StokeLee said:
i mean there is no money.
Money is an accepted medium of exchange. In prisons cigarettes are used as money, in some tribal cultures shells were used as money. I fail to see how any system would work without currency, otherwise how do I get "payment" to buy a carton of milk from picking up garbage? Is it a state-issued coupon? Because that would essentially become money. Look at food-stamps in America. There are certain restrictions on them, such as no tobacco or alcohol. People with food-stamps will often trade their stamps for cash so they can purchase these things; in this case the food stamp becomes a form of currency.
I just fail to see how a system will work without money. Unless of course we all become completely self-sufficient, or learn to barter without a medium of exchange (but that becomes hard when you need a car battery but can only offer elective surgery in exchange). If you're talking about a pure marxist kind of thing, the problem is that (a) there is no incentive to work hard if you will never be rewarded (b) the people in charge tend to abuse power.
There are different types of equality as well. Typically the US frames the question you are asking in terms of equality of opportunity vs. equality of condition. If I'm reading you right then you are advocating a form of equality of condition (i.e. making everyone now have equal lifestyles, the same amount of wealth, etc.), whereas equality of opportunity states that everyone ought to have an equal opportunity for success, and that people who work hard, smart, better will have better lives because of that fact, but the guy who wants to do less demanding tasks won't live as well (although he had the same opportunity to do so). I'm not saying we live in a world where equality of opportunity exists, only that this type of equality seems like a better solution to me, and that perhaps striving towards that goal ought to be the primary aim.
Ways to improve equality of opportunity include improving schools (to the point where kids in the inner city get the same quality education that kids in the suburbs get). Also getting rid of "legacy admission" at colleges where the parents can donate enough money to ensure their child's acceptance into the top schools (even if that means rejecting someone more worthy). Some may even say that free higher education to all would be a natural extension of this type of equality.
Just some food for thought StokeLee. Of course getting rid of poverty is a beautiful dream. I think that perhaps narrowing the gap between the richest people and the poorest people may be worth pursuing. Also the word poverty itself has many different meanings, but ensuring that all people have all their basic needs is a beautiful dream; perhaps we don't all have to be "equal" for this to happen though. Perhaps improvements in medicine, agriculture, engineering, education, birth control and other areas will make this dream a reality one day (without having to resort to marxism).
