1659
consider the implications for a post scarcity future
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1659 points (96.0% liked)
Solarpunk
5393 readers
50 users here now
The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
UBI can be changed gradually. It loses some of it's efficacy in distribution but it doesn't need to be revolution. It can be evolution. It also does not mean a high risk of capital flight for the first movers. This means countries or areas can do it incrementally, one at a time, rather than a complete global shift at once. The wealthy won't want to give up their wealth, that's a given. That is the case for any change we plan for better distribution, so it's not really an argument against or for any change.
Yes, it favours capital accumulation and rewards poor behavior. So what I have suggested adding is a method that leads to better wealth distribution and to disincentivise the negative externalities. Correct the flaws, so to speak. There is no perfect system that cannot be exploited. It's a case of risk mitigation not elimination.
Socialism may stop companies doing shady shit, but will it make them.less competitive on the world stage? Remember, they are competing with non socialist countries initially. As you mention, it would be a means of transition. Yet, every country that has tried communism has failed, often with devastating consequences for the people there. Our world and nation state economies are much more complex and intertwined than before, yet efficient use of resources was not possible then. The problem is not the theory, it is people. Power corrupts.
I don't have a problem with changing the ownership structure. However, can you point to any cooperative that was able to scale in the way that modern companies in a capitalist system do? Cooperatives exist and on a local scale can be beneficial. On a macro scale, they are less efficient and society as a whole is worse off for that loss of efficiency. That is the problem. Capitalism priorities profits, which require growth. The key is not to ensure broader ownership, but rather broader distribution of the wealth and profits created by that. We already have examples of that with share disbursement as a reward. Perhaps we could look at that being a regulated norm, in tandem with pensions payments etc.
If you think ubi is just welfare, youre misunderstanding it. For someone who now depends on welfare, it would like mean a similar income but without any of the beurocracy, shame, expectations or requirements. For everyone else its a safety net that means they choose to work and what they do. No more working by necessity. However for a nicer lifestyle work would be required.
It will lead to inflation quite quickly immediately due to supply and demand. That should instantly devalue capital assets, in real terms. It should restructure our labour markets. Currently many at the lower end of the pay scale only work by necessity to get the bare minimum. They work long hours at low pay to make ends meet. When their basic needs are met, they won't need to work such long hours. So what will happen when millions of cleaners suddenly cut the amount of hours they work? We will pay them more per hour to make it worth their while. What about all those people who are unproductive at work and useless at their job. Well, we can fire them, of they bother to continue working as with a ubi, we don't need the same worker protections. All industries will be dominated by those that wish to work in them and are productice..what about child care? People will choose to work a schedule that works for them and their family. We will have less need for childcare workers.
Our big issue will be having medical personnel and aged care workers, bit again we might find we have more productive, caring workers staying.
So, yes,. Its like welfare in that its a social safety net. Its the universality that makes the difference. It wouldn't be thenrivh giving it. It would be society telling them part of their wealth belongs to all and distributing it as such.
I hate to break it to you, but Norway practiced capitalism. They just have some of those controls I mentioned. Their biggest reason for wealth is oil reserves, which is state owned and there is a fund used for citizens ratherbthan private interests. Capitalism has allowed their people tonprosper in a way the average person in a similar middle eastern country does not.
You mention Cuban life exoecrancy being high, despite income being much lower. Cuba has excellent healthcare. However, look at their poverty rates. That same healthcare does not function without the research and equipment that cones from capitalist systems. That's not to saynthere is not excellent research coming from Cuba. There is. However, the level of productivity in their economy does not support the same level of research and equipment manufacturing that occurs in the capitalist west.
We had a recent pandemic. Which vacxine do we use?The western ones. The Chinese and Russian ones have been found lacking. They did excellent research but they don't have the same capacity for research and testing.
Infant mortality has been dropping worldwide I've the last century, based mainly on nutrition and health information. This was led by western countries practicing capitalism. Many in western Europe, that have social programs, as part of capitalism. That's the point, nobody should follow pure capitalism, but rather use it as a tool to increase productivity and use other methods to channel that increased productivity to more peoples benefit.
No, its because of the freedoms of the average person now, not the history. The USA has an incarceration problem, but the average american has freedom. The average Russian is careful not to publicly criticise the government. Look at dead opposition and dead generals as a high profile examples.
Capitalism was not introduced non Russia because the USSR was functional. There were bread queues for food, and people were hungry. Capitalism started to fix that. Then Putin put a stop to that progress.
The USA has a lot of problems now and historically. The difference is learning from them and improving. It is always 2 steps forward and one back in any progress, so i do agree there has been a step back. The USA learned from Vietnam and no longer has conscription for its wars. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have been killed in the Ukraine war. After the standing army was depleted, this is by conscription.
You say Russia doesn't persecute its native peoples? All of those from the former USSR that have joined NATO would disagree. Ukraine would disagree (Ukraine is a distinct country but Russia considers it theirs). Chechens would disagree. Lgbtqi people would disagree with their freedoms.
All countries can and should improve. The USA is a far better place to live than most of your examples. And most of the improvements are due to capitalist style markets.