Edit: Changed title to be more accurate.

Also here is the summary from Wikipedia on what Post-scarcity means:

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely. Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services. Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Markets aren’t Capitalism. You can have non-Capitalist markets, such as ones made up of Worker Co-ops.

    You can have a market-based economy without exploitation a la Capitalism.

    • Æsc@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Fine. Factories are capital. If you want manufactured goods and the freedom to get a job you want more than you want to work in a factory then you want capitalism.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        No.

        All tools are Capital. If Workers collectively share ownership of industry, there is a free flow of labor to where you wish to apply it. Are you under the mistaken impression that Socialism is when someone picks where you can work? You sure you aren’t talking about Capitalism?

        • Æsc@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m quite sure we’ve outlawed the direct ownership of people so, yeah, in capitalism no one tells you where to work, they pay you to work. There is a job market. In planned economies, someone tells you where to work. Planned economies are an expression of socialism. On the scale of individual firms, capitalism doesn’t require them to be organized in any particular way. If you want to run a business as a cooperative, where the workers own the company, you can certainly do that in the United States if you want. But if a collective tells you where to work, then someone is still telling you where to work. Please explain how you’d do socialism without anyone telling anyone else where to work.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            In Capitalism, Capitalists ultimately decide where you can work, as opposed to being democratically decided by the Workers. Pointing to something that can happen in both Socialism and in Capitalism, ie Planning from a state, is not the dig against workers collectively owning the Means of Production that you think it is. In Socialist systems, you can absolutely choose where you want to work, explain the opposite, why you think they can’t. That’s an unfounded claim with nothing backing it.

            Why do you think it’s better that Workers have no say, as opposed to having democratic ownership of industry? I personally value freedom and power to the people, not to people focused on enriching their own personal lives well beyond that of normalcy, so I support leftist organization.

            • Æsc@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Workers do have a say. They own their labor. If they are educated and organized enough they can bring a corporation to its knees, because corporations can’t do anything with their capital without labor. Just because I’m arguing capitalism has merits doesn’t mean I don’t think there should be strong unions, or shared ownership of companies, or regulation of markets.

              I don’t want to do a job I don’t want to do just because the majority voted that I should do it either, really. I can count on people to vote for their own self-interest, but I can’t count on them to vote for mine.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Unions are inferior to direct ownership, and your only argument against direct ownership so far seems to be that you can’t count on people to vote on your interests, yet for some reason you ignore that Capitalists exclusively have their own interests at heart and don’t care about workers.

                • Æsc@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  No, I completely acknowledge capitalists largely care about their investments in capital and don’t really care so much about workers as long as they are working. But at least I know where their incentives are, what they’re trying to do. It’s difficult to predict how people are going to act if you don’t know what their incentives are, and if you can’t predict how people are going to act then your life is less stable.

                  And “direct ownership” meaning like a co-op or whatever, nothing wrong with that. Collective ownership of a business is totally fine within a capitalist economy. There’s still a concept of ownership. I wish more businesses were run that way. Well, a lot of start-ups kinda are now that I think about it. People get some pay in stock options and the like. I think unions should own more shares in a company so the incentives of both the union and management are aligned to make the company money, but it’s hard to get the right balance.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Workers will act in their own self interests, only this time everyone is a Worker.

                    Direct ownership can look like a co-op, yes, that’s a Socialist entity. It can also look like state run industry, or a network of Mutual Aid, or a structure like FOSS.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Capitalism keeps people from the jobs they want. Literally. If the job you want can’t meet your basic needs. Capitalism falsely posits that it’s because the job has no value. Rather than the value of it not being generally understood or valued by others.

        Capitalism is still good at making menial valueless work to under pay you for however.

        • Æsc@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m not saying it gets you the job you want, I’m saying no one can make you do a job you don’t want to do. People can incentivize you, with money. And I think collective organizing and bargaining is important to make things fair. I hear German firms have a union representative on the board, that seems pretty smart.

          And it needs to be regulated. The government needs to force firms to pay to mitigate harmful externalities as well as incentivize positive externalities. And there should be social programs to take some of the edge off market fluctuations, like free or cheap training, help finding employment, cushioning some of the effects of market fluctuations for the average person.

        • gerryflap@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m struggling to see what alternative you are envisioning here, but maybe I’m misunderstanding you. People and companies pay for the work they need done. When not enough people do that work, the salaries paid for it will increase. When there’s a large pool of people willing to do a job but not enough people and companies who need that job done, the salaries drop. The capitalist job market, from a theoretical perspective, seems to regulate the job market such that people choose jobs that are desired by society.

          Now there’s obviously some downsides to this, because the gap between income levels is way too large in my opinion. Regulation is required so the CEO’s don’t earn like 200 times as much as the cleaning people. But in the end any system that exists needs to make sure that people do work that benefits society. And certain jobs are just more desired by society than others. Not everyone who likes drawing can become an artist, because in the end society just doesn’t need many artists. So any system should penalize people who try to do a job that society simply doesn’t need at that moment and incentivize jobs that have shortages.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The alternative is simple. But again obscured by saturation of capitalist propaganda. To start we, in the US especially, need to move towards social democracy. Single player health care, Austrian style public housing, etc.

            If we provide people with a basic level of food and shelter. They will be free to work or not. And if you aren’t free enough to be able to choose not to work, you aren’t actually free. And here’s the kicker. Even though people wouldn’t have to work, they still would. Only now capitalist wouldn’t be able to use starvation and homelessness as a stick to beat people over the head with. In order to get them to accept traditionally bad capitalist deals.

            Better still, entrepreneurs would be able to chase any business ideas they had. Artists would be able to persue their art. Musicians able to persue their music. If you wanted to spend your days gardening and landscaping a public plot. That capitalist deemed had no value. Just for your own enjoyment and the enjoyment of others. You can do that.

            Pretty simple actually. Capitalists have pushed for the better part of a century to stop or demonize any progress towards communist evolution. And the other group, the revolutionaries have done nothing but give it a bad name.