11 ms·

I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is p

I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Design machines which can produce those vital things in a fully automated or highly automated way. The point of this part is to reduce the marginal cost of one more item as close to zero as possible. This makes sharing easier as it becomes cheaper to share with one more person. Make those machines completely open source, designed for repair and long life. Create a system where people can acquire equal ownership shares in the machines they rely on. For any given machine those users work together to keep the machine operational and producing. Land must be held in common (the legal device used today would be a public land trust) and housing, farmland, and manufacturing space is allotted to people based on need. (Look at the public housing system in Vienna Austria as an example.) Develop a culture where getting rich is not the goal but making sure everyone has what they need is. This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible. Then everyone shares the output of their machines with their other shareholders. Each person owns shares in many machines. Under this system, there is no ownership class which can suck up all the surplus value. Instead, every person receives the benefit of automation. In such a world I believe the average persons necessary working hours would be maybe 5 hours a week. We could spend our lives with friends and family, or reading and writing, painting or programming. Most of the necessary work would be done by volunteers who enjoy what they are doing. Work that people do not enjoy could be shared in rotation. It’s all a voluntary and market based system but captures the main thrust of Marx’s critique of capitalism - the problem with an ownership class sucking up all the surplus value in society. We could do this. End consumerism, make everything open source, share land, know when you have enough and work to serve others in your community. Anyway that’s my theory.

