this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
1249 points (98.9% liked)
Bluesky
1510 readers
19 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think there are more people than there are meaningful jobs. Like, not everyone needs to be a product person.
Let's do universal basic income, make the essentials free, and let people live life. I have a friend that enjoys being around people, and would work at a coffee shop, but that doesn't pay enough for them to pay for food and housing. I've worked with people who are kind of a net negative at their org, but they're there because they need money to live. It's a bad system.
Maybe it made more sense in like 600CE when your little settlement would collapse if everyone didn't farm all day, but that's not today's world.
What you are proposing is wildly unrealistic and not even Communism espouses the idea.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx / Étienne-Gabriel Morelly / whoever else.
It doesn't say "From each according to their desire, to each according to their want." and that's because no society that hasn't reached Star Trek replicator levels of post-scarcity could survive such a plan.
As Frederick Hicks noted "There are no issues with this principle as long as there is enough of everything for everybody. But this is not the case and probably never will be, because "man's wants tend always to outstrip his ability to supply them.... [Therefore] it will be necessary to have an agency for determining relative amounts of men's needs."
In most societies today the determining Agency is the Free Market via the value of your labor. In a Communist (Marxist?) society that Agency would be a Committee of Workers but in either case there exists, and must exist, a mechanism to stop the free loaders and abusers.
This isn't a defense of today's hyper-capitalist societies either, we need to be doing far better at reigning that shit in and taking care of people. It is however a push-back against the idea that existence should be without cost and that anything requiring effort needs to be enjoyable.
There's a big gap between "Food, housing, and health care is provided to all" and "take whatever you want, man".
I think that UBI and capitalism are helpful, BUT the latter should solely be for luxuries, such as McMansions, vacations, gardening, media, or Ford-2500 mega trucks. Capitalism is horrible at caring for society, but is excellent for fostering individuality. Problem is, our overlords conflate society and individuality as being the same.
What we need is to prevent necessity and luxury from mixing. Money should be purely for upgrading lifestyle, not a determination of whether you get to eat, rest, have family, or receive healthcare.
There's a big gap between “Food, housing, and health care is provided to all” and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
The former is free existence, the latter demands work as the price for societal support.
What you are wishing for is basically fully automated luxury gay space communism and that cannot exist outside of a true post scarcity world. We do not live in that world.