• 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is what I think every time I see this socialist / capitalist dichotomy set up:

    also I know Im not using the meme right.

    • zoodlenoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Allowing capitalist relations to persist, even if basic goods like food and homes were nationalized, enables a society in which capitalist profiteers continue to operate. History shows pretty explicitly that Capital will use the levers of power that exist, like The State, to eat away at or overturn any socialistic advances. E.g., suddenly the luxury capitalist corporation that sells idk, pearls, is lobbying (bribing) their way into privatizing beaches from which they operate. Slowly but surely the socioeconomic relations produced under capitalism foment and claw their way back to their former position. This requires a constant, indefinitely revolutionary society to keep capitalist relations at bay; that sort of momentum is not possible to sustain, certainly at the current moment.

      It’s necessary to abolish capitalists as a class because leaving capitalist systems of relations alone enables them to continue to re-produce themselves.

      That doesn’t preclude this sort of dual-economic setup from being a good thing, just insufficient.

    • Dogeek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, we first need to define what a luxury and what a necessity is. For some things like food, shelter, water, healthcare it’s pretty straightforward. But for resources like energy or communications it’s less obvious.

      I’d argue that the internet is now a necessity rather than a luxury, but many people to this day still don’t have or choose not to have internet access (due to geography or religion). Energy is the same way, if we take an obviously bad example, but say you’re socializing electricity for everyone, what’s to stop someone from mining cryptocurrency on everyone else’s dime ? That person would be profiting off of the social net. Where do we put the cursor between “luxurious” energy use and “necessary” energy use ? It’s a tough thing to figure out.

      Furthermore, for most people you need an incentive to work, right now it’s survival, which is not great, but if all of your needs basic, and more are taken care of by the state, you only work for the luxuries, which would greatly reduce the available workforce. It’s again a tough balance to find.

      • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re socializing electricity for everyone then you can tell when usage is far outside norms and audit usage

        I also don’t think money is the ultimate incentive, and most people would work whether or not they needed money to survive. Sure they wouldn’t work at some crappy unfulfilling job, but people would still be productive according to their idea of productivity.

        Also not having people working all these useless jobs would save energy and resources.

        There’s lots of study on how humans respond to incentives and money and its not a straightforward relationship at all.