Beyond Money III: oikos, modern
The suffering and destruction that money logic exposes the world to and that it forces the people to bring upon the world, they can only come to an end when money logic itself comes to an end. Only then, when things no longer have to be produced to yield money, when people no longer have to work in order to be paid by others, when everything that people live from and live with must no longer be examined and then handled so that it yields money, and as much money as possible, only then is an end even possible to the rampant suffering and the ever-widening doom. That calls for more than just ceasing to think according to money logic; it calls for an end to money itself.
The global market winners
What people live from and how they distribute it would then basically have to be accomplished differently than when mediated through money and through the systemically established compulsion to get money. This for one thing would be far easier than when everything people do had to be first aligned with money before – maybe yes, but maybe no – it can then be good for something. Everything that people do would then without money simply only apply to what they do and what they thereby want to achieve, nothing else. But this has among others the one insurmountable obstacle that today almost everything is organized through money: All provisioning that wouldn’t run on money are as good as destroyed; yes, all prerequisites for organizing things differently than with money have been methodically stamped out over the last centuries. This is the bitter reason why in countries that don’t do as well at capitalistic profit-making as do the global market winners, the populace can only starve or run away.
Modern methods of production and distribution
A return to any older forms of subsistence is thus impossible, even in the case that it were somehow desirable. Instead of a return it would only be a relapse: far back, behind possibilities achieved earlier. It cannot be otherwise: the modern methods of production and distribution that money drove people to develop would not be abandoned, rather they would be maintained – but applied in new ways. Because the capacity of these methods to produce better and with less effort and also by sharing the work in a more complex way and then to distribute products more precisely and reliably than ever, this capacity, when it no longer bows to the dictates of profitability, could then be used in other ways. It is a very welcome capacity: a gift for which money really could, posthumously, be paid thanks.