07-17-2009, 04:14 PM
I was writing a response to some posts made in the original "Argh!" thread, and realized this could be a really cool discussion all on its own. While the entire original "Argh!" thread is well worth reading, this part of the discussion started in earnest, I think, at post #37 on page four of that thread; my response here is to posts on page five. I'd strongly recommend reading at least those posts (#s 37 through 44) before reading this, just to get the background from which we went off topic....
(Continuing our discussion of the movie, Zeitgeist, and the concept that money is the root of all evil...)
Yes; I saw the movie because a friend (*frown* no, an acquaintance) of mine insisted. I think it's a great movie for helping people 'think outside the box', but some folks - way too many - take things like this to an extreme. For instance, the person who gave me a copy of "Zeitgeist" became absolutely rabid over the information presented. Every conversation centered on the "facts" presented in the movie, and if others chose to talk about more mundane things (as friends do), this guy would foam at the mouth; You're burying your heads in the sand, blah di blah... Last I heard, he'd packed up his family and moved to the hills. Literally.
Ok, that was an extreme example of 'extreme', but you know what I mean, I think. Before they moved away, this guy and his wife went on a really huge crusade, working to "expose the conspiracies". The endeavor ate them alive and really only served to alienate them from their friends. They made no progress in effecting the changes they'd envisioned.
How does that relate to the topic of this thread? Clam. I'm getting there.
I would posit that the starting point is a mixture of various zealotisms, including - yes - greed, but also folks who believed the monetary system was truly better and more progressive than what was currently in practice. I mean, considering the world you described:
...This way of living (and of bartering) existed before the monetary system was developed. In order to return to this way of life, I think we'd have to de-globalize the entire trade system. A small example: I can't reasonably establish a trade of my products for goods from someone who lives even twenty miles from me -- it would involve either travel (in which case, one of us would have to first trade products/services for our means of transportation, and just think about what all that entails) or sub-contracting a delivery service, which would also involve trade with whoever was doing the delivering, who would then have to deal with barter for their own transportation needs (fuel, transport maintenance, etc). Extend that process to trading products with someone in another country....
I think it's possible for humans to reconfigure the way commerce is conducted without going to an all-or-nothing extreme. Here is where greed gets in the way (people who do not want to change the system), yes, but also add in a large heap of learned helplessness (people who want, but do not believe it's possible, to change) and then, even if those two factions were somehow satisfied, many more factions would arise, representing people who believe they know the 'best' way to reform commercial trade. Even those factions whose goals are reasonable and well-intentioned would still have a heap of difficulty coming to a consensus regarding how to effect the change, who will oversee it, to what extent it reaches, how the value of things bartered can be established, etc etc etc. It's a beautiful vision, but making it a reality..? Where do we start? How do we proceed once it's started? Who will make the decisions? How will it be done in fairness, who decides what's fair, and how will unfairness be addressed? Who will enforce that?
*frowning* I think it's a more nebulous topic than "commerce-bad, barter-good", even though I find the basic premise is quite agreeable.
If changes were made and then as you said, Taha, "When a band comes to town they'd be housed and fed by everyone, and given all that they need to perform," would this be the only way we could hear their music? Would we toss our stereos and stop buying recordings of the music we like? If so, would we also do away with radio stations and other venues in which recorded music was made available? Because if we kept that, who would build and maintain the recording studios? The CD factories? The radio stations? Who would organize the distribution - over the air, through the internet, whatever - of the music? How would these folks be compensated for their time, equipment, goods and expertise?
And a last, small thought: When it comes to having one's needs met, who gets to define "needs", and once that definition is established, how do we deal with the peripheral "wants", such as music, gifts, treats, etc?
I'm really not trying to argue anything here. Honest! If we are to consider effecting change (and I think it's a worthwhile consideration), these questions need answers. I'm open to starting a discussion... and it was this point at which I decided to start it in a new thread.
Whaddaya think?
plur
(Continuing our discussion of the movie, Zeitgeist, and the concept that money is the root of all evil...)
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:I felt less interested in watching his movie. But I probably will anyway one of these days, because of my friend's recommendation.
