how would that be different without capitalism?
A lot less crime for one. We funnel people into prison because of how currency functions. If Basic Needs were met like not charging for food or other necesseities people wouldn’t be nearly as miserable. Shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to understand this. Complain about where the money comes from all you want but keeping things status quoe means we are okay with all the cruelty in our world.
If you meet people’s basic needs, they do not cease to care or aspire.
A lot of the issue is “bullshit jobs” and being forced to do one. Work needs to be done, but we could be just as productive and maintain higher quality of life if we all worked less or for a shorter part of our lifespan.
Folks are happy to do a job that helps others, but they’re less inclined to do a job to make a few bastards rich.
Bullshit jobs (=> jobs that are doing unnecessary work) are certainly part of that, but shit jobs (=> jobs that you would really not want to work) are another part of the equation.
Shit jobs make up a huge amount of the jobs that actually do stuff we depend on (e.g. food industry, retail, agricultural, garbage, …). So the question is how do you get people to do these jobs? Without some form of coercion, that might be difficult.
By paying accordingly to how shitty they are. It’s that simple and actually what a free market is about. Because people need to work to survive the labor market isn’t free and it doesn’t work as it should/could.
I remember as a kid I always thought garbage collectors must be paid pretty well to do a job like that. It’s actually pretty sad that we accepted the slavery like conditions today as normal and unchangeable.
While I agree that redistribution should be a much more central thing in our economy and that these jobs should totally earn much more than they do, I don’t think that this would be an actual solution in a scarcity-based society with even moderate capitalism as a basis. And it certainly wouldn’t work in a communist framework either.
If you pay most people a lot more than we do today, that would certainly make things more equal (we would e.g. not have to spend such a huge portion of our economic output feeding wealthy parasites), but it would not remove the problem of some people being forced to do work they wouldn’t want to, since the prices would jump up to instantly balance the gains.
If you keep a somewhat capitalist framework, then this price jump would instantly make life unaffordable for anyone not working a shit job, so it would just shift who is under coercion instead of removing the concept of coercion.
Of course it’s worth discussing what’s a fair distribution, no question about that. I just question that coercion can be actually really done away with.
I am not sure what you mean with this price jump. I guess you assume everyone suddenly getting a basic income? That could be problematic, yes. But you could introduce it gradually so that the markets can adjust. And in ideal market conditions in the end people would earn more or less the same because the basic income would decrease the wages because employers know you get it and there will be people doing the same job for less now because they have this additional income.
Concerning the problem of some people being forced to do work they wouldn’t do. I don’t see this problem. In contrary it would simply force people who want to have shitty work done to pay a lot more until people are willing to do it voluntarily. It sounds to me similar like the slave owners argued it is economically impossible to do all this farming without slaves.
Of course things will change and might be worse for some people. But economy is not a natural law. To change rhis things is never impossible. The only question is what will be the consequences (for those opposing the changes).
We decide how we set up the economy, what we allow and what not, and the market will adjust accordingly. Do we want to have slaves and protect the lavish lifestyle of the slave owners or not? Do we want to have homeless people or people being forced to do jobs they detest and protect abusive employers from free market conditions?
Currently, there’s a huge amount of people doing shit jobs. If all these people would earn enough that they would want to do these jobs even if they had other opportunities, (a) the money would have to come from somewhere and (b) a lot of people would earn a lot more money all of a sudden.
Those people earning more are also the people buying stuff, so stuff would instantly get more expensive.
It really doesn’t matter whether you are doing it in a sudden jump or gradually, the prices would track the wages.
Let’s take a super simple example and ignore the economical bigger picture for a second. Let’s take the example of a strawberry picker.
In my country, a strawberry picker earns about €2300 per month. During covid foreign strawberry pickers couldn’t get into the country, so the farmers tried getting locals. Thanks to covid unemployment was high, so theoretically there was enough free labour. But nobody wanted to do the job. They even increased the pay to ~€3000 per month and still nobody wanted to do it.
