textsfromsolarpunk

I'm just wondering what societies you are historically speaking about since there's no sources for me to follow. Are we talking about native populations that were colonized? Competing societies that were conquered by warring neighbor states? What's your definition of "did better"? If they had more military and slave labor forces due to economical conditions in which to destroy the other societies, I wouldn't consider that a better outcome.

Spoken like someone who's never had another society come and destroy the society where they make their home. A society that's strong enough to defend itself is, in my opinion, better than one that's not.

Part of the thing is that I do think that it's possible to do both. You can have a just and democratic society, you can have socialist economy, and definitely you can have economic justice, and you can still be organized and effective enough to defend yourself against outside threats. It's not just a choice of being Nazis or helpless farmers. But I do think it's fair to say that a society that structures itself around large scale non-employment won't be able to perpetuate itself in the modern world. I'm not saying that as a good or bad thing, just the geopolitical reality. You can disagree of course. I'm completely open to it if you want to make an argument for a particular more-equitable society and how it can survive, but I think you gotta be the one to explain how it's going to survive if you want to say it's "better."

I think you've put a capitalistic economic structure up on a pedestal.

Not at all. There's a difference between "this is what I think can survive" and "this is what I like."

Would you say "plastics" are better for our society and environment since it's dominating our lives? Disease and plagues are superior since our industry produces those side-effects? Cancer must be a positive because our society is leading to higher exposure of contaminants in which it can develop.

I think societies that live are better than ones that don't. That doesn't mean anything, pollution or crime or etc, that happens in the world is automatically good.

In fact, the impending destruction of the biosphere in a form that can sustain the current human population is one of the main indictments of capitalism. "You guys say you've got it all worked out, but it seems like you're not gonna be around in 100 years based on what you're doing to the planet right now." To me that kind of logical argument is fine. I don't think it's unreasonable of me to say that you need to look at how things play out in the real world though, whether they be capitalism's strengths or its undoing flaws. Surely that's a reasonable thing to do?

Doesn't matter that you put a competing statement in "italics". The very simple picture is very simple and your comment further demonstrates we rationalize ourselves into inhumanity and derangement. I really don't care if it's their fault or the pope's fault.

My point is, an economic system where (if you're able-bodied) you need to work or else you go hungry is actually reasonable, if everyone can have good and rewarding work. It's a way of dealing with the reality that people have to do some things in order for society to function.

Why do you disagree with that statement? Again, I understand that the current economic climate isn't that, and that safety nets need to be in place even in the most perfect version of that system that can realistically exist. Honestly, I think experiments with UBI are demonstrating that maybe I am wrong, and meeting people's basic needs regardless of anything is a better way. I would say that maybe the current economic system is so wrong that UBI is a big improvement... but surely it seems reasonable to say that (a) following the data of what works is better than just theorizing (b) "forcing" adult able people to work in society isn't a bad thing if you want the society to function, contingent on the jobs they're doing actually making some sort of sense.

Donate to your local food banks or food-drive event kids. That old can of beef stew you don't even look at anymore can keep someone warm and alive for the night.

I have done, yes. Also volunteered with a group going door-to-door, also done some volunteer work at the food bank itself.

Amazing. It's almost as though capital itself should not be the driving force of society...

I think looking around at what's worked well in the past is a good way to decide what "should" happen. Not that we have to be limited to that, but it's a good reality-touchstone for the conversation.

To me, the New Deal-era economy, if it had had racial justice and women's rights, is the best example I can see for what I would think is a good economy. The government is going to keep a close eye on creating jobs, creating a strong safety net, and reigning in the oligarchs who are trying to unbalance the system. It ushered in decades of prosperity. It was good (again, for white men at least).

It's a little hard to compare against socialist societies, because the West does its best to wreck any socialist country that might start working for its people, so that it can "prove" that socialism doesn't work. So there's a strong argument that socialism actually works better than historical examples would suggest. Cuba is actually a really instructive example in terms of what it does well (medicine in particular) even facing economic warfare from almost the entire rest of the world. But, even with that caveat, I still think that structuring an economy similar to 1930s through 1960s America (again, just with racial and gender justice added to it) seems like what works the best.

If you are a mother taking care of a child, is that a job?

Yes. The ability of one parent to draw enough of an income that the other parent can focus largely on child care and "living" as distinct from working, is one of the key features that makes me like the New Deal-era US economy. That's as much an important part of my happy utopia as would be a happy life for the "working" partner in one-job families, with rewarding, balanced, satisfying work.

Actually, I think I remember seeing some kind of studies that argued that women in some Scandinavian countries seem to be happiest among modern societies, based on working like 10-15 hours per week. They have time for the family but they're not stuck at home going out of their minds like a 1950s housewife. (And obviously everyone should be able to do whatever they want to do, just that as the tradition seemed like it worked well in practice.) I tried to find them to send to you but I ran out of motivation before I did.

But yes, short answer, whichever partner is taking care of the family shouldn't be working full time. That is clearly insanity in the modern system and fueled just by greed of extracting value from people with no regard for what it's going to do to us long term.