Chris2048 5y ago
> This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible Which ones?
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Many indigenous cultures. The Iroquois native Americans might be one example. There was no notion that a minority got rich off the labor of others.
  - dnissley 5y ago
    Any that definitely supported some form of individual rights? As a total weirdo it frightens me to think that I might have been born into a society where my differences may have caused me great suffering at the hands of tradition.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      I’m not sure I follow? In today’s society a lot of people suffer because they are different. Disabled people for example, who would have been cared for in indigenous cultures. Yes the Iroquois supported individual rights. They just had a culture where whatever you did, you kept the needs of others in mind and did what you could to help. You were still an individual.
      - quin3 5y ago
        While true, without advancements in modern healthcare, many of the disabilities people go through life with today would result in a much earlier death. Cystic fibrosis for example is to this day incredulously expensive to treat but with a much greater life expectancy than during the heyday of the Iroquois.
        TaylorAlexander 5y ago
        I believe we can to some extent have both: a culture that supports all people and also produces high end medical equipment. The point of mentioning other cultures is to point out that human nature allows it.
        5y ago
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
This isn’t a dig against you, but isn’t this just an idealized view of a communist society?
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  I mean yes I do call it libertarian communism, tho I often leave that part out since people will be totally onboard until you mention the name. But also it’s a specific scheme that has the goal of lowering the marginal cost of living. And it’s totally voluntary which is not true for all schemes for communism.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > And it’s totally voluntary Sure, while you are in charge. But when a more ambitious leader bashes your head in and takes over, maybe not so. How much of Lenin remained when Stalin took over?
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      There is no one in charge. I am not in charge. This is not a system based on any manner of authoritarian control.
      - Chris2048 5y ago
        Even a spiritual leader is in charge, if not in control. There still need to be laws, and those often follow from central sources/philosophies.
- clairity 5y ago
  ...and/or idealized socialism. i agree that consumerism is an issue, but the solution isn't 'end consumerism', as that's just completely unrealistic. it'd be more realistic to think of ways to redirect our esteem-giving activities toward people who produce real and essential goods, and the rest would balance out much better as a result. that's diametrically opposed to our corrent system of giving esteem to the wealthy, which is why this approach is also very difficult, but not impossible.
matrixcubed 5y ago
I would entice you to read Manna by Marshall Brain.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I’ve come across it but I don’t read much. Most of my learning comes from audio lectures.
- snerbles 5y ago
  The positive "alternative" presented at the end seems like a friendly veneer over the same dystopia. Having an AI referee permanently embedded in my spine ready to cut motor functions at the first detected bad behavior sounds almost as hellish as the first scenario in that story.
  - Baeocystin 5y ago
    Maybe I'm just assuming incorrectly, but wasn't that the point of the story?
bluejellybean 5y ago
> I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: Until we had extremely advanced robotics, endless land, and infinite energy/resources, this will never become reality, even then, I have an endless amount of vanity uses of human labor/resources and I could trivially think up. By way of example, if it were the case in which money no issue for me personally, I could choose to then have constant military parades wherever I go, and I shall choose to go anywhere on my 10000 acre plot of gold and diamond covered land. > End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. This is a quick way to a very poor quality of life. I've been poor, desperately needing basic household items and yet unable to obtain them, it's much, much better from a quality of life perspective to have problems solved with trivial tools that I buy off the shelf. That said, anyone is free to choose this life, buy less things, and retire slightly earlier than our peers. The reality is that cost of most consumer spending purchases is not what at the root cause of preventing people from retiring early, 'stuff' is damn cheap today. > Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Hmm, I've heard this line of thinking before, it leads to living in abhorrent conditions. I mean, nobody really 'needs' a 2000 sqft living space, why not just put people in a 20 sqft area instead? Nobody really 'needs' carpet or nice decor, lets build with nothing but cheap concrete. Yeah, let's push for living like prisoners! Thanks, but no thanks, I'm fine with working a little extra to avoid the extremes of this line of reasoning. > Design machines which can produce those vital things in a fully automated or highly automated way. The point of this part is to reduce the marginal cost of one more item as close to zero as possible. This makes sharing easier as it becomes cheaper to share with one more person. Like we've been doing? How do you think everything is so cheap to begin with? > Make those machines completely open source, designed for repair and long life. You're free to spend your time making this and even doing it, but it's wasted effort at this point, we already have extremely efficient 'open source', long-life and 'easy' to repair machines. Visit the US patent site and look at the plethora of old machines that you could go build today if you so pleased. > Create a system where people can acquire equal ownership shares in the machines they rely on. For any given machine those users work together to keep the machine operational and producing. Or I could just buy shares of a manufacturing company, and we can use that money along with the revenue generated by the machines use to create goods, to keep the machine operational. What you're describing already exists. > Land must be held in common (the legal device used today would be a public land trust) and housing, farmland, and manufacturing space is allotted to people based on need. So who, exactly, is getting to decide how to use this land? Because I need about 100 acres to be happy and live on. In your system, would I be allowed to own that? Or would I still be stuck needing to live in a cell? What about 1000 acres? What about 10000 acres? Why should some group of people or laws prevent me from doing so? Groups of people already get together and prevent me from doing what I want with my land, why would I want even more people in power over me? > Develop a culture where getting rich is not the goal but making sure everyone has what they need is. This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible. Or we could just let individuals make up their own choices on how they want to live and consume life. Those that want to become rich will, those who want to dick around all day drawing pretty pictures or writing poetry will do that. Much like we already have. People create a social hierarchy, even if we got rid of money, there are still going to be people that attempt to be at the 'top' socially. How do you deal with that in your system? > Then everyone shares the output of their machines with their other shareholders. Each person owns shares in many machines. You're just playing with words and wealth redistribution. Companies are income producing machines, and the business units are the companies individual machines of production. Each