Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Apprehensive_Fuel873 t1_je1c37q wrote

That's capitalism baby, the people stating this as some immutable fact of life don't understand history or economics and you shouldn't take them seriously.

​

We now live in a post scarcity society, we have enough for everyone, but some people aren't happy with enough and those people hold a disproportionate amount of power so we're stuck doing it their way.

37

jeffsang t1_je1gv7a wrote

We do not live in a post scarcity society. A significant amount of work by someone is still required to produce the goods and services that most people need to live. The amount of money and resources needed for everyone on earth to live a life of the median American would push our resources to the brink and create huge amounts of pollution and GHG.

Now, we could be doing a lot better at distributing very basic things like food and clean water to the poorest among us, but that doesn't mean we're in a post scarcity society. There's a whole lot of shit that most of us want.

18

Psychotisis t1_je1j4lg wrote

Imagine if we weren't over populated....

−3

RPFM t1_je1k9iu wrote

We're not over populated. Even if the population were cut in half the rich-poor disparity would be as massive as it is today.

6

Achlyse t1_je1e94n wrote

No matter what economic structure, OPs statement is generally true. If you don't produce in your prime years, you are a drain on a society. Communism or whatever else you're implying doesn't fix that unfortunately.

14

Apprehensive_Fuel873 t1_je1elm9 wrote

And whose exploiting you if you own the value of your labour? Who exploits the subsistence farmer?

3

mainthrowawaydmtits t1_je1go6f wrote

Also, many socialist believe in being able to maximize free time for people. We're much more productive than even 30 years ago, but because the capitalists own the tools that increase productivity, we get paid the same but are expected more output instead of being able to produce the same output and work less for the same amount. The system will literally punish those who increase efficiency.

2

Apprehensive_Fuel873 t1_jeb5ypm wrote

Yup. There is little incentive for a proletarian in a capitalist system to actually maximise the value of their labour for the capitalist that owns the means of production to which they apply their labour. Their incentive is the same as the capitalist. To maximise their profits on the least amount of investment. It's just the proletarian's investment is their labour.

​

Capitalism literally incentivises lazy but crafty workers, just as it incentivises lazy but crafty investors. At least if you own the value of your own labour, there's an incentive to work harder, if you value material gain.

1

UniqueUsername82D t1_je1igkc wrote

What system would work where everyone who wants to sits around on their asses? Who is going to run sewage treatment and repair power lines during blizzards?

3

thewid10 t1_je1qdr3 wrote

For real. Like the statement from OP describes an unfortunate amount of people's experiences, but that's not something you can assign to everyone as a fact of life

1

Destrorso t1_je1iu8y wrote

And there is a way out, although i cannot say it for legal reasons

0