ÖFF ÖFF: DEAR PHILIP! (- I WRITE IN CAPITALS TO MAKE IT BETTER READABLE...; IN THE END-PART I UNSHIFT TO SMALL LETTERS - )
I TAKE 2 CENTRAL PARTS OF YOUR ANSWER AND GIVE SHORT COMMENTS TO IT:
- „CONSENSUS-COMMUNITIES OF GLOBAL-SHARING“ AS CENTRAL POINT
Philip: What do you think of money in the context of necessities (Notwendigkeiten) - If a certain good or skill is necessary (eine Not muss gewendet werden) and you can only get in relationship through money - could this justify the use of money - if you also would name and shame that a certain access has been denied? Or are all necessities human rights (like water, food, health)? If yes, where (whom towards) can u claim them?
ÖFF ÖFF: I THINK, WE (- AT LEAST A MONEYFREE CORE-GROUP -) SHOULD TRY AT FIRST, HOW FAR WE CAN COME WITHOUT MONEY, BEFORE WE TAKE BACK MONEY INTO OUR HANDS. EXAMPLE: I OFFER PLACES/HOUSES, WHERE YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE MONEY-EXCEPTIONS – SO WHY?
I THINK, WE SHOULD NOT TOO QUICKLY SPEAK OF „NECESSITY“... PEOPLE, WHO PLAN A CAREER, OR PEOPLE, WHO MAKE SPORTS, FOR EXAMPLE JUMPING, REFLECT, 'WHAT EFFORT IS POSSIBLE TO JUMP OVER A HURDLE'... WE ALSO SHOULD CAREFULLY REFLECT, 'WHAT HURDLES CAN IN ACCEPTABLE WAY BE JUMPED OVER'...
Having this in mind, I regard it as very shortsighted, to say: „We handle the money-affairs now in the very 'simple' way – meant as a very 'trusting' way (though it is rather the way of 'throwing away a hot potatoe'...) - , that without looking, how people use the money and follow criteria and show maturity etc. or not, all money is thrown somehow 'invisibly' into a pot, and in the same 'invisible' manner it is taken out again..
(...This will lead to critics like:)
„Look, the vision of idealistic life is not functioning..., it is worse than the normal money-system – so let us return to this normal system...“
Philip: Well, the magic jar, as I described it was just to point out the most important thoughts and implications around it - and from my point of view it always inviting the whole world, not just doing it for a
[as oeffoeff criticized]:
possible community for me I can only imagine a special circle of people, or a special place or region etc. etc...“
ÖFF ÖFF: BUT THE „MAGIC JAR“ (WHO CAN REACH IT, HOW QUICKLY ETC.?; IT IS NOT IN THE SAME WAY REACHABLE FOR ALL HUMANS...) IS QUITE ANOTHER THING, THAN TO PLAN IN A MATURE „CONSENSUS-COMMUNITY OF GLOBAL SHARING“, WHERE TO GIVE THE MONEY - FOR EXAMPLE SENDING IT TO STARVING CHILDREN IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD...
I'd be actually very interested in an initiative that encourages sharing and starts researching and implementing a responsible usage of money in the context of global responsibility (with all philosophical implications of integrity). I started a draft here : https://yunity.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=78643219
ÖFF ÖFF: ME, TOO, I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING TO LOOK FOR GLOBAL SHARING, AND HOW MONEY CAN BE INTEGRATED IN SUCH DIRECTION... -- BUT IN THE END 'NOT ALL FORMS OF BEING MONEYLESS MEAN SHARING – BUT TRUE SHARING MEANS TO BE MONEYLESS...' – SO WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA, TO BUILD IN THE CENTER A DIRECTLY MOST-POSSIBLE MONEYLESS(!) MODEL-PROJECT FOR 'HUMANITY-FAMILY-SHARING' AND GIFT-ECONOMY (REGARDING HUMANITY AS A BIG FAMILY, IN GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY), AS A CORE-PROJECT AND CENTRAL ENGINE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? (I THINK, WE CAN DO SO WITHOUT TOO MUCH DANGER OF EITHER 'ISOLATED WOOD-LIFE' OR UNMORAL 'SHIFTING OF MONEY-RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS', AS I WILL EXPLAIN BELOW...)
That's why I propose another 'methodical direction' for places, where money is still in use (at least in part), but where people want a development in direction to responsable(!) moneyless life: Make the alternative actions and structure-experiments very transparent and as much as possible orientate it towards the development of responsibility-maturity of the participating people, and how it can become possible, to build with such sufficiently mature people functioning „basis-democracy“ or „consensus-democracy“
Philip: I think that is what yunity is going for with WuppDays, WuppHouses and SysCon
ÖFF ÖFF: THIS IS THE MOST CENTRAL POINT: I AM FULL OF HAPPINESS, IF YOU REALLY AIM AT THIS!!! AND THEN IT SURELY WILL INCLUDE, THAT THERE IS OPEN SPACE TO LOOK FOR THE BEST ARGUMENTS – WHERE IN OUR 'NORMAL SOCIETY' NEARLY EVERYWHERE OTHER INTERESTS DOMINATE OVER THE SEARCHING FOR BEST ARGUMENTS...
