A Reasonable World

Appendix

Extracts from The Moneyless Society and other writings and speeches of Edgar Palladino

• What do they mean when they say I am an idealist? They mean that my beliefs are impractical, all very well in theory but impossible to put into practice, whereas they are men of the world, practical men who understand how to get things done.

I prefer to call myself an optimalist, meaning that I would like to get things done in the best way possible, rather than to assume that the worst way is the only way. We cannot achieve an ideal society, since we are not angels, but we can aim for eutopia rather than for cacotopia, the world of misery, violence and cruelty in which we now live.

• In classical times money replaced the barter system because it was much easier and more flexible; instead of carrying cattle from place to place one could carry little bits of metal (pecunia). The money system also led to much simpler accounting; since everything had a money equivalent, all transactions could be recorded in a single category, instead of having to write down, “Fifty cattle, five plows, ten chickens,” etc. Even the USSR always used a money system, even though its currency was nonconvertible and until quite late in its history the government was almost the only employer; and why? Because of the need for accounting. And this is why people say we have to stay in the money system, because the only alternative is to go back to barter, which is too clumsy. But there is another alternative which does not involve either money or barter, neither does it involve wages, salaries, dividends, fees, or any other form of payment. It is the moneyless society, in which no one is paid for anything.

• For many centuries and in all parts of the world, the subjugation of women has been accomplished by valuing them in money. Solomon, we are told, had three hundred concubines, an exaggeration, perhaps, but he certainly had many concubines, and they were his property, valued in money just as his peacocks and camels were.

I once attended a lecture by a filmmaker who had visited a nomadic tribe in North Africa whose women are extraordinarily beautiful. In the film he showed us, we saw something extraordinary: these women walked with the men, neither exaggerating their movements for erotic reasons nor keeping their eyes down modestly, but looking about them calmly and confidently, seeing everything; in short, they behaved neither like courtesans nor virtuous women, but like free men.

Speaking of one of these women, the filmmaker said, “She would be worth a million dollars if only she were in New York, London or Paris.” This was an intelligent and sensitive man, but he could think of no way to praise this free woman except to assign her a dollar value, as if she were a commodity to be traded.

In our present system women are commodities, whether they are actresses, wives, or prostitutes. But that is no surprise, because everything is a commodity. Men and children are also commodities. Under the money system everything has a value, not a human value but a market value.

When we hear of a famous man, we ask, “How much is he worth?” And if the man should be kidnapped and held for ransom, then we find out how much he is worth, or at least how much his relatives are willing to pay for him. In the money system everything is for sale, including men, women and children. And if a man or woman has a very low money value, we say he is “worthless.” Yes, and we also say, “As cheap as dirt,” because we do not value the soil but only its location and use. Thus, by putting a money value on everything, we are able to pervert and ignore the real value of everything. We cut down the forests because they are worth more as lumber than as living trees. We despoil the planet that nourishes us and invite our own disaster, and all because of this illusory money.

• I am asked, is there any difference between the moneyless society and a classless society? Yes, there is a difference. The moneyless society liberates us from the domination of capital with all that implies, but not from the tendency of the human race to divide itself into classes. When we look at each other we see that some of us are more talented, more able, or more wise, some more beautiful, some more graceful, and these classes will endure, but the moneyless society means that no class rules another, because all have an equal right to everything.

• I am asked, with a triumphant smirk, where will the capital come from for great enterprises? The question reveals the poverty of my critics’ imaginations. Capital does not build pyramids or bridges; people build them using materials which they obtain from the earth. Capital is only one way of organizing such efforts. Long before Adam Smith was bom or thought of, the pyramids of Egypt and the great public works of the Incas in Peru were built without capital.

Then my critics ask, as if they have not heard me, How will great enterprises come into being if there is no profit and therefore no incentive? They foiget that in our present world many of the greatest enterprises are undertaken by governments, which make no profit; and in fact, it is often said that only governments can afford to undertake the greatest of these projects.

Even in this world, profit is not the strongest motive. A small businessman hopes to earn a profit which to him is equivalent to a living. A big businessman no longer has to worry about his living, and profits to him are no more than a way of keeping score. People build gigantic enterprises, not for profit but for glory and for love of the game. Others, such as inventors and artists, hope for a profit because they must live, but if their living were free, they would still invent or create because it is in their nature to do so.

