What would a society without money be like?

Post Reply New Topic

Having a no-money society could work - but with RULES to prevent everything going out of control.

Each customer is still limited to a certain amount of groceries or other items in stores as to stop the shelves from going bare every minute.

Every (able-bodied) working age person still must work a decent contract by law to keep services going (if they don't bother to turn up for work frequently they could be arrested).

Applying for a job still requires the usual paperwork and interviews.

People out of work are still required to look for suitable work and prove they are looking. (Vacancies will still be limited depending on how many workers are needed in each company).

All people are able to retire at 55 so that they can live the rest of their lives not having to work and can just live in freedom.

Celebrities will still be famous, as their fame and glamour is down to luck, and they will spend most of their lives doing what makes them famous (singing, football, art, etc), while common people like us will have to work at ordinary jobs.

There are certain rules still, like people in jobs like cleaning or retail are usually allocated smaller houses and apartments. But nobody will go homeless of course (unless they want to) or lack any utilities.


So yeah, I think a society without money could thrive, providing there are still certain rules and laws in place that must be followed, and people aren't allowed to build their own homes.

Please don't call me an idiot or attack me for writing this post. I do like to fantasise and I'd like to see what other people think.

Ps. Please read all this post before replying.

If the human nature of the people in the society without money remains the same as human nature we have in this society with money, society will still have all the same problems but manifesting a little differently.

"If there were no money, it would be necessary to invent some." -- attributed to Voltaire

Money was invented because people would try to rip each other off by having a trade system.

They need to just give everyone a living wage so no one is left for dead, the way it is now is everyone for themselves which clearly isn't working right. I absolutely cannot stand that everyone for themselves notion, it is wrong and outdated imo.

I've always said housing from the government is stopping innocent people from dying and it should be mandatory in any country. No one should have to starve or be homeless whatever walk of life you are. Jumping through hoops over here in the UK to get a payment for the poor people on the dole is ridiculous, prove you're looking for work etc or we will starve you. It's disgusting.

Apparently the food bank in Burnley inside a church literally ran out of food it's that bad, there were people absolutely in despair crying and saying what will they do now etc - the priest was absolutely devastated too he didn't know what to do. They didn't have any money left to give to help them.

If it was a more fair system for the vulnerable then we wouldn't have any of this drama.

Look at the people of like Pakistan, they will literally dig up an entire field in 40 degree (104 F) heat all day long until it goes dark for only 7 quid ($9.75) to buy bags of rice for their families. Meat is like a super rarity. This planet is not right.

In Star Trek they eliminated the need for currency. People still have jobs, but instead of working to survive they work to better themselves and society. I think this would give people the chance to truly explore what makes them happy. Of course they also have advanced technology like Replicators (can create anything, from food to goods), transporters (teleporters), and advanced medicine that eliminates issues such as food shortages and the need to live near your job. *Sigh* I wish to live in this society.

I remember a story about a beautiful island in the Pacific Ocean. The natives rejoiced about the abundance of food and the beauty that surrounded them. They were led by a King. There were around a hundred natives. Then the King married. Soon the Queen convinced the King that since she was the Queen, she no longer needed to labor. As time went on, she convinced the King that her relatives were now royalty and that they should not work but rather be waited upon. After several years, the royal population on the island increased as the working population diminished. In the end there were only two young men that took their canoes out to sea each morning to fish and supply food for the rest of the islanders. They discussed the burden among themselves and then decided to canoe to another island.

The island's population starved to death because they either lost the knowledge on how to produce food or were too caught up with being royalty.

^^ That anecdotal story reminded me of the real-life island of Yap in the Western Pacific where limestone rocks of varying sizes were used (may still be used?) as a form of currency. So even in remote and primitive island cultures with little natural resources, some form of money was still created and used.

What you write (Joe90) is the idealogical concept of Communism.
It can work with the right leadership but it does have issues.

I like the idea. There are a lot of things that are too expensive as it is. I think a money free society would work. If that isn't entirely possible, at least medical supplies and pills should be free.

I don't think there would be something that could be called a society if it weren't for money, unless we're talking about really small groups of people, like between 10 and 30, as their own societies. The value of effort and energy people put in to their work, whatever that may be, must be measured somehow. In a really small group that might not be necessary when everyone knows everyone and know what the others around them are cabable of, because then no one would dare to be lazy and do far less than what they would be able to do, yet those who are able to do more than others would get more respect, which would be how the value of their efforts would be measured. But if there was no good compensation of difficult jobs, why would anyone bother doing them when they could get the same life style in far easier ways? And if those working difficult jobs were given better living conditions and allowed to do more expensive hobbies, how would it really be different from a society that uses money?

Instead of a society without money, I'd support a society that ensures that everyone has a roof over their head, food to eat and access to necessary medical care as long as they do their best to be a functional part of the society (as in, people able to work would do their best to work and if they didn't, they'd get nothing. People unable to work would be provided basic necessarities from tax money.) And those who work and can afford it with their own money can have more luxurious lives with more expensive stuff and hobbies, because that will engourage people to work instead of trying to pretend to be unable to work because they'd get better lives with money they've earned than they would with government aid.

No money wouldn't automatically mean no one would go homeless. Even when there is money, people would not need to go homeless if those in power decided so. Like, it wouldn't be all that expensive to build dorms for those who can't afford to live in a place of their own. It's not like people would need to be given houses for free; just a small room of their own with shared kitchen and bathroom would be an excellent start. Would also motivate people to look for work so that they can get a place of their own. It's not about having money or not, it's about resources and how those in power decide to use them. Likewise, it's not actually money that people go to war for, they do it for the resources that one can get with money. No money would only increase the need for thinking what's worth how much, but that's about it.

With no money, it would just about have to be a small, primitive society in which people band together to accomplish goals but are otherwise fairly self reliant. A society as advanced as ours would be pretty much impossible without money.