Yes; I saw the movie because a friend (*frown* no, an acquaintance) of mine insisted. I think it's a great movie for helping people 'think outside the box', but some folks - way too many - take things like this to an extreme. For instance, the person who gave me a copy of "Zeitgeist" became absolutely rabid over the information presented. Every conversation centered on the "facts" presented in the movie, and if others chose to talk about more mundane things (as friends do), this guy would foam at the mouth; You're burying your heads in the sand, blah di blah... Last I heard, he'd packed up his family and moved to the hills. Literally.
Ok, that was an extreme example of 'extreme', but you know what I mean, I think. Before they moved away, this guy and his wife went on a really huge crusade, working to "expose the conspiracies". The endeavor ate them alive and really only served to alienate them from their friends. They made no progress in effecting the changes they'd envisioned.
How does that relate to the topic of this thread? Clam. I'm getting there.
Taha Wrote:What I meant, Plur, is that greed is at the heart of it - the staring point.
I would posit that the starting point is a mixture of various zealotisms, including - yes - greed, but also folks who believed the monetary system was truly better and more progressive than what was currently in practice. I mean, considering the world you described:
Taha Wrote:Imagine having (and this only sounds like la-la land in the present context) just what you and your family need, and being able to ask for whatever else you need from others. When a band comes to town they'd be housed and fed by everyone, and given all that they need to perform. Their performance enriches the lives of others, and giving them what they need to live day-to-day is easy. Gone would be the stupid 'super-star' status, and artists would be valued for what they give to others. If they had no value as an artist then they simply wouldn't be an artist.
...This way of living (and of bartering) existed before the monetary system was developed. In order to return to this way of life, I think we'd have to de-globalize the entire trade system. A small example: I can't reasonably establish a trade of my products for goods from someone who lives even twenty miles from me -- it would involve either travel (in which case, one of us would have to first trade products/services for our means of transportation, and just think about what all that entails) or sub-contracting a delivery service, which would also involve trade with whoever was doing the delivering, who would then have to deal with barter for their own transportation needs (fuel, transport maintenance, etc). Extend that process to trading products with someone in another country....
I think it's possible for humans to reconfigure the way commerce is conducted without going to an all-or-nothing extreme. Here is where greed gets in the way (people who do not want to change the system), yes, but also add in a large heap of learned helplessness (people who want, but do not believe it's possible, to change) and then, even if those two factions were somehow satisfied, many more factions would arise, representing people who believe they know the 'best' way to reform commercial trade. Even those factions whose goals are reasonable and well-intentioned would still have a heap of difficulty coming to a consensus regarding how to effect the change, who will oversee it, to what extent it reaches, how the value of things bartered can be established, etc etc etc. It's a beautiful vision, but making it a reality..? Where do we start? How do we proceed once it's started? Who will make the decisions? How will it be done in fairness, who decides what's fair, and how will unfairness be addressed? Who will enforce that?
*frowning* I think it's a more nebulous topic than "commerce-bad, barter-good", even though I find the basic premise is quite agreeable.
If changes were made and then as you said, Taha, "When a band comes to town they'd be housed and fed by everyone, and given all that they need to perform," would this be the only way we could hear their music? Would we toss our stereos and stop buying recordings of the music we like? If so, would we also do away with radio stations and other venues in which recorded music was made available? Because if we kept that, who would build and maintain the recording studios? The CD factories? The radio stations? Who would organize the distribution - over the air, through the internet, whatever - of the music? How would these folks be compensated for their time, equipment, goods and expertise?
And a last, small thought: When it comes to having one's needs met, who gets to define "needs", and once that definition is established, how do we deal with the peripheral "wants", such as music, gifts, treats, etc?
I'm really not trying to argue anything here. Honest! If we are to consider effecting change (and I think it's a worthwhile consideration), these questions need answers. I'm open to starting a discussion... and it was this point at which I decided to start it in a new thread.
Whaddaya think?
plur
It is a paradox, the finality in simply being, yet we came here for a reason - to spread our individual vibration - and that's how the great drama is created.