II. „INDIRECT USE OF MONEY“ OR „DIRECT NOT-USING OF MONEY IN CONFRONTATION WITH THE MONEY-WORLD“ – THOUGHTS ABOUT INDIVIDUALIST ACTIVITY, CHANGE-STRATEGIES, LIBERTY, TRUST, 'NONVIOLENT ACTION' AS A CONDITION FOR 'CONSENSUS(-TRUST)' ETC....
Philip: Thank you for your contribution [,Öff Öff]! I'd recommend everybody to have a closer look into Öff Öff's work, especially what he means with "global responsibility" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
words that I would use are integrity or righteousness
I think, these real and directly offered possibilities [Öff Öff described possibilities of 'holistically moneyfree living' in his 'Giver-Movement-projects', for example possibilities of housing without costs] cannot be denied with arguments like: „It is not possible to do so alone, but only in community..., and as a possible community for me I can only imagine a special circle of people, or a special place or region etc. etc...“ ----- For whom it is important enough, he or she will even do it alone, if necessary (remember Buddha, Jesus, St. Francis, Gandhi or Vinoba Bhave etc. etc.), or will subordinate the questions, 'with whom or at which place', and will be open simply for the way, how things can function best... (- perhaps with other people as the intended, and at other places etc...)...
Philip: Well, I agree that one can do it alone (like if this person isolates into the woods and is not in any connection to something that has been produced in the logic of "money" (reciprocity, shortsighted revenge-calculations). But as soon as this person goes into a house that pays for water usage and then opens the hot water tap, one is indirectly operating in the money-world. So there is a differentiation between "direct", "indirect" and "not at all" participating in the money-world. Both "indirect" and "not at all" are not touching money, but just "not at all" is not involved in money.
And I would argue that the indirect usage of money is actually not steadfast in the context of "global responsibility". Actually I see the person shifting responsibility (of the questions around money) to another person.
I guess you have had quite some discussion about that, so I'd be very curious about your thoughts here.
ÖFF ÖFF: ISN'T IT FASCINATING? ALL THE HISTORIC EXAMPLES, I NAMED, DID NOT „ISOLATE INTO THE WOODS“ (THEY MOSTLY LIVED AS WANDERING BEGGARS!), AND HOWEVER THEY ARE NOT BLAMED TOO MUCH, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE 'SHIFTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONEY-USE TO OTHERS'...
DOES THE 'RESPONSIBILITY-SHIFT-ARGUMENT' FIT FOR SOMEONE, WHO SAYS FOR EXAMPLE: „I FIND IT ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE, WHO STILL WANT TO USE MONEY, BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO CHANGE THEIR EXCHANGE-LOGIC, FROM REVENGE-LOGIC TO GIFT-LOGIC... WOULD IT MAKE SENSE OTHERWISE, IF I COULD ONLY COME TO THEM WITH MY REVOLUTION-INTENTION, AFTER ALL OF THEM ALREADY HAVE CHANGED TO COMPLETE GIFT-ECONOMISTS – THAT MEANS, AFTER THE REVOLUTION IS FINISHED? ... AND I ALWAYS DIRECTLY TELL THEM: „IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF ME, THAT YOU USE MONEY – AND IF YOU PERHAPS THINK SO, I DO NOT WANT TO GET ANYTHING OF YOU...; EVEN IF YOU GIVE ME SOMETHING, WHICH YOU HAVE BOUGHT, IT IS ONLY, BECAUSE YOU, IN YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY, WANT TO CONTINUE IT IN THIS WAY ---- WHEREAS I WOULD PREFER, IF YOU IMMEDIATELY WOULD ALSO LIVE TOTALLY WITHOUT MONEY AND ONLY EXCHANGE GIFTS...; AND I SEE IT SO, THAT THERE ARE MUCH MORE PROBLEMS, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT JOIN THE COMPLETE MONEYLESS LIFE, THAN PROBLEMS MIGHT ARISE, BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE WOULD DECIDE FOR MONEYLESS LIVING AND IT COULD BRING LACKS OF RESSOURCES, WHICH IS VERY VERY UNPROBABLE... (WE COULD MANAGE THINGS AND GET ALL WE NEED, MUCH BETTER IN A MONEYLESS TEAM THAN OTHERWISE...) ((AND ALSO, IF WE LOOK AT THINGS QUITE CONCRETELY AND PRACTICALLY, OR EVEN THROUGH THE GLASSES OF 'HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL NECESSITY', IT SURELY IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO JOIN IMMEDIATELY THE MONEYFREE LIFE: YOU COULD TRY THE PROJECT-OFFERS OF ÖFF ÖFF AND HIS GIVERS-MOVEMENT; AND SOME NATURE-TRIBES STILL PRACTISE IT; AND IT WAS THE NATURAL BASIC-LIFESTYLE OF THE EARLY HUMANS, FROM WHICH ALL OTHER SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE MONEY-SYSTEM, DEVELOPPED -)... THE MONEY-EXCHANGE-LOGIC IS NOT A NATURE-LAW, WHICH SOME PEOPLE ALWAYS MUST PRACTISE, AND WHERE THEY, IF OTHERS STOP THEIR PRACTISING, WOULD HAVE TO CARRY ON THE BURDEN OR EVEN A MORE HEAVY BURDEN; AND IT IS NOTHING, WHICH IS UNCHANGEABLY INHERENT IN THE THINGS, WE EXCHANGE... – WE ARE SPEAKING SIMPLY ABOUT A CHANGE OF EXCHANGE-LOGICS: WE CAN DIRECTLY FROM ONE MOMENT TO THE OTHER HANDLE ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE ONE OR THE OTHER LOGIC (REGARD ONE ANOTHER AS 'FAMILY-MEMBERS OR DEALERS') – AND THE 'GLOBAL-SHARING-LOGIC' NORMALLY BRINGS MUCH MORE FOR ALL, COMPARED TO ANY OTHER LOGIC, EVERYWHERE AND IMMEDIATELY...“
