What does the socialist utopia look like?

How many jobs are just a bullshit way of propping up lifestyles

David Graeber wrote a book about that too.. 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/25/bullshit-jobs-a-theory-by-david-graeber-review

and the vast majority of us spend our very short lives doing dumb shit that doesn’t make us happy or add any quality to our lives or those of wider society. Yet that is just the way things are and we have to accept it.

Yep, seeing the human race should be in control of the human race it all seems a bit shit doesn’t it.

I often looks at my dogs and cats and envy them.  They have got it right.

They have got it right.

You are projecting. My cats spend their whole lives wandering about the same small area of land, or sitting doing nothing.  I’d get bored pretty quickly with doing that my whole life and I suspect you would too.

Just to be clear I dislike the status quo greatly, but I don’t think stone age culture is the answer.  We need something better.

but I don’t think stone age culture is the answer.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, but we could learn a lot of lessons. The first thing we need to do is abandon economic growth and stop measuring/calculating GDP. Then introduce a 4-day week and start talking about universal basic income.

My cats spend their whole lives wandering about the same small area of land, or sitting doing nothing.  I’d get bored pretty quickly with doing that my whole life and I suspect you would too.

The point is more to do with the fact they do what they want and don’t have to spend 8 hours a day doing something for someone else.  Would I rather sit around at home getting everything done for me and not working all my life.  Yep.

UBI is the key, but it needs masses of good social housing at controlled rent prices.

Thinking about it – housing is something that everyone needs, and yet the price is completely flexible.  This is insane. Landlords or developers can charge the maximum the market can sustain and soak up everyone’s spare cash.

The point is more to do with the fact they do what they want

Hmm, that’s only possible because they have very simple brains and what they want is easily achievable.  What you want is much less so (I’d imagine).  You could maybe have an elective lobotomy?

Socialism is many things to many people.
Equity of opportunity in education and health would appear to be a good start.
We don’t have those simple starts in life sorted in the UK and on that basis everything is unfair and whilst it allows the very few to make obscene amounts of money the wider society suffers, hey ho, that’s capitalism for you.

UBI is the key

I completely agree with this and @dazh comment re: GDP and economic growth . No way am I attempting to use the quote function twice in one post though.

I’m with Kerley too. Work gets in the way of all sorts of fun stuff. I’d be a lot fitter, smarter, much better at various hobbies and get to see my kids more if I could work less. The way we live is a bit nuts tbh. If some mad bastards want to work eighty hour weeks let them. Although I sincerely doubt that anyone is productive doing so.

All seems like such a waste to me. For those motivated by work, hats off to you. For the rest of us it’s a bit shit staring longly out of the window thinking of all the fun stuff we could be doing. Even napping!

Exactly. If UBI was enough for a basic life, any extra (bikes, fine wines, C&H, trips to Chamonix etc) would be funded by the work you do. But it would be your choice,  not someone else’s. It would radically change society.

Even a liveable absolute minimum would be a huge change because it would give you the ability to leave a shitty job and find a new one without significant risk.  That would flip the balance of power, and force employers to be better to us all.

But it would be your choice, not someone else’s. It would radically change society.

This is the point I was making previously about being forced to work. Personally as long as this is the case I don’t think any of the other freedoms we enjoy amount to what I would call a ‘liberal’ state. Forcing people to work to avoid starvation or homelessness isn’t liberal, it’s sadistic and oppressive.

what I would call a ‘liberal’ state

Yeah, but not everyone shares that definition so be careful using it.

“This is the point I was making previously about being forced to work. Personally as long as this is the case I don’t think any of the other freedoms we enjoy amount to what I would call a ‘liberal’ state. Forcing people to work to avoid starvation or homelessness isn’t liberal, it’s sadistic and oppressive.”

Yeah but no one is suggesting that are they, what they are suggesting is those that can contribute to society are expected to do so, those that can’t for reasons other than they can’t be arsed are supported. Talk about hyperbole.

It would be great if there were enough people in society who enjoyed working so that those who don’t wouldn’t have to but that’s just unrealistic. In fact the very nature of society providing a safety net and care for the people unable to look after themselves means someone has to wipe backsides, clear up sick, deal with abuse from people suffering from mental health conditions. Whilst there are some amazing people out there who actually would do those jobs for the satisfaction of helping others there are rather few of them. Same can be said for people emptying bins in all weathers, working in retail or hospitality. There are plenty of dead end jobs which whilst the working conditions could undoubtedly be improved are still pretty unfulfilling but never the less useful or desirable for society to see done. But not at any cost, we all love a takeaway coffee but we’re not going to pay £10 for it so the Barista earns a comfortable income, it’s not about the person it’s about where we choose to spend our money and the value we perceive we get back from it.

