Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[Peacemaker]

Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Use of the term "impossible" and perpetual motion

 

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics."

Hey Cedars, Don't pick on me, Bill said it, I just agreed. Clearly he is wrong if his statement is taken literally, but I didn't feel that that was his intention, he was just trying to take the p**s... and I was returning the favour!

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker

[Zythryn]

Peacemaker, you have ignored the question asked of you and instead decided to belittle and poke fun at the critical questions.

How does the Amish society fit your model? Is it close to what you envision?

Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?

[Cedars]

Hey Cedars, Don't pick on me, Bill said it, I just agreed. Clearly he is wrong if his statement is taken literally, but I didn't feel that that was his intention, he was just trying to take the p**s... and I was returning the favour!

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker

 

I am not picking on you. By your response to TBD, it seemed to me you did not understand the idea of perpetual motion in the context TBD was using it.

[Peacemaker]

(Hi Craig, thanks for your reply, it is certainly more open-minded on the subject than some of the replies I have had on this thread. As with my replies to The Big Dog, my answers and comments will be in brackets).

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I am a patient man, but if you tell be to read your damn paper again I am going to freaking snap. My reading comprehension is not the issue …

 

I believe Bill speaks for many, PeaceMaker. Most of the participants in this thread comprehend the plan of which you’ve written, and either agree or disagree with its feasibility. It does not, IMHO, contain any novel or difficult-to-comprehend ideas. I believe you would do better to discuss your ideas in terms of specific questions and objections raised about them, rather than appealing to people to read your paper over and over in the hope that this will result in them changing their opinions such that their questions and objections go away.

 

(Agreed)

 

Quote:

… but intentions do not make laws of nature turn on their head or make the impossible possible.

 

(Who are you quoting here Craig?... and I'm certainly not suggesting that my views will change any fundamental Laws of Nature, or make the impossible possible. What I advocate is simply a change in perception, which will make what currently seems impossible, possible. Like ending war and crime).

 

The implication of this statement – that the existence of money is required by the laws of nature – is contradicted, I believe, by physical, archeological evidence. Biologically modern and human beings appear to have lacked the idea of money, or even recognizable barter or trade, for a much longer period of time than they have had them.

 

(Agreed. We managed to evolve from the primeval swamp to the point of being able to produce enough marketable materials to commence trading without money existing, and I believe that if my idea of global cooperation had been formulated and accepted then, money would never have existed, and we would be far more advanced than we are today. I often wonder how many great ideas have been still-born over the last few thousand years because of the lack of resource to carry them out?)

 

The absence of money or trade certainly does not violate any fundamental physical law, such as would water flowing uphill, or a true perpetual motion machine.

 

(Agreed).

 

Even fairly recent history contains many periods in which money was nearly unknown, the European feudal era, which many historians characterize as coming to a close due to the emergence of money as part of the “bourgeois revolution”, being a well-known example.

 

(This is interesting, Craig. Can you enlarge on this please. as I was under the impression that money and barter and property ownership have been endemic in the European culture since at least the days of the Romans).

 

Money is a powerful idea, and, I believe, one that has greatly furthered human culture, but it is only an idea, no more innately guaranteed to be forever popular or important than the idea of divinely endorsed hereditary rule, another concept that for a time served humanity well. Like the former concept, money as presently embodied in the many human cultures around the world does both great good, and great bad. In my estimation, the influence of money is presently a net good, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case, nor that my estimation, or anyone else’s confirming or contradicting estimation, is correct.

 

(Agreed, but with reservations. IMHO we are at the cusp, where the continued existence of money is becoming progressively more harmful to our species.

 

Globalisation of production is standardising everything we purchase down to a minimal cost, therefore a minimal quality, which is barely acceptable to the consumer.

 

We can do better.

 

Without the constrictions of monetary economics, but within the constrictions of material economics, we can build everything to a far higher standard specification. This will reduce the waste we currently produce and require less maintenance. Also, once we no longer have to worry about bottom line profit, we can be much more generous to each other, and to ourselves.

 

I also say we are on the cusp because of the invention of the internet and global communication.

 

The conditions I put forward, if disseminated by post or as a book, or by word of mouth could previously be bastardised by any self-interested governments, religious organisations and individuals, just by spreading lies about its intention and scope.