Even if it should be true that some great enterprises would not be undertaken without the profit motive, that would not necessarily be a bad thing. Many of our greatest enterprises today are useless or harmful. Who would undertake such enterprises, except for profit or power?

• The “drug problem” does not exist; there is only a money problem. In the moneyless society, those who want to grow and cure tobacco or marijuana for themselves and their friends will do so, and those who want to make whisky and brandy will make it, and those who want to make cocaine will make that, and there will always be wine. Those who make these things because they like them and because they take pride in their work will continue to make them, but those who made them only for the money will find other things to do.

• It is said that the industrial system with its division of labor has created the highest standard of living in the world, and that even the poor own devices which even a king could not have a century ago. Yes, but these results have been accomplished by an unequal division: the joys of work to some and the pains to others. In order to buy the things we are made to want, we must labor at senseless and repugnant jobs for half our lives.

• They say that behind everything that I want to be given away lies something else that must be paid for: steel for tools, iron ore for the steel. That is true, but as our circle expands it will take in more and more of these things, and in the meantime we will manage to exist as generations did before us.

When the producers of these things ask what we will do without them, it would be better to ask what they will do without us.

• They say that some work is so unpleasant that no one would do it without being paid. Very well, if it is necessary work we will take turns to do it. Suppose we hate it so much that we discover it is unnecessary?

• They say that my system is impossible because it must necessarily involve the whole world; for example, a plow cannot be given away unless the steel is given away, and the steel cannot be given away unless the iron is given away, and the iron cannot be given away unless the ore is given away. And therefore the moneyless society cannot come into being, because in order to do so it would have to begin everywhere at once, which is impossible.

To this argument I give two answers. The first is, the argument cannot be true because it applies equally to the money society, which therefore cannot exist because in order to do so it would have had to begin everywhere at once. The second is: the argument contains a hidden fallacy, because it assumes that every end product has a separate chain of antecedents, thus the plow, the steel, the iron, the ore. But in fact these chains are linked together into a system. The moneyless society does not have to begin everywhere at once, it only has to begin in a group large enough to contain every necessary thing and every necessary skill. Yes, we must have a mine, several mines, and machinery to work the mines, and ships to transport the ore; and we must have a foundry, several foundries. And we must have physicians and nurses, and dentists, and plumbers, and carpenters, but it is not clear that we must have lawyers.

• They say that if everything is free, no one will want to work. They don’t mean themselves, because they are people who would die of boredom if they could not work. Between themselves and those under them, they say, there is a vast difference. But what is this difference? On the one hand, those who labor at tasks of their own choosing; on the other, those who labor at tasks chosen for them.

• Everyone agrees that the highways and bridges need repair, and that the people who do such work are in need of employment. Why not, then, repair the highways and bridges? Because the governments concerned “can’t afford it.”

Hundreds of thousands of people are without proper housing and hundreds of thousands of carpenters and masons are out of work. What stands in the way of employing one group to satisfy the needs of the other? Only the illusory money system.

• Raising prices is one way of apportioning scarce goods; rationing is another. It is easy to see why rich people prefer raising prices and poor people prefer rationing.

• The moneyless society cannot at first include everyone who lives in the town, because some will not agree to join it; therefore it must be a town within a town, a map laid over a map. But since the new society will not use money except in certain emergencies, those who prefer to live in the money society will find it more convenient to go elsewhere, and thus, in course of time, the two towns will become identical and the maps will correspond point to point.

• Suppose the ten thousand people in our town have the equivalent of one thousand dollars apiece in the bank: that is ten million dollars. Since the money is not needed for personal use, it can be expended to buy things not produced by the community.

The bank, which deals in money, now operates in the moneyless community but only for dealings with the outside world. If it were still in the money system it would be bankrupt because its loans could not be collected. One or two people can operate the bank now; the ceaseless deposits and withdrawals of money have now ceased.

• The successful artist or writer will be at first a welcome source of money income to the community: but what about the many unsuccessful and aspiring artists? It is well known that nearly everybody thinks he could be a great painter, or novelist, or dramatist, if only he had the time.

Let us give everyone the chance to find out. When people discover that art is too difficult, or that their work is not appreciated, most of them will return to other occupations. Why? Because people dislike failure and boredom.

Even if we find that a great many people devote their lives to a pursuit of art which we consider unproductive, can their number possibly be greater than the number of people who now do nothing but interfere with our freedom, or add up numbers of dollars, lire, francs, yen, rubles and deutsche marks?