Most strawberry pickers in my country are from Rumania, a country where the median income is about 1/4 of what it is in my country. So as a rough estimate, so that the wages are worth the same for locals as they are compared to Rumanian cost of living and incomes, a local strawberry picker would have to earn €9200. With that income I’d also be tempted to do the job.
But not only the strawberry pickers, but all the people working crap jobs in the supply line would require a similar wage rise.
That means, for the strawberries to still be worth the cost of labour, their price would have to increase similarly. And now our fictional strawberry picker can afford the same amount of strawberries with their new €9200 wage that they could afford before with their €2300 income.
Do the same thing for all shit jobs and the prices of almost everything will have to increase the same way.
So if they wanted to eat, they would still have to work, and most likely they’d have to work the same shit jobs.
I am not arguing that this is a natural law in any way. As you said, economy is not a natural law. But if we keep our economical system the same and just change that one thing without adjusting how the rest of the system works, the maths of our current system will balance it at the same point.
To pick up your example: the abolition of slavery needed quite a few changes in quite a few places. Namely, former slaves got the status of citizen and that gave them a ton of rights.
If the abolitionists had changed nothing except making the state of being a slave illegal but didn’t confer any new rights (e.g. right to choose a place of employment, worker’s rights, right to freedom of movement, right to own property and so on) to these former slaves, then it’s quite likely that a lot of former slaves would find themselves in a very slave-like state because they have no other choice.
If you want to change a system, you need to change every single mechanic that touches the things you want to change. It’s hardly ever enough to change one value and call it a day.
I don’t get why it’s so controversial that people should be able to survive without a job. It doesn’t need to be glamourous, but nobody should be unhoused or unfed. We are blessed with plenty and we should share. And before it sounds like I’m religious, no, I’m not saying churches should be responsible for that, government should. (Though obviously I have no problems with any religious groups feeding and housing people as well.)
The argument is mostly that if nobody has to work, too few people will choose to work, and then the quality of life for all will deteriorate. It is still true that our modern society requires an enormous amount of upkeep just to keep the quality of life where it is now. That’s work and if nobody does it then services will stop functioning.
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on homeless shelters and soup kitchens right now in the modern day, without the need to work. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which motivates people to work (or steal).
What do you mean with quality of life? Remember people will only get their basic needs met. If they want more quality they have to pay for it and thus have to work. So the rest should be figured out by the free market (even better than now because labor market isn’t free if people have to work to survive). Of course there will be a certain percentage that is okay with just surviving but I am sure their needs can be met by the taxes of the overwhelming amount of people who want more than that.
Well, like I said, even today, it is basically impossible to starve to death in the Western world. You can get your caloric needs met from charity programmes and government assistance alone. It requires you to sacrifice your dignity and accept a very low quality of life, but you will not die.
So if coercion is defined as “forced to perform some action under threat of not having one’s biological needs met”, nobody is in fact coerced to do anything.
and if you’re not doing good then there’s always the “go to jail” route: free housing and food, at the cost of your freedom
In some parts of the Western world (particularly in the US), prison is also forced labour. The state I live in has abolished it but many other states still have it.
I completely forgot this was a thing
Still a way not to die I guess?
What happens if the prisoner refuses to work?
It seems like they get less privileges, not specifically punished
In many cases, psychological torture (solitary confinement)
Removing consumers from a consumer economy does what exactly to that economy?
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on a single job right now in the modern day. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which
You don’t sound religious at all, so I’m not sure why you mentioned that, but im completely against churches feeding and housing people because they impose rules upon the recipients. I don’t believe in charity, so that’s part of it.
The moderate(ish) Evangelical right will often agree no one should go hungry but believe it is the church’s responsibility, not the government.
Claim is ok, the unspoken “so everything will collapse” is bullshit. In the end, Hampton is right: “work (do what someone else wants) or starve” is not how anyone should live
work (do what someone else wants) or starve" is not how anyone should live
That’s literally the bedrock of civilization… It has been this way since Sumerians.
And normies still can’t quite figure it out
All that history in school, nada
We done slavery for at least a long as there has been civilization. That doesn’t make it good.