 

Prior to our current times, this idea would probably have been still-born, because it removes power and wealth from currently powerful and wealthy organisations and individuals. With the advent of global communication, people can read and hear everything I write and say, and judge for themselves.

 

I believe that this is the first time in our existence that we have the global 'savvy' and freedom of thought and speech to dare to put such a plan in place for our future).

 

Looking forward to your reply already! (;-)

Peacemaker.

[Peacemaker]

I am not picking on you. By your response to TBD, it seemed to me you did not understand the idea of perpetual motion in the context TBD was using it.

No offence taken Cedars,

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker.

[Peacemaker]

Hi Z,

 

'Peacemaker, you have ignored the question asked of you and instead decided to belittle and poke fun at the critical questions.

How does the Amish society fit your model? Is it close to what you envision?

Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?'

 

Sorry, I am a little confused here. Which question have I ignored, and I DID address the question about the Amish in a previous post. Here is what I wrote:-

 

(I should say here that I deeply admire the lifestyle of the Amish people. They demonstrate a greater wisdom, tolerance and understanding of humanity and their environment than is currently normal in humanity. And yes, if we can emulate their devotion to each other, and their work ethic, we will evolve. The difference between what they do and what I propose, is that I think bigger. Why settle for a happy and fulfilling life of relative poverty, when we can choose to have a happy and fulfilling life of plenty? It would be illogical and perverse to do otherwise, wouldn't it)?

 

You must have missed this one Z, I hope it answers your question.

 

'Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?'

(What do you mean? Trouble for who, or what?)

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker

[Zythryn]

Sorry, I am a little confused here. Which question have I ignored, and I DID address the question about the Amish in a previous post. Here is what I wrote:-

 

(I should say here that I deeply admire the lifestyle of the Amish people. They demonstrate a greater wisdom, tolerance and understanding of humanity and their environment than is currently normal in humanity. And yes, if we can emulate their devotion to each other, and their work ethic, we will evolve. The difference between what they do and what I propose, is that I think bigger. Why settle for a happy and fulfilling life of relative poverty, when we can choose to have a happy and fulfilling life of plenty? It would be illogical and perverse to do otherwise, wouldn't it)?

 

You must have missed this one Z, I hope it answers your question.

 

I did miss that Peacemaker, please accept my appologies. And thank you for posting it again.

As a side note, you may find it more effective when quoting someone to use the quote tags . It makes the post easier to read.

 

Your basic premise as I understand it (from your 65 page paper as well as your posts) is...

Money is the root of all evil

If we eliminated 'money' we would eliminate almost all crime.

To eliminate money, we simply must come to a general agreement to do so. This will result in an 'evolution' of mankind, aka change the basic way we think.

 

I think your focus is misplaced on money. Money is simply a way to barter with other people. People's greed, desire, hoarding are what causes the problem.

If you believe a fundamental change in the way people think is possible, why not simply eliminate greed and desire rather than money? Get to the true root of the problem rather than the tool.

I can gaurentee you that without money, people will find something else to use as the tool of their vices.

[LunaWolfe]

I really appreciate how this forum has made me think over my ideas and ideals.

What I notice is that it is extremely hard to imagine anything very different from whatever currently exists. We may look back and snicker at people ever believing the sun revolved around the earth. Or wonder how the medieval masses ever put up with the pervasive oppression of the Catholic church. That was all they knew how to imagine! These were the fundamental truths of their lives: the earth is the center of the universe; if I disobey church leaders I will literally burn in hell forever.

Statements about "human nature" I find most disturbing (Big Dog). In my estimation we may never know what "human nature" is like because we grow up and live within our cultural framework that has shaped whatever "nature" we started out with.

Peacemaker had a good point about corporal punishment of children... now called child abuse. Many people used to, and still do, believe that we start out as wild little beasts that need physical punishment to develop properly into moral adults. I don't believe this. I believe that we copy whatever behavior is modeled: hit child, child grows up to hit others.

Likewise with money, (I did get there eventually) it is difficult to even conceive of a culture that would not use money (or plastic, or credits, or barter, or beads). Yet they have existed and could potentially exist again.

