Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.
Capitalism does what you’re doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.
Genuine question, what happens when the populace loses motivation to contribute? Such as the “lie down” movement (yes I understand China is not the best example).
These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The “lie down” movement - also “let it rot” - is similar to the “quiet quitting” movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).
I guess my point is what happens when they genuinely just want to exist for a year and nothing else. I get this is not a realistic question. Just curious of the outcome there
If that’s something they need then that’s something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.
There’s far more to motivation and more pay can actually be detrimental depending on the sort of work. Sounds stupidly counter-intuitive doesn’t it? Take a look, this really opened my eyes:
That video really hit home for me. I looked back over all the varied jobs I had and the places I was most happy gave me what the video talks about. My last job was double the pay and benefits of the one before and I haven’t been less motivated.
Seriously, give it 10-minutes. At one point I was thinking, “Damn! He’s talking about Linux!”
Such a society is not possible because we’re human beings, warts and all. FFS, teach monkeys how to use money and they invent prostitution.
There will always be people who look to dominate others for personal gain. Also, the “tragedy of the commons” is well known fact of life. If an economic system isn’t taking human behavior into account, it’s useless, hippie bullshit.
That’s why capitalism worked so well for so long. Now that we’re into the later stages, it’s up to government to reign it in. When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, a bad/immoral reputation could easily tank a company. Now no one gives a shit, keeps buying and buying. Fine. Time for the government to step up, but our representatives are bought and paid for by the very organizations they should be regulating. And that last is going to be a feature of any economic system.
Maybe it’s already too late? Seems like it, but then I see people like Lina Kahn taking on Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and I have hope.
Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you’re referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I’m aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about “alpha” wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study’s findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.
People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The “tragedy of the commons” is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.
Well, I suppose you have a genius economic system where the haves don’t take advantage of the have nots. Tell us all about it!
(FFS, do they not teach history in schools any more?!)
Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.
Capitalism does what you’re doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.
Genuine question, what happens when the populace loses motivation to contribute? Such as the “lie down” movement (yes I understand China is not the best example).
These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The “lie down” movement - also “let it rot” - is similar to the “quiet quitting” movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).
I guess my point is what happens when they genuinely just want to exist for a year and nothing else. I get this is not a realistic question. Just curious of the outcome there
If that’s something they need then that’s something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.
There’s far more to motivation and more pay can actually be detrimental depending on the sort of work. Sounds stupidly counter-intuitive doesn’t it? Take a look, this really opened my eyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
That video really hit home for me. I looked back over all the varied jobs I had and the places I was most happy gave me what the video talks about. My last job was double the pay and benefits of the one before and I haven’t been less motivated.
Seriously, give it 10-minutes. At one point I was thinking, “Damn! He’s talking about Linux!”
Such a society is not possible because we’re human beings, warts and all. FFS, teach monkeys how to use money and they invent prostitution.
There will always be people who look to dominate others for personal gain. Also, the “tragedy of the commons” is well known fact of life. If an economic system isn’t taking human behavior into account, it’s useless, hippie bullshit.
That’s why capitalism worked so well for so long. Now that we’re into the later stages, it’s up to government to reign it in. When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, a bad/immoral reputation could easily tank a company. Now no one gives a shit, keeps buying and buying. Fine. Time for the government to step up, but our representatives are bought and paid for by the very organizations they should be regulating. And that last is going to be a feature of any economic system.
Maybe it’s already too late? Seems like it, but then I see people like Lina Kahn taking on Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and I have hope.
Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you’re referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I’m aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about “alpha” wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study’s findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.
People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The “tragedy of the commons” is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.