Correct but it makes it the reality that people keep denying
No one is denying shit. We’re stating that our systems dont have to be based on coercion. It is possible to build a society off of cooperation instead. Denying that is denying that we made this shit up and it can be how we want.
Calling american wagie a slave, will get you kicked out of the party lol
Most people are denial. Fediverse is not reflective of modern American discourse.
People who use the term “most people” are usually full of shit in my experience.
(Guess who the commander-in-chief is of the “most people” crowd)
If you had have a different experience with the public, please do share
I dont give a shit what most people think. Its a fact not an opinion. Our systems are built on coercion because we’re just making slight changes to them over time. Thats why they are that way. It has nothing to do with the thoughts that talking heads plant in the average Americans’ mind.
Edit: reading this after posting I would just like to clarify that I am not trying to be pointed or angry with you. It comes off that way tho. I really do mean we have the choice in how our societies operate.
I don’t take online discourse personal, all good.
really do mean we have the choice in how our societies operate.
I don’t even disagree here in theory… In practice, it is hard to explain it this way though.
We are ruled, and our opinions mean nothing and most people are unwilling to do any opposition.
So it is just few freedom enjoyer doing their lil direct action while scream into the fedi void while we are increasingly being subjugated by the owner class.
And the normie sees nothing wrong and thinks the freedom enjoyer is the weird one.
Lol. Aren’t you cold there, at the peak of mount of scholarship?
It hasn’t been like this around Ramana Maharshi, just to point one name you can look into. And human life and possibility have never been about just sustaining body till it drops dead.
Oh, my little know-it-all, you say plenty of people have been living like that for plenty of time? Good catch, take a candy, good boy
An obscure example does little disprove my thesis…
Your thesis?
Civilization as we know exists due to slavery and violence.
How do you know it’s “due to slavery and violence” rather then “despite slavery and violence”? It seems more likely to me that civilisation is rooted in cooperation and solidarity, while slavery and violence is a cancer that grows on top of it, and hurts almost everyone involved.
List an example of a civilization that was not build by force and labour extraction from the under class.
Cooperation was achieved at a gun point. There is no solidarity even in communist regimes.
Bedrock of civilization my ass, lol. Did I ever say I was looking for a dispute with you?
I knew as a child, i hated working and didn’t want to do it.
Come to find out as an adult, everyone is a slave to corporations who overcharge us and underpay us. It’s all rigged against the working class. So glad i didn’t waste more money on college for a job i couldn’t get.
It’s also just not true. Most people will find work to do if they have none. That’s pretty much what hobbies are. And all of the people I know who lived very long lives stayed active volunteering the whole time. My grandmother was like that, and died at 97 shortly after she had to stop for health reasons.
Not to mention that if your basic necessities are covered, you could still work to buy things that aren’t necessities.
Okay but you won’t do stupid bullshit in inefficient ways that keep me in 5000$ wine and a gilded skull throne of all the kids who hit puberty and became too old for me to fuck. So nothing of actual value to society.
so is it even really ‘work’?
this tweet is philosophical junk
Are you saying that it’s bad philosophy or that philosophy is bad?
Even if you wanted to opt out of capitalism, I can’t even think of how a poor person would manage to live legally in the US. You basically have to be a hobo constantly in fear of being arrested (and then in prison you’re definitely a slave). You can’t just go out into nature and build your own homestead like people used to do.
You’re describing slavery.
I can see why you think it’s similar, but it’s assuredly not the same as slavery. As a hobo, you still have rights and cannot be purchased or treated a literal property.
Friend, have you paid attention to where we are at right now?
Homeless Funding Was Limited to Groups Aligned With Trump Policies, Suit Says
A federal lawsuit filed on Thursday in Rhode Island by two organizations that support the homeless claims that, with $75 million in homelessness grants about to expire, the Department of Housing and Urban Development illegally coerced applicants into embracing President Trump’s positions on immigration enforcement, transgender rights and other charged issues.
They literally tried to buy homeless care.
