• Sippy Cup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Heavily regulated socialist democracy.

    Provide basic needs, food, clothing, healthcare, childcare, and education. Hell even a phone and Internet access.

    Emphasis on the basic.

    Allow for those who do not wish to, or are unable to work to live with all basic needs covered. Those who wish to work are incentivized to do so, with access to luxuries. Better housing, better clothing, better technology. Allow a place for the market, but don’t make people depend on the market.

    No reason to work a job you hate, no reason to employ people you don’t need. Everybody wins.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Provide basic needs, food, clothing, healthcare, childcare, and education. Hell even a phone and Internet access.

      Any government that has the power to grant these goods/services will have the power to take them away. Unless the public can directly own and administer the property through local councils and administrative bureaucracies, they are banking on the largesse of national socialist leadership to continue indefinitely.

      Allow for those who do not wish to, or are unable to work to live with all basic needs covered. Those who wish to work are incentivized to do so, with access to luxuries. Better housing, better clothing, better technology. Allow a place for the market, but don’t make people depend on the market.

      All of that is predicated on a continuously expanding surplus of raw materials, advanced technologies, and an educated labor force.

      You can either import these as luxuries, in which case you’re operating an export-oriented economy predicated on the market price of your domestic surplus. That requires a bigger economy you’re effectively beholden to. Looks good in the moment, but over the course of centuries you just end up as a West African / Middle Eastern / East India Tea Company-controlled kingdom, wherein the bottlenecks of trade produce oligarchs of immense personal fortune.

      Or you produce domestically, in the Juche model, and live within the means provided by your real estate and your people. But that requires an economy that can plan and organize resources on the order of decades (if not centuries) and invests domestically rather than keeping an eye towards meeting the needs of foreign import markets. It won’t work as a capitalist system, because the capitalist demand for growth will push you back into the export-oriented model that foreigners exploit.

      “Free” markets follow the bubbles in credit and compel local economies to chase short term speculative bubbles at the expense of long term economic needs. Planned economies can build infrastructure in advance of future needs and plan social policy to curb economically regressive short-term profitable impulses with long term costs (opium consumption, coal/NGL power grids, cash crops that deplete arable land and water reserves like tobacco and pistachios).

      They aren’t durable. They produce rapid consolidations of wealth and political capital. And they create intergenerational risks that the current cohort of investors have little reason to acknowledge or prevent.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      This sounds fantastic, and will never work in the USA as long as there are classes of people who live above the rules and can influence society through policy and social media. If they smell any extra income, rights or services you receive, it’s like blood in the water and they will come from miles to get a piece of anything you own, exactly as they do now.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I mean, you’re almost speaking of the exact system Marxists want to work towards, just with the caveat that Marxists think Markets are only useful tools in less-developed and less-critical industries temporarily, before public ownership and planning becomes more efficient, and that the spread in difference between “luxuries” decreases over time as productivity improves to account for that. The whole “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” bit that requires extremely developed industry to achieve.

      Marxists aren’t opposed to increased pay for more skilled or more intense labor, rather, such a system is a necessity until sufficient automation and industrialization allow for more goods and services to be free. Public ownership and democratization of the economy is also an essential step, but you aren’t getting these safety nets without that first.

      Have you read Marx, or Marxists?

      • Sippy Cup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve read The Expanse lol. I was describing the system on Earth in that series.

        The thing is, markets predate the written word. Some form of trading is literally one of the first things humans did. It could even be a prehuman invention. Eliminating markets is like trying to eliminate prostitution, or drugs.

        Markets, much like life, uhh… Find a way.

        Instead of turning up your nose, make them work for you, in a way you want. We don’t want the markets to spread, unrestrained, like kudsu. We want Bonsai markets.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Trade isn’t the same as a market, necessarily, and markets aren’t the same as the specific Capitalist iteration that depends on the M-C-M’ circuit where commodities C are produced with money M in exchange for greater money M’. When Marxists say they wish to abolish markets, they mean so by stating that they wish, rather than production being handled through competing entities where that M-C-M’ circuit applies, we instead fold all of these entities into the public sector and democratically plan them along a cooperative basis.

          Early on, there would presumably be labor vouchers, which differ from money in that they would be destroyed on first use. A sort of credit for work, for use in the only “store” that exists. Social services and safety nets would be deducted from your “pay” and be free at point of service. Things like that, and this doesn’t really constitute a “market” in the normal sense of the word. Eventually, these labor vouchers would likely be abolished once they became unnecessary.

          • Sippy Cup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            That’s really just a company store but worse somehow.

            You’re going to have a market. If you make markets illegal you’ll just have black markets. You need to contend with that, failing to realize that literally killed the Soviet Union. It got so bad, and was such a core part of daily life that they just kinda made it legal, and the union collapsed shortly after.

            You can’t fix homelessness by making it illegal, you can destroy markets by making them illegal. These things have been tried and failed in practice.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              There’s a difference between saying we should work towards getting rid of the necessity for Markets, and saying we need to do that instantly, today, by outlawing them. Black Markets didn’t kill the Soviet Union, but they did highlight flaws in how it was run and where it was lacking. That’s a separate conversation that we can have, if you want, but is largely unimportant.

              The thing is, over time, markets centralize through firms outcompeting and absorbing or eliminating smaller firms. This increases barrier to entry as it is more expensive to compete on even footing. Marxists don’t want to abolish markets simply by decree, but developing to the point that they no longer make sense. Competition can’t last forever, and neither can markets.