Philosophical fragments

Capitalism or socialism or is there a third alternative?

Capitalism: money and property / Socialism: money and no property

Third alternative: property and no money

The inventors of the first two forms of society wanted to lead people out of need. Everything was lacking in Adam Smith’s time. The invention of competition encouraged people to think about how someone could make something with less effort than someone else. Example and development. But that meant that the tool, the human, was worn out to the limit.

Karl Marx wanted to improve the maintenance of the tool so that it not only worked but looked good too. He turned machines into instruments for the tools. Contrary to Adam Smith’s simple reasoning, the theory is rather confused, yet it managed to produce the really existing socialism.

The problem with socialism was that there was no property. That is why there was no longer any moral obligation to maintain the machines and apartments in a sustainable manner. This ultimately led to the end of the experiment.

Both economic forms were founded out of lack. For people who suffered from hunger and hardship, who were uneducated. These conditions were the mainspring for their creation and the goal was the elimination of hardship. The lack would meanwhile be eliminated if wealth were evenly distributed. Today the growth frenzy of the market economy ensures that the last fish or the last tree has to be sold.

Some dream of resurrecting socialism in order to stop the development frenzy of the market economy, which means that the last fish or the last tree has to be sold too. But for that to happen, property would have to be abolished and a lot of blood flowed for it in the past. And so there is the problem again that the moral obligation to maintain the property sustainably would be gone.

That is why these economic forms only work to a limited extent today.

We have evolved. It is thanks to the idea of Adam Smith that development progressed in such a way that we are today in a position to adequately supply all of humanity. In theory, there would be no more need. Securing prosperity is the top priority in political statements on economic development.

The third alternative

Today’s global society can be compared to a party to which not everyone is invited, although there is enough. Unfortunately, it’s a trading party. How can a happy and informal atmosphere be created when I have to consider whether the salad is worth the money or how much I have to charge for the tiramisu I brought with me? Although it doesn’t have to be, because there is enough of everything. Also for those who bring nothing or hardly anything with them or can bring with them. Trading at our party also leads to trying by all means to spend money and buy things that are really not necessary and interfere with the actual purpose of the party.

If there is enough, you don’t need money, you can just take what you want. Even at our global prosperity party, money is a hindrance, since it takes away the party mood

But you just have to convince the people who go to the party not to bring any money, since they don’t need any money because there is enough of everything. A little overcoming, and the happy and informal atmosphere is there.

Therefore we should now let Adam Smith and Karl Marx rest and start the

third form of society: property and no money

We just have to put the money away. No more.

Why?         How?         What will happen?        Democracy 

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.