The specific issue in the US is the exploitation of labor to serve the need for infinite profits. In an ideal state, the government (for the people, by the people) would stand between the needs of labor and the needs of profit by providing labor with legal protections from exploitation. When those in government become one with the needs of profits, the people lose.
What we are seeing now after Citizens United is that it becomes more profitable to lobby/capture the government to increase profits than it is to buy more productive labor. By extension, they use a portion of their profits to convince labor to vote against the interests of the many by identifying and focusing on divisive culture issues.
Now who is poised to protect labor? Used to be the news media holding the government accountable to the people, but now most influential news media organizations are held to the need for infinite profits. They have something to lose now if they report on an issue that interferes with their ad revenue.
The solution? Talk to your neighbors and engage in your local community. Invite others to the community. Support each other by sharing skills, knowledge, and resources locally. Serve your community rather than insatiable unidentifiable shareholders. Also be wary of organized religions that can be used to incite conflicts or division. Not saying religion is bad, just that large organizations dilute the accountability needed to prevent the reliance on infinite profits.
There’s a fact that a lot of people commenting here are overlooking. Marx himself admitted that in the lower stage of communism, wages will have to exist until people’s mindset on labor changes. It’s simply not true that communism will not work because ‘people don’t like working’.
edit: grammar
What prevents me from working a few months, getting enough money for a computer and internet, and then have food and housing for free and don’t work for the rest of my life?
Not really? Organization around mutual aid exemplifies time and time again people’s willingness to do all kinds of labor without pay as well as capital’s antagonistic response to the act.
Wages only have to exist until people are provided an alternative means of well being and self empowerment. That they can observe the value of labor is intrinsically tied to survival and well being, rather than extrinsically and arbitrarily.
Yep, every existing socialist society past and present requires labor, and paid for it. We can’t jump from A to Z, we have to build socialism and build communism, and we have to continue developing. Wage labor as the sole motivator for labor in society is something that gets phased out as work becomes more for satisfying needs than profits for the few.
Also, in the higher stage of communism, labor that is necessary but not preferred — cleaning the sewers, for example — could be done in turn.
This far in the future, you can find someone like me who would willingly design sewer-cleaning robots. My labor is being wasted on pointless billionaire projects.
Fuck I’d be happy to clean sewers if I had a stable high quality of life and I knew that my work was directly contributing to the community and its health. (In fact, most sanitation workers currently have that perspective - sanitation work is care work, and something to be very proud of).
I disagree that “labor” can never be voluntary. But I also fully agree that labor in a Capitalist system is fundamentally based on coercion.
The thing to me is that “labor” and “doing work” are two fundamentally different things. You can accept a role that someone else needs done in exchange for something, or you can work on things you find important or interesting, or that just needs doing, to maintain yourself and your environment in a broad sense.
You should look up the feminist definition of labor. It includes everything you’re talking about and draws a line between public and private labor. Labor =/= work.
why does feminism have its own definition of labor?
i get that women have unique challenges in the workforce but this seems like it should be a universal
On the other hand, if nobody would work, or even want to do the dirty jobs like trash removal, we wouldn’t be able to have a functioning society.
These sort of comments are almost a non sequitur as they just take ridiculous ideas from capitalism.
Capitalism is fine as long as it’s controlled well. Any system that doesn’t have the right laws in place to limit it would be abusive within minutes. Put laws in place to restrict how much wealth each single person can have, for example, that would be way more productive than writing up nonsense like this
or even want to do the dirty jobs like trash removal
Not to nitpick, but I don’t think that would be the case. We’re ultimately talking about building a society where everyone’s needs are met regardless of what they do, end game communism. And I think you’d still see people like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JahXgey1sK4
For the lazy, it’s a group called Pedal People. They go around collecting trash in their city on bicycles with bike trailers, and they haul a respectable quantity of trash, recyclables, compost, etc. They do get payed, around $33 an hour, and it’s a co-op.
Even in a true communist society with no money and all needs met, people like this would still exist. These people legitimately enjoy their jobs collecting trash on bikes, sustainably, even in the snow and heat. And it’s not the money that’s the only point for them. They’re doing a good service, getting exercise, have direct control over their labor, etc.