unit shares their output by feeding it into the shareholders already. Each person who decided to buy a share, gets that combined output. > Under this system, there is no ownership class which can suck up all the surplus value. Instead, every person receives the benefit of automation. And here it is, saw this one coming. This system fails each time it's implemented, from one reason or another. How does your system handle doctors? What about lawyers? There are no machines there, are they expected to not be allowed to benefit? This is a question that more generally extends to service style roles where there are no machines present, those people don't 'benefit' in the way you're describing from this system. In western reality of course, they benefit by being able to purchase items that were historically extremely expensive to produce, for essentially nothing. The multi-thousand dollar chair, made from the hands of a skilled wood worker becomes a $100 and affordable for all. Also under your system, I don't have a way to retire, I have no hope but to work. If I can't own anything, and thus I can't own to be ahead, I am stuck, forever a slave to these machines. > In such a world I believe the average persons necessary working hours would be maybe 5 hours a week. We could spend our lives with friends and family, or reading and writing, painting or programming. Most of the necessary work would be done by volunteers who enjoy what they are doing. Work that people do not enjoy could be shared in rotation. In such a world, I know the average person would become a slave to whomever is on top calling the shots, they would work endlessly to supply more and more to wealth to a few people on top. Be it a dictator or an elite political class, I want my life ruled as little as possible from those people. >It’s all a voluntary and market based system but captures the main thrust of Marx’s critique of capitalism - the problem with an ownership class sucking up all the surplus value in society. Except it's not exactly voluntary if I can't own anything that would allow me to stop working altogether, I'm still stuck being a slave to the state. There still exists a power structure that both capitalism and marxist systems have. > We could do this. End consumerism, make everything open source, share land, know when you have enough and work to serve others in your community. Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather buy what I feel I need than have you telling me what I actually need. I've been around people long enough to know that sharing land is about the last thing I want. People fuck up public places and there is no incentive to clean other peoples shit up. We already decide when enough is enough, it's just that most of us will always want more, welcome to the human condition. I work to serve myself, and my work is paid for by providing value to my community already. >Anyway that’s my theory. I don't mean to poke at you personally, don't take it that way. But this is an awful theory that will lead to more human suffering. If YOU want to live this way, by all means, please do! Just don't suggest 'we' should do it together.
malthuswaswrong 5y ago
>Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. I assume someone must be in charge of determining what products are essential and what products are frivolous consumerism. I assume you have someone in mind for the job. Yourself perhaps? I'm a big girl. I can make my own decisions on what is essential and what is frivolous in my own life.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  No. You’ve completely misunderstood. This is a free market. People decide for themselves what is essential. When a lot of people in a region buy certain machines which they considered essential, that region will have an abundance of those goods. It happens organically. I am 100% opposed to authoritarian control and there is always someone who makes this quip without bothering to actually consider what I have written.
- adrianN 5y ago
  You are conditioned from a young age by the ad industry to want a lot of things that are not essential in your life.
  - malthuswaswrong 5y ago
    That's one theory. Another theory is that the ad industry is exploiting a human nature that has been there long before ads or industry. How would we test that theory? How would we test if humans have always wanted things or if nobody wanted things until ads were invented?
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the public relations industry. Sigmund Freud’s newphew Edward Bernaise is regarded as the creator of public relations, and he wrote multiple books and talked widely about his theories for manipulating the public. These theories have been put to the test multiple times and they proved successful enough that the industry is thriving 100 years later. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/27/torches-of-freedom-women-and-smoking-propaganda/ https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/27/torches-of-...
WalterBright 5y ago
> Anyway that’s my theory Not really. It's called communism, and it's been tried many times.
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  Who has tried a voluntary form of communism focused on the use of automation to lower material costs of living?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    You cannot have "voluntary communism". The point of communism is to ban certain things -- e.g. make it illegal for private people to own capital. The entire definition requires that it be involuntary. In capitalism, there are worker-owned companies living side by side with privately and publicly held firms. People can go off and create their own communist utopia and share their wealth. You cannot go off and create a capitalist utopian community in a communist system. Because capitalism doesn't ban ownership structures (except for anti-trust against monopolies). It doesn't care about the outcome, it cares about the free choice. Economic liberalism -- for all its faults -- really is based on the principles of free association, enforcement of contracts, and voluntary trade. You can argue that the outcomes don't capture externalities, but you can't argue that they are involuntary. Communism, OTOH, cares only about outcomes -- is this distribution of resources fair -- and does not care about free choice at all. This is because you have to forcefully take stuff from one person to give to another, and forcefully ban someone from running their own for-profit business. Of course communism couldn't do that perfectly -- there was always a black market of people who bought and sold for a profit. But they risked prison time for that, and sometimes were sent to Siberian labor camps. Under capitalism you can create a contract in which people voluntarily pool resources and then distribute them according to some rule, say everyone gets a fixed payout irrespective of their position in the company. Therefore the economic system in which a group of people can choose to collectively own property is called "capitalism".
    - SequoiaHope 5y ago
      > You cannot have "voluntary communism". > In capitalism... People can go off and create their own communist utopia and share their wealth.
QuarterReptile 5y ago
>End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. >Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. >Develop a culture where getting rich is not the goal but making sure everyone has what they need is. This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible. There are two versions of this: communism and Religious asceticism (particularly Christian, given the concern for all individuals.)
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  Yes. One could call this communism and I often do. But note that this is a voluntary system, so it is libertarian communism. It is not based on authoritarian rule as many people who mention communism will associate it with.
  - QuarterReptile 5y ago
    Without the authoritarian rule, how does it get started? And what happens when people lose interest in playing by these voluntary guidelines?

