Thread: Autonation

Originally Posted by cmind

I'm quite certain that abandoning money would result in mass starvation.

Implying that money is essential to the process acquiring and consuming food? Or what's your point?

edit:

Originally Posted by cmind

If you doubt that, I suggest you read history. Specifically, look at Leninist Russia (the period between WW1 and WW2). It wasn't until Stalin came in and re-instituted the use of currency that the starvation in Russia came to an end (at least, until the collapse of 89)

A quick perusal of history gives numerous examples of people living without money or mass starvation. Is it possible that your one cherry picked example is defective? Maybe the problem is with Leninism and not the absence of money?

Not that I'm arguing against money. I think that it does have a role to play. But I do think that its influence over our lives should be bounded. As it stands, it's just another example of us being slaves to our ideas instead of using our ideas as tools to improve our lives.

One third of the human population is already starving and another one third is underfed. How is having a global economy running on money helping them? How many more people have to suffer before we have a mass starvation?

Originally Posted by cmind

If you doubt that, I suggest you read history. Specifically, look at Leninist Russia (the period between WW1 and WW2). It wasn't until Stalin came in and re-instituted the use of currency that the starvation in Russia came to an end (at least, until the collapse of 89)

The Soviet Union never abandoned currency...

I'm pretty sure Stalin starved those farmers on purpose, too.