this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Futurology

2497 readers
29 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking -- with the extra step of, why bother with UBI at all, and why not just go for a completely planned economy.

Yes, a bit like China, and no it doesn't have to be so authoritarian.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It will be though. That’s the problem. Capitalism allows efficient use of resources, but concentrates wealth at the top. A planned economy concentrates power in the decision makers, who fall to corruption.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Capitalism allows efficient use of resources

No. Free markets do. Socialist societies don't have to run on planned economies, they can just as well utilize free markets just like capitalism does. It's a misunderstanding that I often encounter in these discussions, the media over the past decades has pushed to associate planned economic structures with socialism and it's hard to disassociate these two now.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think free market and planned economy mix easily, a government has to be very clear on where the lines are. If you plan for example the amount of bread baked and the price bread is sold for, but you don't regulate that for cookies you might find a lot of cookie bakers using subsidized bread instead of unsubsidized flour. Probably better examples out there, but you get my point.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not sure if you're getting my point. Socialism is NOT about free markets vs planned economies. One of the main tennets in socialism is about the ownership of the means of production being in the worker's hands. Basically, democratic ownership of the company you work for. This does NOT mean that companies among themselves can not compete in an open market. It's about bringing democratic values to the economic, not just the political realm.

On the contrary, you have many capitalistic examples today of companies in private hands that can maintain a (near) monopoly on specific industries while heavily relying on government contracts, i.e. planned budgets distributed by the government.

Don't conflate the ownership of the means of production with the idea of a free market.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think youre mixing up socialism with centralized control. Also, generally the means of production being owned by the workers means it is taken by the state on behalf of the workers, in practice.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Socialism can take on many forms. Just like there are many forms of democracy, autocracy, capitalism, etc. By itself, socialism does not imply centralized control. At all. In fact, the often stated goal of communist ideologies is the complete abolition of the state and self governance by the people in small communes, hence the name.

generally the means of production being owned by the workers means it is taken by the state on behalf of the workers

Yeah this has been the case in the past but it doesn't have to be. The Soviet Union was, in my opinion, a terrible example of a democratic and socialist state.

To illustrate my point, a socialist company structure can simply distribute voting shares to the workers and thereby democratize it. If you don't work there, you can't have a say of what investments are made and how profits are distributed. No state or government involvement needed. No revolution needed.

Btw I'm not a hardcore socialist, I just think that there are many misconceptions about what socialism is and what it is not, which limits our understanding of what we can actually achieve when we want to get rid of the current, toxic system.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 16 hours ago

Yes it can, however, you're commenting on a thread that started by talking about central planning.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

Now you explain how you define socialism I understand a lot better what you mean.

I think putting companies in the hands of employees rather than external shareholders would be a big improvement on our current systems. Having others be able to invest in a company (by getting shares in return) is great, but once they at one point sell these shares to someone who only wants profits and an increase in company valuation the employees get the shorter end of the stick (which eventually results in them having bad working conditions and low pay).