Chris2048 5y ago

> This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible Which ones?

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Many indigenous cultures. The Iroquois native Americans might be one example. There was no notion that a minority got rich off the labor of others.
- dnissley 5y ago
  Any that definitely supported some form of individual rights? As a total weirdo it frightens me to think that I might have been born into a society where my differences may have caused me great suffering at the hands of tradition.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    I’m not sure I follow? In today’s society a lot of people suffer because they are different. Disabled people for example, who would have been cared for in indigenous cultures. Yes the Iroquois supported individual rights. They just had a culture where whatever you did, you kept the needs of others in mind and did what you could to help. You were still an individual.
    - quin3 5y ago
      While true, without advancements in modern healthcare, many of the disabilities people go through life with today would result in a much earlier death. Cystic fibrosis for example is to this day incredulously expensive to treat but with a much greater life expectancy than during the heyday of the Iroquois.
      - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
        I believe we can to some extent have both: a culture that supports all people and also produces high end medical equipment. The point of mentioning other cultures is to point out that human nature allows it.
        5y ago

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago

This isn’t a dig against you, but isn’t this just an idealized view of a communist society?

SequoiaHope 5y ago
I mean yes I do call it libertarian communism, tho I often leave that part out since people will be totally onboard until you mention the name. But also it’s a specific scheme that has the goal of lowering the marginal cost of living. And it’s totally voluntary which is not true for all schemes for communism.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > And it’s totally voluntary Sure, while you are in charge. But when a more ambitious leader bashes your head in and takes over, maybe not so. How much of Lenin remained when Stalin took over?
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    There is no one in charge. I am not in charge. This is not a system based on any manner of authoritarian control.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      Even a spiritual leader is in charge, if not in control. There still need to be laws, and those often follow from central sources/philosophies.
clairity 5y ago
...and/or idealized socialism. i agree that consumerism is an issue, but the solution isn't 'end consumerism', as that's just completely unrealistic. it'd be more realistic to think of ways to redirect our esteem-giving activities toward people who produce real and essential goods, and the rest would balance out much better as a result. that's diametrically opposed to our corrent system of giving esteem to the wealthy, which is why this approach is also very difficult, but not impossible.

matrixcubed 5y ago

I would entice you to read Manna by Marshall Brain.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I’ve come across it but I don’t read much. Most of my learning comes from audio lectures.
snerbles 5y ago
The positive "alternative" presented at the end seems like a friendly veneer over the same dystopia. Having an AI referee permanently embedded in my spine ready to cut motor functions at the first detected bad behavior sounds almost as hellish as the first scenario in that story.
- Baeocystin 5y ago
  Maybe I'm just assuming incorrectly, but wasn't that the point of the story?