Maybe we nationalise coffee chains to take the profit element away but I reckon the coffee quality and desirability would go down hill rather quickly.

We’re not talking about can’t be arsed really. We’re saying that the amount of time spent at work is daft. Even more so when the job is pretty pointless. Funny you should mention coffee shops. I occasionally use them but I wouldn’t be fussed if they disappeared overnight. What do they actually bring to the world? The independent ones would probably stay around as they’re clearly run by people that care about coffee. Starbucks and Costa etc would simply cease to be.

People could still work in the care industry with UBI. Some would probably want to. The discussion on quality of life is a whole other topic. Mrs F’s great grandma is 97 and has simply had enough. She can do very little for herself and has to have people wash her. She doesn’t want that yet society as it stands forces it on her. She simply doesn’t wish to be here anymore. Yet she is forced to stay and people have to look after her. It’s **** up.

We’re saying that the amount of time spent at work is daft.

Yep.  Why don’t we all work for 3 hours a day, why is the norm 8 hours and who is that for the benefit of – it is not the 99% of people are are doing the 8 hours a day is it.

A good example of how the vast majority of people in society are not actually choosing how their society should be because a small minority of people don’t want them to.

You say no-one wants to do care work. But what if it paid a grand for two half days a week on top of your UBI? I bet you’d get takers.

6 pages in and still no sign of a socialist utopia.

The search continues…

It is not a search, it is a discussion on what a socialist utopia would look like.   Could include things like UBI, different ways of working, housing for everyone by default – sounds good doesn’t it.

What do you think it would look like?

What do you think it would look like?

No point of reference, of a working socialist utopia anyway.

Plenty of failed socialist utopias to choose from.

My,we’re spoiled for choice there 🙂

There’s no point of reference for any utopia other than in fiction.

Molgrips I’m sure you would but I bet the care still wouldn’t be great. So you filled the the roles through financial inducement, that’s not socialist, it’s capitalist. Going to do that with other necessary jobs people don’t want to do? Where does it end? It doesn’t work.

Sure we could all drop to 3 hours a day but that wouldn’t work either. Our society requires a certain number of man hours worked to function, Ok close all the coffee shops and other non essential services, retailer outlets, hospitality, entertainment etc and you reduce the man hours need to make society work but we’d still be short and God would it be boring.

But people could still choose to have shops of any variety and run them for as many or as few hours as they’d like. There’d just be no need to work somewhere in order to pay the bills. It’s really a rather simple concept. Work would be a choice not a necessity. Some would choose to do lots, some a bit less, some even less and some none at all.

If you want lots of toys and a lavish lifestyle, crack on. If you want to fill your time riding your bike, spending more time with your family and watching the world go by, go for it. It would also allow people to do jobs that they actually want to do and find fulfilment I as opposed to spending most of their lives doing something just because they have to. That’s how a lot of people live and it’s soul destroying for them.

With UBI you could take time to retrain, learn new skills, all without pressure and stress whilst worrying about how the next bill gets paid. Not everyone lives like the typical STW forum member.

So how would that work then, shops opennjng for a few hours when they feel like. Probably not an issue if its art supplies, what about food retailers, pharmacies etc.?

The point is work is not a choice and it’s not optional. Back in the mists of time you did everything for yourself, it wasn’t work it was survival. Then people realised so people were better at some things so people started to do daily tasks for others in return for them doing stuff. And ‘work’ was born. Turned out if you do one job all day you’re more productive and skilled at it, crazy huh.

The idea that employees can choose how little or much they work isn’t a socialist utopia (I don’t think it’s even socialist) it’s deluded. This is why capitalism evolved, at least in  principle it is a fair system for rewarding contribution. Obviously in reality it’s a long way from fair but despite all the doom sayers it is still very slowly getting better but won’t be perfected in our lifetimes.

I like the bit where people get free food and shelter, with the food a ndshelter either magically plentifully existing, or being somehow provided at scale by hobbyist gardners and DIY’ers.

I guess this works in Star Trek where essential needs are met with a magic machine that doesnt even need buttons (earl grey, hot!). We have the ‘without buttons’ bit done so that’s something

The other thing to consider if people choose how long the work is health. People may not realise but for most people working improves both mental and physical health. Just the interaction with others is good for mental state. On the physical side if you think we have an obesity problem now wait until people choose to work a handful of hours.

People might think the idea of not being forced to work is great but the alternative would come with massive unintended consequences because people are people.

You do realise that a lot of people are unhealthy and out of shape because they spend long hours sat down at a desk or standing in the same place performing repetitive tasks. Eating crap because they have little time left at the end of their day to prepare or cook fresh food.

