When you give people the chance to contribute to society with the things they enjoy millions of talentless people are going to become video game streamers or rock stars.
There are always some that will “do nothing” if given the freedom to live as they want. Most won’t. What exactly will take the place of a 9 to 5 in a post Capitalist world? No idea. I’m not that smart. Humans do need more than simple pixie dust and altruistic motivations to do more than the most bare bones of things. That said, whatever the next system may be, it need not threaten peoples security (housing, food, and medical care) to be functional.
I would argue those very real threats motivate people into action to an extent. Yes, we definitely eed to care more for the people that fall through the cracks, especially those who re vulnerable to begin with, but inventing a system where the average person has no reason to fear for anything seems to be Sixth Form fairy politics to me.
Assuming people will just organise themselves into a functional but equitable and fair society is asking for too much from human beings. We are neither purely individualistic or collectivist by nature. We need a system that accounts for all human flaws rather than one that assumes we will all behave as the best versions of ourselves with no incentives.
I can think of a worse future than one where our rapid advances in technology and productivity afford us the ability to create more art and beauty without fear of destitution.
That’s nice and all, but politics need to take into account the material conditions in which we find ourselves in the present day rather than assuming it’s possible to jump to idealistic Star Trek post scarcity.
When you give people the chance to contribute to society with the things they enjoy millions of talentless people are going to become video game streamers or rock stars.
There are always some that will “do nothing” if given the freedom to live as they want. Most won’t. What exactly will take the place of a 9 to 5 in a post Capitalist world? No idea. I’m not that smart. Humans do need more than simple pixie dust and altruistic motivations to do more than the most bare bones of things. That said, whatever the next system may be, it need not threaten peoples security (housing, food, and medical care) to be functional.
I would argue those very real threats motivate people into action to an extent. Yes, we definitely eed to care more for the people that fall through the cracks, especially those who re vulnerable to begin with, but inventing a system where the average person has no reason to fear for anything seems to be Sixth Form fairy politics to me.
Assuming people will just organise themselves into a functional but equitable and fair society is asking for too much from human beings. We are neither purely individualistic or collectivist by nature. We need a system that accounts for all human flaws rather than one that assumes we will all behave as the best versions of ourselves with no incentives.
I can think of a worse future than one where our rapid advances in technology and productivity afford us the ability to create more art and beauty without fear of destitution.
That’s nice and all, but politics need to take into account the material conditions in which we find ourselves in the present day rather than assuming it’s possible to jump to idealistic Star Trek post scarcity.