Replace that paycheck with a society that respects their work with ample food, shelter, healthcare, etc and they probably would still be doing this. People like to be useful and helpful, we’re social creatures that evolved to live in communities.
We just need communities that don’t threaten each other, and instead let people do what they can do to be useful.
I’m going to be honest here, I am extremely confident that even if free housing in something like a homeless shelter and free cheap basic food was provided on a universal basis free of charge by the state, thus eliminating the “work or starve” situation by ensuring everyone’s basic biological needs can be met without labour, the people who make posts like this one would then claim that “work or eat boring food” counts as coercion.
The state has the capability to keep people alive. That’s not the issue. People are generally not content will merely being kept alive and not sick. They want to live enriched lives with access to air conditioning, video games, cell phones, hamburgers, and national parks. All of that takes an enormous amount of labour to produce.
the people who make posts like this one would then claim that “work or eat boring food” counts as coercion.
The food doesn’t need to be boring. But even under that assumption, it would still be less coercive, and therefore better.
All of that takes an enormous amount of labour to produce.
It sure does, but we live in a time of historically unheard of automation and excess. Over a century ago Kropotkin calculated a 5 hour work day/300hr work year to be the minimum needed per worker. And we’ve had a shit load of technicological advances since then. Even with the increases in amenities I’d be shocked if the true current number isn’t drastically lower.
And your examples are all examples of things that people would genuinely like to work on. For example Mr. Technology connections is obsessed with heat pumps. I’m working on open source games, even while currently living under the coercion of capitalism. And I wouldn’t mind putting significant time into working to maintain a nation park, so long as it didn’t mean that it fucked with my food, shelter, and healthcare.
Of course, I don’t think that food served to the needy (or to the vagrant, in this scenario), should be boring on purpose, and of course those in charge ought to endeavour to provide whatever variety is possible, but it just so happens that the types of food that can be most easily produced, and thus the most efficient in terms of converting hours of labour into calories, tend to universally be judged as boring. I’m guessing it will be a lot of grain, maize, potatoes, and soybeans.
I absolutely am not going to take someone’s word on the notion that 300 hours of labour per annum (which is a one hour work day) is sufficient to maintain the current standard of living.
I think yours is the non-sequitur, or at least whataboutism. You’re introducing a “counterexample” that isn’t actually all that related to the original point. The original comment is just pointing out how capitalism is based on coercion, which is just a statement of fact.
You think that you personally ought to be threatened with starvation, illness, and homelessness?
Serious question, how can we provide everyone’s basic needs without some work? Food doesn’t harvest itself. Tools don’t maintain themselves.
Labor will always be required on some level though it does not need to be exploited.
The premise is that without coercion people won’t work. Which is just not true, people will do the work they want to do. It’s just that the work people want to do isn’t necessarily the work capitalists want them to do. Which means less exploitation and profit for the capitalists.
Yeah the work people “want to do” and the work that needs to get done do not align IRL. Not enough people want to deal with waste systems or sanitation yet those are critical to any society.
This isn’t Star Trek. We don’t live in a magical future where all the dangerous yet necessary work is automated.
They’ll want to clean the sewer when the sewer needs cleaning, the same way that you “want” to vacuum your home even if you don’t want to do it.
That requires a ton of people who know how to maintain sewage systems from experience. You aren’t getting that from volunteers and you’ll need these people in every community.
You missing the point. People will do work when it is required whether or not they desire to do work. It doesn’t require a magic job creator to get work done.
YOU are missing the point. At no time have I cited the need for capitalist ownership of this system but rather an need for unequal and naturally higher payment for those that do these jobs. They cannot be volunteer positions as they require experienced people.
Do you have any idea how these systems function IRL?
Yea, I can fix a shitter if I have to.
have you met many people?
most people don’t want to clean their homes. they want to pay someone else to do it.
But I get 100% of the benefit of vacuuming my home; there’s no free rider problem.
Tell that to your kids.
