Socialism

2850 readers

2 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.

Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

OneRedFox@beehaw.org

What would your perfect system look like? (beehaw.org)

submitted 1 year ago by TheBaldness@beehaw.org to c/socialism@beehaw.org

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm posting this in Socialism, so the obvious answer is that most people here would think socialism is the perfect system. But what do you mean by socialism?

Most Scandinavian countries are social democracies with regulated capitalist economies, progressive taxation and strong social programs. People who live in countries like this, Finland for instance, are consistently rated as some of the happiest people in the world. What would your perfect system look like? Try to give some details.

I identify as a capitalist who thinks government should provide things that are vital, like healthcare, education, military, etc. I also think the government should take the initiative on matters vital to modern life and national security. For instance, baseline energy generation, smart grid energy distribution, a national public data network (that private companies could lease bandwidth on, like the US phone system used to be), funding scientific and medical research in order to put the results in the public domain. I don't think anyone making less than median income should have to pay any taxes. Taxes would be phased in progressively on income above the median.

Those are some of my ideas. I'd like to hear some of yours.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mot@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Provided that I must work to feed myself, to shelter myself from the elements, and to receive routine medical care: I cannot be described as consenting to work. I am coerced. In an ideal system, I would not be coerced to work as my access to basic necessities would not be predicated upon my employment.

In nature, survival makes certain demands of us but as intelligent creatures capable of automating most work there is simply no need. People who wish to do more deserve more but no one should have to work to be alive. Without life you cannot have liberty and without liberty you cannot find happiness. The goal of any society should be equity of happiness. This implies sustainability as consuming resources leaves none for those who come later and thus deprives them of opportunity.

More concretely, I find it difficult to believe that those in entirely different environments can have great insights into the challenges faced by others. Thus smaller societies should be preferred to larger ones. Outside of crisis, any decision should be unanimous among representatives. Locally, provided the capacity to re-home each community should decide how it runs for itself. This is effectively an initial pure democracy with majority rule which may then evolve in any direction. It's fine for local groups to be disfunctional as society as a whole relies on social experiments to determine what works best in any given environment.