• Commerce is just the exchange of goods and services. If we all stop exchanging goods, in what sense would we have a civilization? What would you or anyone accomplish if you had to grow your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house…?

        • @nevemsenki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Currency is a natural evolution of commerce. Direct barter only works if the person selling what you need wants something you have.

          Say you want to buy flowers. If the florist wants shoes and you only have bread or hammers to spare, then tough luck.

          Any large society cannot function with such a clunky way to exchange goods/services. Currency is merely a proxy that allows both sides to trade their goods using a tool they both value similarly. Hell, some civilisations used giant boulders as currency… it’s hardly a new concept.

    • @Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      An exchange of goods and services means you get nothing unless I get something. Maybe OP means everything is given as you take what you need with nothing expected in return.

      You grow carrots, you bring them to town once a week. Other lady raises chickens, brings eggs once a week. If you need either you take some. You use the eggs to make cookies, you have extra, you give them away to anyone you see for the day.

  • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    Significantly less, since commerce and the ability to trade things for a different value forms the basis for civilization. It’s easy to grow and hunt your own food, because that’s immediate and concrete. The farther away you get from that, the more abstract that thing becomes. It’s going to be harder for people to feel any sense of connection and purpose with making the rubber that goes into a seal on the International Space Station when they don’t see any direct benefit from the research done there, and they likely can’t even see the indirect benefit of that fundamental research.

    For good or ill, commerce is how civilizations universally work, and you’d have to imagine a completely different species that evolved under vastly different circumstances to have anything else.

    • @EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think personally That commerce as we know it has played it’s role in the success of humanity But now more and more of the bad is showing and way way less of the gain

      I personally think it’s time to move on or at the very least adapt the systems we have in place

      Edit: this was more focused on capitalism not commerce

      Imagining a society with out trade is a very hard one for me to grasp

      • @Lesrid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Well it doesn’t have to be private exchange between entities. There doesn’t have to be like for like. There can just be stockpiling and withdrawing, for lack of a more nuanced conception.

    • @Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      So you think we’d have to be an entirely different species for communism to work?

      I’d argue a hell of a lot different, try n stop someone from doing something (sure keep them fed, sheltered, all the good stuff) but give them absolutely nothing to do. Try n keep them from killing themselves lol, sounds like actual hell to me

      • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        For communism to work as intended past a tribal or perhaps city-state level, yeah, I’d say that we would need to be a different species. Communism works fantastically well when everyone is pretty closely connected; the larger a society gets, the less well it ends up working, without having draconian measures in place that largely eliminate all personal liberty.

        I’m not saying that capitalism works well, unless you have a perverse definition of “well”. Capitalism does tend to give individuals some kind of incentive to work for what is nominally the greater good by creating the appearance that their own personal effort is tied to the results that they get. Conversely, communism, in large societies, has your input largely decoupled from what you get back. On a large scale, I think that democratic socialism will give the best overall results, but you have to ensure that no one has the ability to entirely fuck off and leech off the labor of everyone else without risking that infecting everyone, and resulting in nothing at all getting done.

  • @Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    121 year ago

    Interesting, what would be the alternative? Technology, culture, religion, military? Taking those options out of Civ

    • @sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      I think that’s the key question. Like, I get capitalism is hedgemonical (is that even a word?), but what alternative do you propose?

        • JackGreenEarth
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          What about socialism - ie, everyone gets their basic needs met, but is free to work for more.

          • @Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Something like universal basic income along with free healthcare, education and social safety nets definitely is an attractive idea but even providing the basic needs for everyone is expensive as hell and you can’t just pay for it by cutting CEO pay. Economy is such a complex system that radical changes like this are guranteed to introduce new unexpected problems. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try and find ways to make the world a better place for everyone but I feel like so many people naively think that the solution is obvious and right there and we’re just not doing it.

          • @throwwyacc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            You’re probably describing capitalism with social welfare/safety nets. Whereas often socialism is considered to be specifically not capitalism and may not allow for the idea of working to get more resources

            Fundamentally you’re probably happy with capitalism in terms of economy but want further govt regulation/welfare. Which I think is probably the best system we have

      • Zorque
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Not having merit based on how much money something makes would be a start.

      • Maeve
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Tbf we ostensibly already have and are again.

    • @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Being a lonely hunter gatherer.

      If you have crafted nice spears and axes, but you have no food, that’s too bad. You’re not allowed to barter with talented hunters who can’t make spears as nice as you can. Go hunt your own food or die of starvation in this non-commerce based society.

      Oh wait, how about we allow trading after all?

      • drphungky
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Comparative Advanta-whoosy whatsits?

        Seems complicated, let’s get rid of it.