The people that want waste systems do
Not enough people want to deal with waste systems or sanitation
No one has “shit purger” as their favorite way of passing their time. That doesn’t mean that no one would pick the job and leave themselves and everyone else waddling in two inches of it
You don’t need volunteers to maintan sewer systems. you need trained experts. You aren’t getting this from volunteers.
I know all labor is skilled labor. That doesn’t contradict what I’ve described
No it isn’t. Skilled labor has a real definition and it is useful. Unskilled labor doesn’t mean you have no skills it just means you don’t have a proven specific set of skills that your job title implies. For example you know a mason can build a brick wall whereas a contractor might be able to do the same but you wouldn’t know that from the job title.
The emotional response people have to skilled labor vs unskilled is always weird to me. It’s as if none of you read the definition and thought about it for a second.
Not enough people want to deal with waste systems or sanitation yet those are critical to any society.
These are often highly paid, highly desirable, union jobs. Many have missed OP’s point that the coercive slavery that exists in our society is that the threat of starvation/homelessness means less power for individual labour vs employers or vs competing with employers. There is some $ offer that will get me to unclog your toilet.
ITT a bunch of unwitting capitulants who seem to think they wouldn’t flip burgers for $300k/yr
It’s so hard to get people out of that mindset, man…
I’d flip burgers for a living if it paid for that. This is about critical jobs that they propose shouldn pay
They are posing anticapitalist solutions so better pay wasn’t an option.
UBI removes the slavery. If you, or strawman, insists on a labour supremacist society, rather than a shortage of willing linemen, there might be a shortage of employers investing in a working power distribution system. There are many policies in between our current supremacist slavery that eliminate the structural slavery.
“ It can be done in turn, for instance; or volunteers can be rewarded with non-necessity items.”
this is the part of 5Too’s post Im replying to. There’s no strawman here. You just seem to not get that people won’t justdo the work of a lineman without an added benefit given how much more dangerous working with power lines can be.
I’m not speaking for anyone else, just solving OP’s truth with UBI/Freedom dividends as the solution. Free and fair markets are not evil. Complex systems to have random people enslaved to be linemen for a day seem categorically unworkable. A system that ensures enough linemen willing to receive great pay to be linemen is workable.
UBI/Freedom dividends means minarchism power redistribution. People need to be well below idiocracy intelligence to not prefer higher dividend to demonic warmongering budget. I disapprove of ultra centralized allocations, if only that any socialist, or other idealist, win to implement it, in an Israel first fascist media environment, leads to right wing fascist takeover of the centralization. US corrupt political/media system requires disempowerment. UBI/Freedom dividend only election platform is only possibility of ending the corruption. It’s much more important than voting itself.
You’re conflating work that needs to get done with work capitalists want done.
Yes, someone needs to deal with sanitation. But we don’t need a capitalist to own the sanitation system to address this. It can be done in turn, for instance; or volunteers can be rewarded with non-necessity items.
No, Im not. Do you think we can get enough volunteers who have the right skills to address sanitation issues?
In most places no one owns the sewage system other than the state.
There is a lot of work that no one would willingly do that is critical and requires a lot if hands on experience. The problem leftist ideologies face IRL is that so many require people who would choose to do extremely dangerous jobs with no realistic plan for how to account fir this.
Yes. Those jobs would provide more luxury lifestyle outside of the basic needs already. Keep rasing the pay until someone takes the job.
Also the issue is that we think we’re too good to do those jobs, but we’re not above lowering everyone’s standards of living to the point that people have to jump in shit to survive? We can get people to take those jobs, but do we also need to stop judging people based on their career path. That’ll go a long way to fixing our nation.
If you are talking about higher pay you are talking about a different system than the one proposed. Their system has no economic inequality so no higher pay.
Even in a post scarcity world those who provide more for to society do receive greater accommodations. Captains and officers get larger rooms and houses. But until that reality is possible those who provide more for society should receive greater financial support. Not CEOs.
The point being raised is that the current wage system is oriented around profit alone. Systems designed to meet the needs of the people as the prime order for society would still pay for labor, at least initially, but wouldn’t threaten people into doing so via starvation.
