this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)

BecomeMe

805 readers
1 users here now

Social Experiment. Become Me. What I see, you see.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] golli@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for taking the time to write all of this. You do have good points and i would say that i can agree with a lot of what you write, but where it falls a bit apart for me is the last paragraph.

allocation and production are mainly planned according to the needs of people

If i get this right this is somewhat of a top down approach and i just can't really see that working on a large scale. To me you can set broad goals and general rules/constraints, but you can't plan all the way down. So after a certain level you just kind of need a system that somewhat works on its own. And for that market economics just seem like the efficient solution.

Right now it seems to me like we are particularly failing in setting the rules/constraints, e.g. damage from CO2 emmisions not being properly priced in.

exceptional cases, like boring jobs really no one wants to do (cleaning that toilet for example)

Seems to be that boring jobs aren't really exceptional cases, but the majority.

And some jobs might not be boring for some, but not everyone. However you'll likely still have a certain amount of people that need to fill those jobs (and be qualified to do so), and for those even these better jobs will be annoying. Basically only a certain set of jobs will be interesting for each person, but those interests will almost certainly not match up with what is demanded from the economic side.

[โ€“] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time for consideration.

Maybe I wasn't clear about it, but I don't really imagine a top down approach, but a large scale integration of people in decision making and -understanding. This sounds overly optimistic regarding the human subject we have now. But a actually democratic society would, as I dialectically argue, let other kinds of subjectivity emerge. Especially letting go of the idea, everyone acts in their own interest (wich is the objective reality and concept of markets). Talking collective subjectivity..

This same, quite fundamental change of how we relate to each other, to society, how we decide thus think and how we percieve and approach work in general, would change what "a boring job" really is. Beeing motivated to work because it makes sense to you, and working in a soldary working culture, instead of this alienated, competitiv indifference ("money rules the world"), would definetly make we clean those toilets, knowing work is shared fairly and I get to enjoy a human society afterwards :)

Like, doing something boring for people you care about is a whole different experience.

In the end, of course, we're talking utopia: by definition a world that doesn't exist, that cannot yet exist. So there's limits to imagining it "as realistic". Still, cultivating utopia is important, because why else, if not for hope, would you reach for radical change?