large industry devoted to creating needs. It tells us we need toilet seat warmers, nifty gadgets like your 150,000 song Ipod - as if you can possibly listen to 150,000 songs or would want to , new this and new that, and attempts to convince us that our human worth is dependent upon our material wealth - this years model car - you can't live without it . Capitalism requires consumption, whether it improves our lives or not, and drives us to consume up to, and past, our ability to pay for that consumption. On top of that, goods are not built to last because that would interfere with profit making.

Socialism will be a very different society. Goods will be built to last. The buy-buy-buy advertising industry will no longer exist. People may decide that they have better things to do rather than produce goods that are widely seen to be extravagances. And people may discover that more material goods don't make them happier.

Society already has the knowledge and technology to satisfy all of our basic needs sustainably. There is every reason to believe that socialist society will supply every human being with all the material goods that they need for a comfortable, pleasant, enjoyable life.

The World Socialist Movement seek a voluntarist sustainable society that provides for all the world - without the need for governments or even countries . One world-one people .

Again why not read more here at where most of uour questions are addressed