  • @ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    -11 year ago

    What about a meritocracy based system where any type of contribution is rewarded, whether it be research, garbage cleanup, etc.? (I’m sure there’s holes to poke in it, just thinking outside of the box.)

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      The problem with that and most other proposals for whatever other moneyless utopian society is that they all implicitly require some manner of all-powerful central authority to ensure that the rewards get distributed, the labor gets allocated, and the rules stay followed.

      And we already know how well that’s going to turn out.

      • DessertStorms
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        he problem with that and most other proposals for whatever other moneyless utopian society is that they all implicitly require some manner of all-powerful central authority to ensure that the rewards get distributed, the labor gets allocated, and the rules stay followed.

        that really isn’t the case…
        Communism by definition is not only moneyless but also stateless and classless (if there is an “all powerful” anything - it isn’t communism).
        anarchism by definition abolishes all hierarchy, so again, no one person or even group gets to a point of having any significant power over anyone else.

        In both cases (which are the two most notable far left ideologies I would say, along with socialism which is inherent to both) not having an all powerful central authority is literally the point.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          Attempting to have no authority may be the “point,” but here in reality that doesn’t actually work as long as humans remain what they are. It can only function so long as everyone involved cooperates to the very letter of the classless-moneyless-stateless social agreement and there is no outside disruption from anywhere else that doesn’t subscribe to the ideal. The moment someone figures out they can cheat to get more than others, it falls apart.

          And what they want more of does not necessarily have to be money. It could be land, or crops, or coconuts, or a bigger hut, or more sexual partners, or shinier rocks, or internet post likes, or more prestige, or whatever.

          One of two things then happen: They succeed, and become the authority. Or an authority has to be formed by some type of agreement by everyone else to stop them. This also inevitably begets violence.

          You can try as hard as you like to evade this, but unless you lobotomize literally everyone or have magic mind control powers or something (which would require you to be… the authority) it is guaranteed that you will fail. Maybe not immediately, but the larger in scale your little social experiment gets the sooner it will happen. You can get 5 or 10 or maybe even 100 people to perfectly agree with each other and play along. If you’re lucky, you might even make it last for more than one generation. Don’t even try to argue that you could do it with a million people. Or ten million. Or 332 million (the population of the United States). Ceaseless cooperation in numbers beyond those of our immediate tribe- or family-sphere is not a trait that is found in humans.

          • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Listen. I’m far from the worst human out there. But if I was introduced to a fair, classless, equal society, I would become their dictator faster than you can say “utopia”. No force to stop me, no one allowed to stop me, I’d be like smallpox to the Indians.

            • Deceptichum
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

              Hahaha imagine thinking no one would stop you. You’re an utter clown.

                • Deceptichum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  Yes it is.

                  It does not mean you do nothing to protect your way of life and sit back like a hapless pacifist.

          • DessertStorms
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            but here in reality that doesn’t actually work as long as humans remain what they are
            Ceaseless cooperation in numbers beyond those of our immediate tribe- or family-sphere is not a trait that is found in humans.

            “reality” is what capitalism has indoctrinated you to think it is, meanwhile in actual reality, humans are and always have been hardwired to cooperate

            and there is no outside disruption from anywhere else that doesn’t subscribe to the ideal

            lol, so you acknowledge that attempts at communism couldn’t have succeeded because capitalism wouldn’t allow it (because capitalists consider communism, or any cooperation that isn’t for profit, an existential threat, which is precisely why they invest so much in to making people like you think it’s not only a bad idea, but an “impossible” one).

            https://medium.com/international-workers-press/misconceptions-about-communism-2e366f1ef51f

            You can try as hard as you like to evade actual reality, and the fact that capitalism is not only guaranteed to, but is already literally destroying humanity and the planet, or you can keep licking its boot that is not only stomping on your neck, but on all our necks, because you’re too scared or even unable (but definitely privileged enough to still find comfort in it - we aren’t all that lucky) to think outside of the box it created for you, but falling for the propaganda will never make you right, only demonstrably easily manipulated, and wilfully ignorant and resistant to change (when you refuse to even try to understand, let alone seriously contemplate the alternatives, you don’t get to dismiss them since you clearly don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about)… That’s a you problem, not a communism (or even “reality”) problem… ¯\(ツ)

      • Deceptichum
        link
        fedilink
        -31 year ago

        That’s odd, me and my housemates can distribute our housekeeping jobs amongst ourselves without having someone come along and tell us what to do.

        Yet when it comes to the country I live in, this is suddenly unimaginable because who would want to live somewhere functional of their own volition.

  • @CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wow. Good luck building your stick cabin in the woods all by yourself and growing and foraging all your food because you refuse to trade your labor for produce from a farmer because that would be evil commerce.