How to do it still boggles MY mind (I've only been thinking about it for 15 years). I'm not surprised that those who deal with the nitty gritty of finance and industry could not comprehend how such a massive shift could take place.

On the other hand, what medieval merchant would have imagined that the Catholic church would not remain omnipotent throughout Europe? What feudal lord could comprehend that someday the peasants would help choose their political leaders and the king/queen would be a mere figurehead? Seemingly insignificant events can have huge repercussions. Seemingly ludicrous ideas can end up being "The TRUTH".

Humans certainly seem to exhibit an astonishing level of flexibility, creativity, communication, and curiosity. Let's build on that. Why not make a better society?

Here's the challenge, Big Dog: set aside your deeply held belief that a moneyless society "would never work" and apply some of you prodigious thinking power to "How could it be made to work?"

And while we're at it, Peacemaker: set aside your deeply held belief that money is "the cause of all the world's problems" and apply some of your creative intelligence to "how could we make money work for us?" (Check out Fiat currencies and negative interest money [Negative interest money: Money that it costs you something to keep. You pay a small amount of interest on it per period, such as 1% a month, typically in the form of a stamp placed on a piece of scrip. So it is also called stamp scrip. It was supported by Keynes in his General Theory, and has many adherents now as a better alternative to the global capitalist money market.

The purpose of negative interest money is to keep the money in circulation and doing and creating things, instead of selfishly hoarding it. Inflation can be reduced and productivity and employment increased. Banks have always been hostile to the idea.])

If we are going to improve our society... and I hope we all agree it could be improved... then we might as well work on it together. If we can't even cooperate in developing our ideas then we're probably not ready to start work on the "action" phase!

Ever hopeful that the hundredth monkey will figure it out SOON!

[Peacemaker]

Hi Luna Wolf,

 

Thank you so much for your open-mindedness and your vision. If you don't mind I will answer in my usual fashion. I think brackets delineate my comments more effectively than quotation marks... just one of my little foibles, please don't take it personally. (;-)

 

'I really appreciate how this forum has made me think over my ideas and ideals.

What I notice is that it is extremely hard to imagine anything very different from whatever currently exists. We may look back and snicker at people ever believing the sun revolved around the earth. Or wonder how the medieval masses ever put up with the pervasive oppression of the Catholic church. That was all they knew how to imagine! These were the fundamental truths of their lives: the earth is the center of the universe; if I disobey church leaders I will literally burn in hell forever.

Statements about "human nature" I find most disturbing (Big Dog). In my estimation we may never know what "human nature" is like because we grow up and live within our cultural framework that has shaped whatever "nature" we started out with.

Peacemaker had a good point about corporal punishment of children... now called child abuse. Many people used to, and still do, believe that we start out as wild little beasts that need physical punishment to develop properly into moral adults. I don't believe this. I believe that we copy whatever behavior is modeled: hit child, child grows up to hit others.

Likewise with money, (I did get there eventually) it is difficult to even conceive of a culture that would not use money (or plastic, or credits, or barter, or beads). Yet they have existed and could potentially exist again.

How to do it still boggles MY mind (I've only been thinking about it for 15 years). I'm not surprised that those who deal with the nitty gritty of finance and industry could not comprehend how such a massive shift could take place.

On the other hand, what medieval merchant would have imagined that the Catholic church would not remain omnipotent throughout Europe? What feudal lord could comprehend that someday the peasants would help choose their political leaders and the king/queen would be a mere figurehead? Seemingly insignificant events can have huge repercussions. Seemingly ludicrous ideas can end up being "The TRUTH".

Humans certainly seem to exhibit an astonishing level of flexibility, creativity, communication, and curiosity. Let's build on that. Why not make a better society?'

 

(I am completely with you so far, LW. It is my belief that, as humans, we still have plenty of scope to evolve further. As I have said previously, the evolution I am talking about it merely a change of mind. An acceptance that we can set aside evil, so long as we invoke the conditions to remove all power or profit to be made from it.

 

The point I have been trying to impress on everyone is that once we set aside personal posessions in favour of community property, we free ourselves from the chains of ownership.

 

No more burglar alarms, safes, banks, security companies or taxes. No more worrying whether someone is going to break into our houses and steal our posessions, defraud us of our funds, or short change any of us of our fair share of whatever we want or need.

