Is scarcity a myth?

[benhur]

I am not sure what this means. Is it true that earth produces things in abundance, and that nothing is ever destroyed? And that all resources are produced endlessly? Unless this true, how can socialism work, especially the abolishing of monetary system?

Second, how will society function after money is eliminated?

[Decolonize The Left]

I am not sure what this means. Is it true that earth produces things in abundance, and that nothing is ever destroyed?

Of course not - all things are "finite." This means that there is a certain 'total' amount of them which can be produced by any number of producers over time, nothing is infinite.


And that all resources are produced endlessly?

This is impossible. Consider solar power, seems like it could be produced endlessly right? Wrong. The sun will not be here 'forever' and hence even solar power is a finite resource.


Unless this true, how can socialism work, especially the abolishing of monetary system?

I fail to see how this follows from the previous questions.

Socialism/communism/anarchism deal with how resources are produced/distributed.


Second, how will society function after money is eliminated?

This has been discussed many times, but the most general answer I can provide would be: 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

- August

[Followthewhiterabbit]

Benhur, your post makes almost no sense, can you please explain in greater detail what your question is. :thumbup1:

[Labor Shall Rule]

'Scarcity' exists but it is not as attached to supply and demand as bourgeois economics makes it out to be.

The rising oil prices (for example) is tied to dwindling oil reserves by Peak Oil theorists, yet leading energy companies deliberately slow exploration down or shut down refineries to create a sort of artificial lack of supply. The paper value of petroleum also has gone up by investment in the commodity futures market.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am not sure what this means. Is it true that earth produces things in abundance, and that nothing is ever destroyed? And that all resources are produced endlessly? Unless this true, how can socialism work, especially the abolishing of monetary system?

Second, how will society function after money is eliminated?

Labour credit:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't get enough sex, so no, I would say it's not a myth.

[Comrada J]

Huh? We certainly don't have unlimited resources.

[Valeofruin]

Scarcity is not a myth, its just a insignificant factor when determining value, as is use. Marxism maintains that commodities retain value PRIMARILY through labour, but not entirely.

In addition the monetary system CAN NOT be abolished under socialism, thats just silly. The monetary system is something Socialism inherits from capitalism, its absolutely necessary.

[al8]

It's not absolutely neccisary. In fact abolishing money straight away is one of the most powerful weapons in our arsinal against our class enemies.

[benhur]

If scarcity is real and resources limited, wouldn't that prove the capitalist view that all people cannot have access to everything (essential as well as luxury items) in equal measure? That some of them will acquire more and others less. Some of them will control resources, while others won't. And so on.

[Comrada J]

Do you realize how some people (the upper class) consume/own 1000+ times what an average worker does? Under a socialist system this would be evened out, with modern technology everybody would have more than their basic needs. We're all about creating a more sustainable and efficient society, I have no doubt that our system would actually have higher overall value. What exactly makes you think that if all the wealth in the world, if evenly redistributed would lead to every one being hungry and bankrupt?

[ROM]

Fossil fuels are a limited resource.Many foods and grain are depending on weather conditions etc. Money will always be with us but perhaps the acumulation amounts may differ. I often thought if we used more of the barter system a man could not for example collect ten billion apples. He would have to share some with others or they would all spoil.

[Dimentio]

Of course all resources are finite. That is not an argument against communism.

What the bourgeoisie economists mean is that scarcity is existing because human "needs" are infinite. Also, all needs are equivalent with each-other. Thus, Jay Leno has as much right to possess 600 cars as a single mother in the third world has the right to clean water, and of course, both have the income they deserve.

[Vanguard1917]

Natural resources are mathematically finite, but human ingenuity isn't. Through the application of human technology and industy we are able to discover more and more efficient ways to utilise nature in the interests of humanity.

Ideological emphasis of 'scarcity' has long been part and parcel of capitalist politics. Capitalism takes scarcity as its starting point and bourgeois ideologues construct their ideological defence of the capitalist system on that basis. Scarcity, it is argued, is an eternal condition which cannot be overcome, meaning that the market is needed to regulate consumption.

Socialists, on the other hand, point out that material scarcity has historical social and economic causes, that capitalism maintains scarcity, and that the historical aim of socialism is to overcome scarcity through the advancement of the productive forces of society.

[apathy maybe]

Actually, I would suggest that it is capitalism that assumes that scarcity doesn't exist. The entire economic basis of capitalism assumes that there can be unlimited growth, and unlimited resources.

One reason why smart environmentalists are also socialists is that socialism reduces the amount of consumption (by eliminating in built obsolescence, reducing the need for everyone to have one (or more) of everything etc.).