And if we maintained a wage based system with some degree of inequality that comes with it I would expect people to do these jobs. The moment there is no personal benefit I doubt you will ever find people doing the dangerous critical work.
Not a single socialist system has ever had equal pay across the board. I’m not sure what strawman you’re trying to fight here.
They aren’t posing a socialist one. They are posing a communist or anarchist society which does not pay.
edit: whoops forgot who I was replying to and what you initially replied to. You are correct Cowbee in that this wouldnt be a problem under socialism. Others, not you, have proposed a purely volunteer system and that’s impossible.
Communism is a post-socialist society. When others speak of moving beyond wage labor, it’s a process that requires many steps and twisting roads, not just something we do outright. At least, that’s the Marxist viewpoint, and I’ll let anarchists speak for themselves.
Communist society that has sufficiently advanced and collectivized production will still require labor, but said labor will largely be either enjoyable or easy, and will be constantly automated even further, as the goal is to meet the needs of as many people as possible with as little labor as possible, as opposed to creating the most profits regardless of labor.
And the idea that this will magically be automated, pleasurable or volunteer based is why I believe many leftists have no real understanding of the work that needs to be done or how incredibly dangerous some of that is. Fir example It’s a fantasy to presume people will engage in underwater welding just because we need it.
It’s also a fantasy to presume jobs like underwater welding cannot and will not be automated, or that it can’t be compensated for by requiring fewer hours worked or other means than wage labor.
I had breakfast this morning, and my fridge is full for the week. That doesn’t mean I will refuse all wage offers for my time. If there is no slavery, then workers will get 5 recruiter calls per day begging them to take their clients’ money.
This right here! When people’s basic needs are met, they’ll work for luxury needs. The DS9 baseball card episode comes to mind.
Ok now how do critical systems work that are not pleasant or dangerous to maintain and require skilled workers? Do we hope every community has people capable of being linemen or engaging in underwater welding?
How much IRL practical thought have you really put into this notion because it seems unlikely to work out at all.
You need linemen? Call enough people to train them with promised starting salary when they complete training. Or pay them some salary during training. Or increase the promised starting salary. Enough people will say yes if you keep improving offer.
Your examples are already “good jobs” relative to say roofing (statistically most dangerous occupation).
If we are talking about payment then we aren’t talking about the situation proposed.
you can’t. becuase you can’t define their basic needs for them. they define those for themselves.
Lol sure gradpa.
Capitalism, the system where we allow poverty to exist
So do you want to take away freedom to starve and die of hunger
I think we do more than allow it.
Indeed we do
Why, again?
You trying to get off or something?
Yeah usually but that’s on another screen. Why do you ask?
$
And that’s what exactly?
Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.
~Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Okay so now we’re right back to ‘why?’.
There is apparently always someone who values their own wealth over any benefit of others. So, they exploit others to enrich themselves.
It’s just selfishness all the way down.
The others, have little wealth of their own, so have little power to resist the exploiter.
So, we keep doing this because of kayfabe and terrorism?
That makes it sound like it’s just a passive side-effective and not a critical tool in the elite’s arsenal in keeping the working class subjugated by holding the promise of suffering over our heads if we choose not to spend a third of our lives generating wealth for them.
It wasn’t my intentions to make it sound like that and hoped that it would come across as you stated it
There was rampant poverty in the USSR too. As there is in China. They don’t seem too winning in N Korea either.
Nice whataboutism there. But as you seem to be under the illusion that these countries are not capitalist (and presumably therefore communist, considering the countries you chose and the usual dogma that comes with them) let’s have a look.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
First, let’s define communism. Luckily the world wide web has done that already for us.
Communism (from Latin communis ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
The legacy of the USSR remains a controversial topic. The socio-economic nature of communist states such as the USSR, especially under Stalin, has also been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production.[260]
some leftists regard the USSR as an example of state capitalism
Maoists also have a mixed opinion on the USSR, viewing it negatively during the Sino-Soviet Split and denouncing it as revisionist and reverted to capitalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#Legacy
So the USSR was not communist, but rather somewhere between capitalist and its own thing.
