@woozle Because when people have tried out systems without the ability to acquire money, there's still unaccountable power, but also mass poverty, starvation, and death.
@stevefoerster And those don't exist in money-based societies?
@woozle I'm neither holding out much hope nor particularly interested in responses. I've seen this film too many time, the final reel is very predictable. I realise you're more the optimist. Part of me admires that in you.
The main problem with your starting ... observation, I guess, it's not really an argument ... is that whilst there've been nonmonetary cultures, few have reached any appreciable scale or level of complexity. So there's that, good or bad at your discretion, which goes along with the more definite ills of negative externalities, oppression, fraud, and the like.
I've put to strypey & foerster the challange of considering the inverse of their argument re: Weber's definition of the State. I'd put the same challenge to you: What good things does money make possible? What becomes exceeding difficult without it? Why are there no large, complex, highly-capable nonmonetary societies?
(On that last: you might well argue that LCHC societies are not a Good Thing. But you still have to contend with tyhe absence of any nonmonetary examples.)
@woozle Looking forward to it.
One possible angle: pre-monetary cultures generally seemed to work on a social credit system.
That might have been formal (temple grain accounts) or informal (social gift economies / personal reckonings / structured class or status systems).
These frequently lacked, or at least assigned a vastly reduced role to, physical token transfers. But weren't utterly devoid of some elements of financialised reckoning.
You might want to put some thought into where your primary gripe(s) lie.
On the internet, everyone knows you're a cat — and that's totally okay.