Surely there isn’t an economic system in which people don’t work for a top 1%, but for everyone, you could say a communal economic system…
Comment on Feelin free
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I do wonder what the alternative is… Would that be growing/hunting your own food and making your own clothes and building your own shelter? I don’t know about anyone else, but I would not live long in that scenario.
Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 6 days ago
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I mean, that experiment has been run and it is wildly difficult to manage (humans are quite wily!).
AppleTea@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
People said the same thing about not having kings
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Well, we will need some different, better minds on it to see success. I’d embrace it if I thought someone had any vague idea of how to execute it.
in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
When you’re in a crowd waiting to get on a bus, do you shove and claw your way past the crowd, or do you wait your turn like everyone else? Is there anyone telling you to do that?
When a natural disaster strikes and we watch the news of cities being flooded/destroyed, do you see people raping and murdering eachother en masse because society broke down? Do you see them rebuilding only because someone above them on the hierarchy told them to? Or do people rebuild because they need to?
If your village was thirsty and didn’t have a well, would you ask someone for permission to dig the well so only that it benefits the person you’re begging to? Or do you and the village just build the damn well?
rockerface@lemm.ee 6 days ago
The alternative is all the wealth and resources hoarded by top 1% are shared among people so that everyone has access to basic stuff like food, shelter and healthcare regardless of whether they’re able to work.
Which isn’t to say this would be easy to achieve, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Taxing people appropriately is obviously the right way to go. But it actually doesn’t change the dynamic identified in the meme substantially. Rich people still hoard resources (albeit less after taxes). And basic needs are only met if enough people keep working to pay taxes or enrich their employees who pay taxes.
rockerface@lemm.ee 6 days ago
If people are taxed appropriately, there will be no hoarding
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Maybe… Is saving considered hoarding? Is leaving a small inheritance to your kids considered hoarding?
Even without the semantic confusion or disagreement, it doesn’t change the fundamental dynamic identified in the post.
Dadifer@lemmy.world 6 days ago
It’s called democratic socialism.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 days ago
The context is that there is enough wealth in most western countries that not everyone must work to survive. Working should be for having access to more things that just surviving, and not everyone should be required to work all the time just to survive.
Basic needs are basic, like food, shelter, and healthcare. If everyone had access to those basic things they would be free even if they need to work to attain more.
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Someone still has to work for those things to be produced.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 6 days ago
True, but how many people actually work to make that happen?
Most people I know work for a company that works for a company to increase the profit of another company.
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
A lot of those businesses still need to exist for society to function. They could be restructured into non-profits, but they’ll still exist.
There will always be a need for jobs that people aren’t going to just do for the hell of it. No one enjoys breaking their back harvesting crops or digging ditches.
I’m not saying the current system is any good, but the idea of no one having to work if they don’t want to is not obtainable without some serious advances in robotics.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Also, at what point do you tip into you-dont-get-choose-your-job land? Is it still considered freedom if you are required to have a job to serve basic needs of the larger community? For example, we need more doctors even without universal healthcare in the US. If we covered the basic needs of everyone, wouldn’t we have to require some people to become doctors, who are not on that trajectory today?
ieatpwns@lemmy.world 6 days ago
While I don’t disagree. there don’t have to be dragons hoarding all the wealth making us fight among ourselves to survive
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 6 days ago
An asset appreciating in value does not deprive anyone else of money in their wallet.
If you bought a rookie baseball card for $5, the player had a great year and now the card’s worth $100, your net worth increased by $95. But who is down $95 as a result of your card becoming more valuable?
Nobody. Wealth is not zero sum.
Also, wealth in the form of purchased investments into businesses that run within the economy, is literally the opposite of hoarding. If you buy things with your money, you’re not hoarding your money.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 days ago
There is a vast gap between most people need to work for everyone in society to live comfortably and every individual needs their own personal income to survive.
nomy@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
The amount of brainwashing and propaganda is incredible. People actually just can’t imagine a world where they’re not toiling for their bosses.
ynthrepic@lemmy.world 6 days ago
The point is that technology means a fraction of the population can feed and house the rest, and that fraction doesn’t need to live like royalty, and the rest don’t need to live in servitude for that exchange to happen.
Don’t you want others to enjoy your success with you? Apply that principle to all of humanity the world over, and you have what could be, if we just stopped waring over hoards.
earphone843@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Nowhere in your comment did you refute the fact that it’s currently not possible to have a society where no one has to work. There still has to be human labor.
I said nothing about the distribution of wealth or supporting our current system.