bluejellybean 5y ago

> I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: Until we had extremely advanced robotics, endless land, and infinite energy/resources, this will never become reality, even then, I have an endless amount of vanity uses of human labor/resources and I could trivially think up. By way of example, if it were the case in which money no issue for me personally, I could choose to then have constant military parades wherever I go, and I shall choose to go anywhere on my 10000 acre plot of gold and diamond covered land. > End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. This is a quick way to a very poor quality of life. I've been poor, desperately needing basic household items and yet unable to obtain them, it's much, much better from a quality of life perspective to have problems solved with trivial tools that I buy off the shelf. That said, anyone is free to choose this life, buy less things, and retire slightly earlier than our peers. The reality is that cost of most consumer spending purchases is not what at the root cause of preventing people from retiring early, 'stuff' is damn cheap today. > Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Hmm, I've heard this line of thinking before, it leads to living in abhorrent conditions. I mean, nobody really 'needs' a 2000 sqft living space, why not just put people in a 20 sqft area instead? Nobody really 'needs' carpet or nice decor, lets build with nothing but cheap concrete. Yeah, let's push for living like prisoners! Thanks, but no thanks, I'm fine with working a little extra to avoid the extremes of this line of reasoning. > Design machines which can produce those vital things in a fully automated or highly automated way. The point of this part is to reduce the marginal cost of one more item as close to zero as possible. This makes sharing easier as it becomes cheaper to share with one more person. Like we've been doing? How do you think everything is so cheap to begin with? > Make those machines completely open source, designed for repair and long life. You're free to spend your time making this and even doing it, but it's wasted effort at this point, we already have extremely efficient 'open source', long-life and 'easy' to repair machines. Visit the US patent site and look at the plethora of old machines that you could go build today if you so pleased. > Create a system where people can acquire equal ownership shares in the machines they rely on. For any given machine those users work together to keep the machine operational and producing. Or I could just buy shares of a manufacturing company, and we can use that money along with the revenue generated by the machines use to create goods, to keep the machine operational. What you're describing already exists. > Land must be held in common (the legal device used today would be a public land trust) and housing, farmland, and manufacturing space is allotted to people based on need. So who, exactly, is getting to decide how to use this land? Because I need about 100 acres to be happy and live on. In your system, would I be allowed to own that? Or would I still be stuck needing to live in a cell? What about 1000 acres? What about 10000 acres? Why should some group of people or laws prevent me from doing so? Groups of people already get together and prevent me from doing what I want with my land, why would I want even more people in power over me? > Develop a culture where getting rich is not the goal but making sure everyone has what they need is. This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible. Or we could just let individuals make up their own choices on how they want to live and consume life. Those that want to become rich will, those who want to dick around all day drawing pretty pictures or writing poetry will do that. Much like we already have. People create a social hierarchy, even if we got rid of money, there are still going to be people that attempt to be at the 'top' socially. How do you deal with that in your system? > Then everyone shares the output of their machines with their other shareholders. Each person owns shares in many machines. You're just playing with words and wealth redistribution. Companies are income producing machines, and the business units are the companies individual machines of production. Each unit shares their output by feeding it into the shareholders already. Each person who decided to buy a share, gets that combined output. > Under this system, there is no ownership class which can suck up all the surplus value. Instead, every person receives the benefit of automation. And here it is, saw this one coming. This system fails each time it's implemented, from one reason or another. How does your system handle doctors? What about lawyers? There are no machines there, are they expected to not be allowed to benefit? This is a question that more generally extends to service style roles where there are no machines present, those people don't 'benefit' in the way you're describing from this system. In western reality of course, they benefit by being able to purchase items that were historically extremely expensive to produce, for essentially nothing. The multi-thousand dollar chair, made from the hands of a skilled wood worker becomes a $100 and affordable for all. Also under your system, I don't have a way to retire, I have no hope but to work. If I can't own anything, and thus I can't own to be ahead, I am stuck, forever a slave to these machines. > In such a world I believe the average persons necessary working hours would be maybe 5 hours a week. We could spend our lives with friends and family, or reading and writing, painting or programming. Most of the necessary work would be done by volunteers who enjoy what they are doing. Work that people do not enjoy could be shared in rotation. In such a world, I know the average person would become a slave to whomever is on top calling the shots, they would work endlessly to supply more and more to wealth to a few people on top. Be it a dictator or an elite political class, I want my life ruled as little as possible from those people. >It’s all a voluntary and market based system but captures the main thrust of Marx’s critique of capitalism - the problem with an ownership class sucking up all the surplus value in society. Except it's not exactly voluntary if I can't own anything that would allow me to stop working altogether, I'm still stuck being a slave to the state. There still exists a power structure that both capitalism and marxist systems have. > We could do this. End consumerism, make everything open source, share land, know when you have enough and work to serve others in your community. Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather buy what I feel I need than have you telling me what I actually need. I've been around people long enough to know that sharing land is about the last thing I want. People fuck up public places and there is no incentive to clean other peoples shit up. We already decide when enough is enough, it's just that most of us will always want more, welcome to the human condition. I work to serve myself, and my work is paid for by providing value to my community already. >Anyway that’s my theory. I don't mean to poke at you personally, don't take it that way. But this is an awful theory that will lead to more human suffering. If YOU want to live this way, by all means, please do! Just don't suggest 'we' should do it together.