IS SOMEONE, WHO POINTS OUT THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CHANGEABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY IN SUCH A WAY, TO BLAME, IF PEOPLE THEN CONTINUE THE USE OF MONEY - OR SHOULD IT BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE EXCHANGE WITH THEM?
AND IF SOMEONE WOULD SAY: „BUT THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG IN USING MONEY!“ - HOW COULD ON THE OTHER HAND OPTIONS BE REFLECTED LIKE „MAGIC JAR“, WITH ARGUMENTS LIKE, THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY 'TRUST' AND 'RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF CHOICE', WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH SUCH MONEY...
[I unshift to small letters again, because capitals are no longer needed for distinction between text and comment...] The last point leads us to another subject, which IMHO is very important:
How far goes individual responsibility, and what are basic criteria for trust or – seen from the other side – what is the difference between 'giving everybody his liberty' and 'complicity for injustice':
I think, for all of us is clear, that for example it is not ok (without any (consensus-group-)reflection or – nonviolent – attempts to change the situation), to give to someone for an obviously planned luxury-party a box of food, which could be the survival-nourriture for some poor people... On the other hand it is not proportionate, to regard the deeds of another, as if I directly would have done it and would be in complete responsibility (as if the other would be my marionette)...
Gandhi proposed as dividing line, to give another person his liberty to do, what he finds right (even if you think, it is wrong) – and in case, you think, injustice will happen, to try a change of the situation by „nonviolent action“, which means „invitation or provocation of the moral conscience of the other“: an attempt, to change him from inside, from his own moral insight and free will – by emphasizing und increasing and escalating his own orientation-liberty, giving him provocatively the possibility to do wrong – and showing him the own readiness to take the bad consequences onto one's shoulders ('substitutional suffering')... In difference to letting things develop blindly, this is connected with highest attentiveness and responsibility-commitment...
Such „nonviolent action“ is meant as a 'development-means' to build a sufficient basis for „consensus-trust“ ((- which to my mind can form a good basis for a lot of forms of responsable cooperation, even for a [from all sides good acceptable!] cooperation and exchange between people, who still use money, and moneyless activists, without a possibility for objections like 'wrong shifting of responsibility' and so on -)): For trusting someone it is necessary, that he becomes transparent. Otherwise you do not know, whether he will do good or bad. But transparency can mean: you know for sure – that the other wants do damage, perhaps to hurt or to kill you – so that there can be strongest reasons, not to trust him... So you must have more than transparancy: you must know, that the other ist acting according to moral values, which you find good for yourself instead of damaging... And if you are a human being, who lives for global responsibility, then you must find a value-consensus with the other, that he will not only not damage you, but also will not damage others, i.e. will follow such global responsibility, too... If this is the case, you can trust the other in the sense, that he and you follow the same 'principle-orientation', so that you can let him do things, without following everything with a controlling look, and that you can accept him as a consensus-partner, what means, that he has veto-right and can in a high measure block (common) activities...
If you would give the other a consensus-(veto-)right without the described (global-responsibility-)value-consensus, it would be a crime! Because you are morally obliged to follow your essential moral-conscience-principles, even if all other people would say 'no' or even would try to prevent you from it with violence!... That's why at first by a processus of understanding one another and – as much as needed – 'nonviolent action' the basis for consensus(-trust) must be developped...
So far for the moment... I know, that I only roughly explained an argumentation-structure about these subjects... But I think, it can show you my proposition for a good further growing-process, and I like very much to continue the discussion with you...
Öff Öff alias Jürgen Wagner