Modern-day China is often described as an example of state capitalism or party-state capitalism.[290][291]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Economy
Not communist by any stretch of the imagination.
North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Kim family.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
Not communist.
Capitalism is a shit system for vast swathes of the population and results in poverty, exploitation, and death.
Is communism the answer? I don’t know, it’s never truly managed to take off anywhere without either being corrupted from within or attacked from without. But capitalism most certainly needs to go in the bin.
The Soviet Union was capitalist. Right-o.
By the way, congratulations on finally getting Wi-Fi on your planet.
The “Lucy” argument isn’t as compelling as some tankies seem to think. We’ve had plenty of communist regimes. They’re all abominable. No good holding the football out and saying “but this time it’s real communism”. Communism is rancid because people are rancid.
The USSR was socialist. Public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy, and society was run by the working class. It was not yet communist, but it was certainly socialist. The PRC is also an example of socialism, public ownership is also the principle aspect of the economy, same as the DPRK. The extent to which markets play a role varies greatly in these countries, but markets are not synonymous with capitalism, and socialism is not defined by the absence of private property just as capitalism is not defined by the absence of public property.
I suggest you avoid using wikipedia if you’re trying to get a Marxist perspective on existing socialist states past and present. They aren’t written by Marxists but by anyone, and opinions presented by the authors should not be confused for Marxist analysis. If anything, they have an overwhelmingly liberal bias, and should be aconowledged as such.
They are still capitalist societies
Adam Smith “sold” capitalism on the virtue of “free and fair markets”. Capitalism, as a practical understanding today, is the supremacy of capital, oligarchist protectionism, and corporatism. Only fair markets (those without coercion and lies, including structural coercion) are free. Adam Smith did not define/sell capitalism as structural coercion of society to maximize ROI for those with capital. Actually the opposite, where “perfect competition” was supposed to result from free and fair markets. Monopoly/cartels generate higher ROI than competition.
UBI/freedom dividends is the path for free and fair markets for labour. It also naturally increases ROI, where investment includes work/time, where the freedom to refuse unfair work means higher pay for work, including higher returns on capital/management, if competition needs higher returns for their work too. But, most important to ROI, redistribution and high pay, means significant increase in demand/GDP, and more work available to satisfy that demand.
The reason UBI is resisted, is not that the rich cannot get much richer from UBI. It is that UBI redistributes power instead of wealth. Those in power, have more power under slavery than by giving away their power (freedom) to the people. Oligarchy needs control over power to protect their oligarchy. After your first $B, what is the point of more money if not to enforce harsher slavery to limit competition to your next $Bs.
Adam Smith didn’t conflate capitalism and free market which are two separate mechanisms
Capitalism is priavte ownership of key sectors of economy
Free makret is right to contract freely.
Idiots in america and westpid regimes will generally conflaw the two due to heavy regime propaganda that justifies the oligarchy which uses “free market” as justification for their status.
Yep. And idiots love to repeat the false and flawed interpretation of Smith. And ignore his critiques and analysis.
ROI exists/dominates investment decisions under private or social/communal ownership. Let’s say your country imposes a fixed price to pay you per bushel of wheat. The decision to buy a tractor is completely independent of how equal the ownership in the farm(s) is.
Adam Smith’s justification for capitalism relied on an imaginary “perfect information” mechanism. He did see some centralized governance need to prevent the market corruption of monopoly/cartels, but was relatively silent on need for regulation (say health inspections of restaurants) as a way to avoid food poisoning, or everyone magically knowing that a food poisoning victim was poisoned at a specific restaurant. Though, its possible to theorize that restaurant inspection can be done by multiple private/social organizations. none of the options are immune to corruption if there is a “free market” for politicians/bribery.
All animals need to work for food
I have a cat who lays down and uses her paw to pull dry food out of her bowl one at a time and eats them off the floor. Is that work?
Yes, her work is to entertain you.
Your description alone is exhausting