 

We don't, however, free ourselves from responsibilities to each other or to our planet. The plan I have devised encourages the best in humanity, and discourages the worst. I still challenge all comers to come up with a better one, or help me to take this one forward and make it a reality, BEFORE Bush nukes Iran).

 

'Here's the challenge, Big Dog: set aside your deeply held belief that a moneyless society "would never work" and apply some of you prodigious thinking power to "How could it be made to work?"

And while we're at it, Peacemaker: set aside your deeply held belief that money is "the cause of all the world's problems" and apply some of your creative intelligence to "how could we make money work for us?" '

 

(I've tried it LW, I have looked at money from every direction I can possibly imagine, but I can't find a single reason to keep it. It is the root of MOST evil on this planet, in that it encourages greed and self interest to degrees which have been, and continue to be dangerous to the future of mankind. Watch the news, read the newspapers, go to the library and research the daily papers for a year ago, ten years ago, a hundred years ago.

 

Find out what was happening at the time and follow the money, backwards or forwards to find the unpalatable truth. Go back to the second world war. Learn that the leaders and industrialists of the axis forces would have made fortunes by going to war, if they had won. The Nazis had a salt mine stuffed with 'precious' objects. A pity they didn't realise they were killing the most precious objects in their millions to gain those bits of rock, metal and paper.

 

How pathetic is that?

 

How can you expect me to defend that?

 

I don't care what systems anyone can come up with to deal with money, I guarantee, they all prove to be about as useful as band-aids on a cancer in the long term.

 

...And here's the thing;

 

People much cleverer and more devious than me have been working and puzzling to find the answers within the present monetary system for aeons, and they still haven't achieved much. Every system ever invented has caused inequality amongst us, some systems just cause less inequality than others, but then, THEY couldn't have proved successful, otherwise there wouldn't be the vast chasm which currently exists between the richest and the poorest of our species.

 

I feel that every one of us is entitled to at least one piece of pure genius in our lifetimes. I am convinced I have had mine. I KNOW we can make a moneyless, free society work and deal with the problems as they arise, it just takes a little openness of mind, and a willingness to give up the worst in yourself. Does that sound like something you couldn't cope with?).

 

(The next bit's yours - ).

 

 

(Check out Fiat currencies and negative interest money [Negative interest money: Money that it costs you something to keep. You pay a small amount of interest on it per period, such as 1% a month, typically in the form of a stamp placed on a piece of scrip. So it is also called stamp scrip. It was supported by Keynes in his General Theory, and has many adherents now as a better alternative to the global capitalist money market.

The purpose of negative interest money is to keep the money in circulation and doing and creating things, instead of selfishly hoarding it. Inflation can be reduced and productivity and employment increased. Banks have always been hostile to the idea.])

 

(Sorry LW, I'm sure that if we decide to stick to capitalism, this will gain interest, and may do a little good, until people find the 'loopholes' and 'work' the system to get as much as possible out of it for themselves, and screw the rest of humanity. It's human nature. It won't ever change until we change the conditions it thrives in).

 

If we are going to improve our society... and I hope we all agree it could be improved... then we might as well work on it together. If we can't even cooperate in developing our ideas then we're probably not ready to start work on the "action" phase!

Ever hopeful that the hundredth monkey will figure it out SOON!

 

(I already have LW. It's done. We just have to recognise the fundamental truth when it is presented to us. I am convinced that I am that monkey. I just have to convince the rest of you).

 

Best regards to you and yours, from me and mine!

Peacemaker.

[TheBigDog]

Peacemaker, very little of what I write here is for your benefit. I consider that your line of thinking is an evolutionary lost cause. I am writing primarily to provide balance to the topic. The fact that you took my words as a death threat is promising, perhaps it means you know the seriousness of those opposed to your scheme for world transmutation. The fact that you so cavalierly speak to me as though everything I know and believe is wrong, and that you should take my children, and all the children of the world and shape their core beliefs to reflect your own philosophy, and to reject all others; that such an act of forced beliefs and programmed values of self denial is both not a threat to personal freedom, and not a threat to those who believe otherwise is astounding. Such a simple solution, simply brainwash everyone. Brilliant.

