4 ms·

I really think that we're just doing society wrong, and that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to live without income. In such a world, we could have

I really think that we're just doing society wrong, and that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to live without income. In such a world, we could have way more of these "load bearing" people who are doing just fine without needing to extract anything from the economy. This makes it much easier for parts of the economy to be less parasitic, as large groups could work on projects that provide value without feeling the need to hamstring those projects with value-extraction systems. Often those value extraction systems really sharply impact the value of the thing on offer, meaning that an economy comprised of projects which all have to extract value could be much more poorly performing than an economy comprised of projects which can offer much more for free. The resulting boost in economic output could I believe pay for the support system such a system would require.

blooalien 3y ago
I sure do wish we weren't the only two people in "civilized" nations that think along those lines. Right now on this planet (for a fairly long while now) most of the technology and knowledge to create near Utopic societies exist, but ain't gonna happen, because "mo' money" and "more power (but only for me)" is the ultimate goal of most humans. :(
- SequoiaHope 3y ago
  I honestly do not believe this is the goal of most humans. That view is seriously over represented in media because the people who run the media hold that view, but most people want everyone to thrive. And there is a philosophical tradition going back hundreds of years concerning efforts to bring about such a world. That tradition is leftism, and while some interpretations have led to calamity, analysis of those outcomes shows that the problem was concentration of power. If we can have decentralized leftism, which generally falls under the label of anarchism or anarchist communism, then we can according to theory build the world I describe. I tend to avoid these terms because they start flamewars, but since you suggested only you and I think this way I wanted to draw your attention to these traditions. I boil all that down to less charged phrases like "community ownership of the means of production". It is through an economy described in that way which I believe we can achieve the world we desire. As long as there is an ownership class and a worker class, even with UBI or other schemes, there will be those that hold all the cards and those masses fighting for scraps. But if we can find collective ways to distribute ownership rights over the core systems in the economy, then we can all enjoy the dividends of factory ownership and see the gains that come from growth in technology and automation. I think this is more eminently achievable and sustainable than some hand-wringing capitalists would have us believe.
  - dtaht 3y ago
    Have you ever read any Buckminster Fuller? "Spaceship Earth" had a huge influence on me.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

blooalien 3y ago

I sure do wish we weren't the only two people in "civilized" nations that think along those lines. Right now on this planet (for a fairly long while now) most of the technology and knowledge to create near Utopic societies exist, but ain't gonna happen, because "mo' money" and "more power (but only for me)" is the ultimate goal of most humans. :(

SequoiaHope 3y ago
I honestly do not believe this is the goal of most humans. That view is seriously over represented in media because the people who run the media hold that view, but most people want everyone to thrive. And there is a philosophical tradition going back hundreds of years concerning efforts to bring about such a world. That tradition is leftism, and while some interpretations have led to calamity, analysis of those outcomes shows that the problem was concentration of power. If we can have decentralized leftism, which generally falls under the label of anarchism or anarchist communism, then we can according to theory build the world I describe. I tend to avoid these terms because they start flamewars, but since you suggested only you and I think this way I wanted to draw your attention to these traditions. I boil all that down to less charged phrases like "community ownership of the means of production". It is through an economy described in that way which I believe we can achieve the world we desire. As long as there is an ownership class and a worker class, even with UBI or other schemes, there will be those that hold all the cards and those masses fighting for scraps. But if we can find collective ways to distribute ownership rights over the core systems in the economy, then we can all enjoy the dividends of factory ownership and see the gains that come from growth in technology and automation. I think this is more eminently achievable and sustainable than some hand-wringing capitalists would have us believe.
- dtaht 3y ago
  Have you ever read any Buckminster Fuller? "Spaceship Earth" had a huge influence on me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]