I agree with the premise that the monetary system we have is totally fraudulent (Hell, I wrote a book on the topic.)

 

I even WANTED to believe that their implied solution (a moneyless society) would be presented in a workable fashion. (I've long held that the "for profit model" is NOT as ideal as its proponents claim. Simple example:  If I'm motivated by profit only, and I'm a drug company, there is no reason for me to ever cure disease; it is far more profitable to simply "treat" it instead. Then there is the “opportunity” to sell products that create illness so I can make money on both sides - if my only consideration is "profit" this is the logical end. I would make money making people sick and then make money treating them for their illness. -With resources many million times that of any potential competitors, I can influence public opinion, "influence" legislation, directly or indirectly control funding, buy up and shelve new technology, etc.) 

 

Unfortunately, the moneyless society concept was not presented well. From the idea that people would suddenly stop exploiting, murdering, raping, and dominating others (sorry folks, some people truly enjoy hurting others as much as you enjoy helping others) to the idea that "competition" and “class separation” and “scarcity” would evaporate. 

 

Example: In the film it's said that "If you painted a beautiful painting, you'd want to simply give it away - you wouldn't want to charge money for it." Assuming we accept that, it doesn't deal with the issue of determining who gets the painting. It is a scarce resource and it’s reasonable to assume dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people will want you to give it to THEM. But you don’t need “dozens” or more people to see the problem: If you're a guy and there is an attractive woman who wants your painting and an unattractive woman, both willing to provide something in exchange for it, who gets it? ...there is still "competition," there is still "currency" (only in a different form) and there is still "class separation." 

 

There is also the issue of how technology is presented as the “savior” (without any real recognition of potential dangers.) Again, since people who want to dominate others will never be completely extinguished (absent perhaps some kind of chemical lobotomy at birth, which I HOPE nobody is advocating) then systems of technology that "watch" and can "control" all human behavior are very dangerous. They become the new "levers of power" and, just like the ones that exist now, can be taken control of and used to exploit and dominate. 

 

Again, I'm not dissing the film. It’s clear that a lot of work went into it and it is well worth watching. I even agree with the general ideas. But for me, it keeps coming back to this: If the "power" didn't exist, it wouldn't matter what some tyrant wanted to do (because the tyrant wouldn't have any way to do it.) ...we've got to be careful not to replace one "system of control" that puts too much power into the hands of the few with an even BIGGER system that does the exact same thing.

 

 

 

 

Joe Plummer 10.4.08
Back to Home Page
Back to Letters and Commentary Page