 

Here's the challenge, Big Dog: set aside your deeply held belief that a moneyless society "would never work" and apply some of you prodigious thinking power to "How could it be made to work?"

Why? Perhaps I should build a practical ornithopter, or perfect perpetual motion, or get everyone in America to join a single political party. Those also seem like pointless, futile, yet enticing ways of spending my prodigious thinking power. I have no belief that a moneyless society could work, and nobody has yet convinced me otherwise. I raise issues related to a moneyless society to those who endorse such a thing and I wait patiently for realistic solutions to those issues. When I hear a solid proposal for a moneyless society that deals with the way humans are now, and not the way they would need to be for such a thing to work, I will gladly entertain such a notion. But I am not to be burdened with making a flawed concept work because I see the flaws in it. Let those invested in such a solution work on the solution, I am busy living my life in the world we have now, and working each day to improve.

 

Something to consider when thinking about a moneyless society...

 

Merit vs Desert

 

Now for the hair splitters, these are the definitions that I am using for the words merit and desert.

 

Merit: the natural qualities inherent in each individual and what those qualities entitle that person to. Each living person merits equality of rights and treatments. Some individuals merit unequally (not in rights but in recognition) due to physical traits; if I am the tallest person in a group, then I merit the recognition as being the tallest. People are not equal when it comes to physical traits and talents, despite the fact that they merit equality of rights and treatment under the law.

 

Desert: the contributions of each individual to the general welfare, livelihood, or admiration of others through their actions, and what each person is entitled to as a result of such actions. Not all people contribute equally, even when scaled against their capabilities, and therefore what is deserved from actions is never in balance. There is also desert for actions done for one's self, but the payback for pure individualism has the lowest potential.

 

The debate over merit and desert is the core of the moneyless society conversation. Those like myself who favor a market solution emphasize desert, while respecting a certain level of merit. Those opposed to a market solution want to rely only upon equality of merit as a means of reward, and want the concept of desert to disappear. Even the concepts of merit based upon characteristics of an individual would disappear, leaving all people as equals in all respects. To do otherwise would open the door to unequal distribution and accumulation of wealth that adds up to "unfair" to those who don't receive the higher benefits.

 

Merit and desert has a flip side in the form of punishment administered by society upon those who break the rules of society. The only way to have no crime is to have no laws. If there is a need for laws, then there must be activities happening that society wants to prevent, ie crime. When a crime is committed it must have a punishment based upon desert related to the nature of the crime, otherwise you can only treat the criminal based upon their merit as an equal citizen. To have desert of punishment but not have desert of reward creates an obstacle to getting people to accept living under such a situation.

 

I believe that what people accumulate in terms of wealth correlates to their benefit to society as a whole. It also correlates with each person's ability to make accumulation of wealth a purpose in their life. While the circumstances of some people are far more challenging than those of others, as each of us is born we have equal potential for success in life (although the paths to success may be radically different).

 

It is not evil to have what other people want. It is not evil to profit from your contributions so society. It is not evil to be self centered and want more for yourself. There are individuals who manage to profit in undeserving ways, but that fact is not a sign of total system failure, it is a sign of human imperfection, and would be just as prevalent under any system of government or economics. It is one of those things that we strive to improve upon, not the reason to throw it all in and start over.

 

My solution is to keep doing as we are, but let the market take more control of distribution. We should provide opportunity for people to move to places of abundance, not try and bring abundance to every corner of the globe. I prefer teaching people and helping people to compete, rather than not bothering to keep score and giving everyone a ribbon for participation.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Merit and desert has a flip side in the form of punishment administered by society upon those who break the rules of society. The only way to have no crime is to have no laws. If there is a need for laws, then there must be activities happening that society wants to prevent, ie crime. When a crime is committed it must have a punishment based upon desert related to the nature of the crime, otherwise you can only treat the criminal based upon their merit as an equal citizen. To have desert of punishment but not have desert of reward creates an obstacle to getting people to accept living under such a situation.

 

Interesting point BD. What does our system look like now, where the poor pay disproportionately for crimes (usually) committed by the poor. Look for instance at the penalties for marijuana position vs securities fraud and then weight the potential HARM those actions are likely to cause.

