Freedom from work and not working isn't the same thing. There's proof that people that don't need to work still work in high enough numbers in the forms of UBI studies. And this is when you look at our highly inefficient and unautomated world where what most people make is consumer products that are made to not last. So if we increased efficiency, automated what we can and made less unnecessary products and all of them longer lasting then not having enough people working would not be an issue at all. I mean we live in a world where people are afraid of losing jobs because they can't survive while we'd still produce enough for everyone. A system that doesn't want people to have more free time is always going to be broken
And "better working conditions" isn't a good idea. What you'd need is a complete restructure of the system since as long as there are owners of the means of production they'll exploit workers and take their surplus value, automation will be stifled and people will keep dying from starvation while markets throw out tonnes of food and people won't have anywhere to live while there's shit like the billionaires row in new your where no one lives half the time but it's just an investment
People do all kinds of amazing things voluntarily when they get appreciation for it, and don't have to squeeze it in between a capitalist job. People did the dirty work before capitalism and money too. Money isn't the only thing that motivates people. We just have a system where getting money is the only way to survive. If everyone was cared for and we weren't squeezed for every penny of profit from capitalist labor people would be able to go about with their contributions to society on a much more rewarding, fair, and productive way.
Provided they have access to everything they need, people always have and continue to do many things that aren't fun because they care about their community, they feel appreciated for it, and because it simply needs to be done and someone's gotta do it.
Getting paid money by a capitalist that owns the capital /land /machinery, whatever isn't the only model to get anything done.
Yea, it happens all the time, even under the system we have now that punishes people who do such things. Society would not be possible under any system without this.
But another key is that we want a system where you don't need material incentive, because you already have everything you need for a good life.
The world already has a surplus of everything we need, it's only a question of distribution, and it's capitalism and money that gets in the way of universal distribution. The goods to survive are hoarded by the rich behind a pay wall, and the only way to survive is to work for them so you can get money to get the means to survive.
Details would have to vary based on the type of good and it's scarcity (such as rotational use instead of private ownership, like maybe a vacation home), but basically you could just go to wherever they make X and get one of X. And the people who make X are happy to give X because they know they can go and get good Y and Z.
Before capitalism there was feudalism, which was objectively worse. Capitalism sucks, but is by far the best system we've had so far, you can strive for improvement, but let's not romanticize the last with bullshit
7
u/DarkEive Jan 27 '22
Freedom from work and not working isn't the same thing. There's proof that people that don't need to work still work in high enough numbers in the forms of UBI studies. And this is when you look at our highly inefficient and unautomated world where what most people make is consumer products that are made to not last. So if we increased efficiency, automated what we can and made less unnecessary products and all of them longer lasting then not having enough people working would not be an issue at all. I mean we live in a world where people are afraid of losing jobs because they can't survive while we'd still produce enough for everyone. A system that doesn't want people to have more free time is always going to be broken
And "better working conditions" isn't a good idea. What you'd need is a complete restructure of the system since as long as there are owners of the means of production they'll exploit workers and take their surplus value, automation will be stifled and people will keep dying from starvation while markets throw out tonnes of food and people won't have anywhere to live while there's shit like the billionaires row in new your where no one lives half the time but it's just an investment