Arguments I hear are usually something along the lines of "it's going to destroy the economy", "it destroys jobs", "I'm rich and they'll tax me a lot" (said by people who aren't actually rich). Also, confusing social democracy (Germany, Nordic countries) with what the Soviet Union and China were doing.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 60 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, capitalism has conspired to make us believe, as a group, that resources are somehow incredibly limited while a small cabal of elites gobble up insane quantities of resources for themselves while depriving the majority of those same resources.

Pure altruistic socialism would evenly redivide those resources, giving to those who need what they need.

It is anathema to capitalism, but it is the only society that would actually work in a post-scarcity world, which we might actually be approaching, assuming that the capitalists don't destroy it first.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 29 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The world has had enough resources for post-scarcity for decades, if not centuries. Before, the problem was logistics, now it's will.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the estimate I've seen that tries to compute this out has people showering once every 3 weeks and using the internet for ~1 hour a week. Is this the post-scarcity lifestyle you had in mind, am I confused, or have we tipped past the point of being able to do much better?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah, we can't produce water, can we? Better we check consumption, especially corporate.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not sure what you mean.

But yes, desalination and cleaning are very expensive still afaik. We pipe water quite far between states, which seems crazy to me.

[–] doben@lemmy.wtf 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh it has always been will. Let‘s not pretend like capitalism has the better logistics and therefore a better world wouldn‘t have been possible sooner. That’s only romanticizing capitalism.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm talking about methods of transport and storage. Food isn't likely to rot before it gets where it's going, like it was a couple hundred years ago.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

You can eat Southafrican oranges in Europe. Food could go wherever it's needed but rich people doesn't want it.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think very few of the ruling elite would support a post scarcity world. Elon Musk keeps talking about it the most and he is one of the guys I trust the least to intentionally bring it about.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

A socialist society where everyone is more or less equal. Yeah, Musk and his company of wannabe trillionaires are going to fight that to their last breath.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 weeks ago

I think this is the biggest one. It's the word, but it doesn't matter which word is used. All the propaganda machines will fuck with it as quick as they can.

Also, confusing social democracy (Germany, Nordic countries) with what the Soviet Union and China were doing.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago

yes socialism means a lot of things to a lot of people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Etymology

it was invented a long time ago in association with a utopian fantasy