 

I believe that what people accumulate in terms of wealth correlates to their benefit to society as a whole. It also correlates with each person's ability to make accumulation of wealth a purpose in their life. While the circumstances of some people are far more challenging than those of others, as each of us is born we have equal potential for success in life (although the paths to success may be radically different).

 

Okay, that's a bit sticky, because in the first sentence you tacitly equate economic contribution with "success" and then in the last sentence assert that everybody has an equal potential for said "success." Either you're using two definitions of success, or you're using the word "potential" in an imprecise way. If potential means "all other things being equal" that's probably true - but since all other things are NEVER actually equal, it's kinda disingenuous.

 

It is not evil to have what other people want.

 

But it is evil to want what other people have. Thou shall not covet. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Oh from earlier:

 

If you want to maintain or approximate the industry and distribution that exists in the world today, it cannot be done without money.

 

Well you'd need an abstract representation of work for an economy as complex as ours - but you don't necessarily need money.

 

That's an interesting thought right there. Rather than a "society without an economy" which is what Peacemaker proposes, what could you use BESIDES money as a work abstraction?

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

Oh from earlier:

 

 

 

Well you'd need an abstract representation of work for an economy as complex as ours - but you don't necessarily need money.

 

That's an interesting thought right there. Rather than a "society without an economy" which is what Peacemaker proposes, what could you use BESIDES money as a work abstraction?

 

TFS

It is not a work abstraction that you need, it is a value abstraction.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Does anything but work have value? If oil was available in great pools, would it cost anything?

 

Uh-oh. We're fixing to discuss economics that's well over my head.

 

Labor vs. Marginal Utility. Sh-sh-sh-showdown!

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

Money basically comes down to barter. In the original posting, I think that the poster wants to eliminate economy as the 'evil' he sees happens because not everyone has access to own everything they want.

Sure, you can CALL it something other than money, but it is barter just the same (unless you can eliminate economics).

[Boerseun]

Everything of value can be abstracted and represented in monetary terms. Be it work, resources, anything. And if you were willing to work for your feudal lord without pay, you and all his vassals will be competing amongst each other for a pat on the shoulder from the Big Cheese. That pat will be the beginning of the reinvention of money.

 

Humans have had money in some form or another ever since we got out of the trees the first time. Granted, not coins or notes initially - coins and notes are merely the more recent incarnations of what humans have been doing since time immemorial to justify the flow of actions/favours/resources. And physical money (coins and notes) will very shortly (in terms of history) be replaced with plastic and numbers on screens. That is not to say that money disappeared, money will just disappear in physical form.

 

But a moneyless society is a complete and utter impossibility. It's part of who and what we are. And if nuclear war or Global Warming or whatever were to reduce us back into cave-dwelling ignorance, the very first guy to knock on your cave door will come with a basket of berries that he'll want to trade for that leg of lamb you have there. Money is a way of getting something that you want that somebody else currently owns in such a manner that you're both happy afterwards. You don't have to clobber someone over the head to take his meat anymore. You can simply figure out what need he has, and then satisfy his need in exchange for what you need. Profit is to be made when his needs exceeds yours. Which gives you leverage in the bargain. Money shortens the above process, you don't have to figure out what needs a radio salesman have that you have to satisfy in order to get a radio from him. All needs have now been abstracted into one single form, and that is that of currency. And currency satisfies to both sides of the equation.

 

Money might disappear, when you're talking notes and coins. But the concept of money is as deeply embedded into human nature as any other human trait you'd care to mention.

 

But coming back to the original topic of this thread: Would it benefit society?

 

No. A moneyless society will be as artificial as is Communism, and will fail.

Bill was right a few posts ago. Debating this any further might be akin to considering all the examples of perpetual motion machines out there.

[Qfwfq]

I believe that what people accumulate in terms of wealth correlates to their benefit to society as a whole. It also correlates with each person's ability to make accumulation of wealth a purpose in their life. While the circumstances of some people are far more challenging than those of others, as each of us is born we have equal potential for success in life (although the paths to success may be radically different).

It would be great if this were so but an excessively free, unregulated market doesn't achieve that. No economic system does it perfectly.

 

But a moneyless society is a complete and utter impossibility.

It would be possible only if Divine Providence sent us all we needed, including keeping the toilets clean for us, and there were no rivalries such as competing for the hottest chicks.