The idea that capitalism is getting better or is remotely fair is also laughable. The gap between rich and poor in the US and over here is absolutely huge.  As to your point that work isn’t a choice or optional. I’ll grant you that some jobs aren’t. Yet a lot exist for no particular reason or good. We’re talking an ideal here. I think the thread has somewhat moved on from socialism to what a fairer society might look like. One where people don’t have to work twelve hour shifts in a factory or warehouse to make or pack shite for minimum wage so the wealthy can have tat at what they deem to be a fair price.

Late 50s or early 60s USA looks more like a socialist utopia in terms of outcome? When the USA was demonising socialism as ‘the Commies’ in what, the 50s and 60s, aiui more families had one wage earner who could work at a job for life to afford 2 kids in a local school, supporting a partner at home – a home they could afford – plus a holiday once a year, a car and a few mod cons. That was sold as the American ideal yet capitalism has gradually wrung us all dry like frogs in slowly boiling water, and will keep going. Now how many parents both have to work full time to afford the basics?

Probably said before but to me it feels like Socialism was equated to Communism by the US media as a PR thing in favour of capitalism. And like most of these things no one system taken to any lengths or extreme can be the answer. There is no utopia via either system. I believe we should reward enterprise, initiative, ideas etc, for the benefit of more than the individual though.

As was said on P1, capitalist style ventures should enable socialism that benefits the full breadth and depth of a society, creating more opportunities and providing some safety net. Yes there will be ‘the scroungers’ etc but human nature isn’t generally wired that way imo. It’s the greedy hoarders taking that to selfish extremes who bother me more (and I wonder about human nature there, or if it’s the mindset that gets them into that position – those who want wealth power and influence are the last people who should be granted it, etc)

The result of greed is breaking down society and capitalism enables that to happen. Currently we appear to have a system that “privatises the gains, publicises the losses” and hoovers up wealth into the top 0.1%. I don’t expect society to be balanced 100% but … well, we’re being stitched up.

We’ll end up with that image (I forget who raised it and where) of the one person who won the capitalist game, standing on top of their mountain of wealth looking at the view across a dead, empty world.

I believe we’d be in a better position overall if everyone owned part of the company they worked for and wealth generation was more evenly spread, less extreme. Corporation tax related to social initiatives to create a society that attracts the best people and businesses not only for bank balance wealth. That sort of socialism. Or, wages to corporate profit ratio simply rebalanced.

Less forced work. More opportunity, fewer barriers to explore the world and/or the inner world in terms of finding your place, funding what you can excel at, fluidity of access to education during working life.

Just curious. Why limit the “fluidity” of access to education to someones working life?

Why limit the “fluidity” of access to education to someones working life?

Didn’t intend to imply any limits for education in the years before or after working life.

Ah thanks that is cleared up then

So you filled the the roles through financial inducement, that’s not socialist, it’s capitalist.

I think that any system needs some elements of capitalism and some of socialist. I don’t really care what label you want to stick on it, it doesn’t really matter.

Currently we appear to have a system that “privatises the gains, publicises the losses” and hoovers up wealth into the top 0.1%

Yes, we do – but I’d phrase it slightly differently. The lack of a ‘system’ ends up creating this outcome.  It’s not like its a complex system designed this way, it’s the result of a less effective system.  I think a lot of Tories like to talk about ‘small government’ as being a good thing – they don’t like being told what to do, or having limits placed on their behaviour. It is of course a convenient side-effect of this approach that certain people can make lots of money. I think some people aren’t quite honest with themselves that the potential to make money is why they like the small government idea, and some may not even realise it consciously.  However, if they were at the other end of society they’d realise it pretty damn quickly.

Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of poor people who dream only of wealth, regardless of how it’s achieved. Probably vote conservative for this reason.

For me, a socialist utopia would encapsulate the following values:

solidarity

unity

equity

Easier said than done, though!

So to the socialists out there, what does the utopia look like?

Denmark and Finland are both examples of countries which are based around modern socialist values.

There are plenty of poor people who dream only of wealth

The reasons for that are more complex than it first appears.  What people really want is control over their own lives.  Money can give you that.

Denmark and Finland are both examples of countries which are based around modern socialist values.

Is zero asylum seekers a policy which fits in with modern socialist values?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/25/zero-asylum-seekers-denmark-forces-refugees-to-return-to-syria

I suppose you can be both socialist and racist, no?

Is zero asylum seekers a policy which fits in with modern socialist values?

Fair point.  I was more focused on addressing some of the OPs original questions around social welfare.

“Down with the admin fee!

Our society requires a certain number of man hours worked to function, Ok close all the coffee shops and other non essential services, retailer outlets, hospitality, entertainment etc and you reduce the man hours need to make society work but we’d still be short and God would it be boring.

You are viewing it through the eyes of the world you are living in and seem to be limiting yourself by that.

Maybe a better question would have been what does a utopia look like as many of the socialist parts are a given if the utopia is society wide rather than personal.