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?