malthuswaswrong 5y ago

>Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. I assume someone must be in charge of determining what products are essential and what products are frivolous consumerism. I assume you have someone in mind for the job. Yourself perhaps? I'm a big girl. I can make my own decisions on what is essential and what is frivolous in my own life.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
No. You’ve completely misunderstood. This is a free market. People decide for themselves what is essential. When a lot of people in a region buy certain machines which they considered essential, that region will have an abundance of those goods. It happens organically. I am 100% opposed to authoritarian control and there is always someone who makes this quip without bothering to actually consider what I have written.
adrianN 5y ago
You are conditioned from a young age by the ad industry to want a lot of things that are not essential in your life.
- malthuswaswrong 5y ago
  That's one theory. Another theory is that the ad industry is exploiting a human nature that has been there long before ads or industry. How would we test that theory? How would we test if humans have always wanted things or if nobody wanted things until ads were invented?
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the public relations industry. Sigmund Freud’s newphew Edward Bernaise is regarded as the creator of public relations, and he wrote multiple books and talked widely about his theories for manipulating the public. These theories have been put to the test multiple times and they proved successful enough that the industry is thriving 100 years later. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/27/torches-of-freedom-women-and-smoking-propaganda/ https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/27/torches-of-...

WalterBright 5y ago

> Anyway that’s my theory Not really. It's called communism, and it's been tried many times.

SequoiaHope 5y ago
Who has tried a voluntary form of communism focused on the use of automation to lower material costs of living?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  You cannot have "voluntary communism". The point of communism is to ban certain things -- e.g. make it illegal for private people to own capital. The entire definition requires that it be involuntary. In capitalism, there are worker-owned companies living side by side with privately and publicly held firms. People can go off and create their own communist utopia and share their wealth. You cannot go off and create a capitalist utopian community in a communist system. Because capitalism doesn't ban ownership structures (except for anti-trust against monopolies). It doesn't care about the outcome, it cares about the free choice. Economic liberalism -- for all its faults -- really is based on the principles of free association, enforcement of contracts, and voluntary trade. You can argue that the outcomes don't capture externalities, but you can't argue that they are involuntary. Communism, OTOH, cares only about outcomes -- is this distribution of resources fair -- and does not care about free choice at all. This is because you have to forcefully take stuff from one person to give to another, and forcefully ban someone from running their own for-profit business. Of course communism couldn't do that perfectly -- there was always a black market of people who bought and sold for a profit. But they risked prison time for that, and sometimes were sent to Siberian labor camps. Under capitalism you can create a contract in which people voluntarily pool resources and then distribute them according to some rule, say everyone gets a fixed payout irrespective of their position in the company. Therefore the economic system in which a group of people can choose to collectively own property is called "capitalism".
  - SequoiaHope 5y ago
    > You cannot have "voluntary communism". > In capitalism... People can go off and create their own communist utopia and share their wealth.

QuarterReptile 5y ago

>End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. >Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. >Develop a culture where getting rich is not the goal but making sure everyone has what they need is. This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible. There are two versions of this: communism and Religious asceticism (particularly Christian, given the concern for all individuals.)

SequoiaHope 5y ago
Yes. One could call this communism and I often do. But note that this is a voluntary system, so it is libertarian communism. It is not based on authoritarian rule as many people who mention communism will associate it with.
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  Without the authoritarian rule, how does it get started? And what happens when people lose interest in playing by these voluntary guidelines?