[beaconstudios]

the economy is not a binary choice between "pay people subsistence wages" and "don't pay them at all". We could pay people better, invest in the development of underdeveloped countries that we exploit (no, IMF loans do not count). We could focus on helping people instead of exploiting them for profit. Many options are available.

[yetihehe]

Why don't you do this? If you don't have resources for this, why do you think other people have them? Ask yourself honestly, if you won a lottery yesterday, would you give it away to those workers in underdeveloped countries? I would not, because I'm too greedy, but I don't think you would really give money away either, and I supported Ukraine with about $100, which is probably the biggest donation I have done in my life, many people could live on it for two weeks where I live. Many options are available, but not all of them are as good as just giving them jobs. And if you wanted to give them better paying jobs - who will pay? Would you pay more for some laptop because it supported some unknown person on the other side of earth? Why don't you just send them some money today? You have that option after all.

[beaconstudios]

Putting aside the fact that I do try to help people out financially where I can - this is just a deflection from reform. We ended slavery because it was immoral, and I'm sure there were people saying "if you love slaves so much, why don't you buy slaves and free them yourself" at the time. While it's possible to do that on an individual basis, that doesn't lead to the end of slavery, which itself should not exist at all. Neither should exploitation of poor countries by rich ones. I'm sure you realise that this is bad.

[yetihehe]

Of course, I'm whole heartedly with you in that matter, I don't think many people here would be against such cause. I wish people in underdeveloped countries earned at least as much as I do. I just would like to see that "many options" you talk about. Typically people who claim that "someone should do something about this" are just publicly grouching and I just don't like that. Either give some substantial way to achieve your goal, or don't comment. You are adding noise to noise/signal ratio.

[beaconstudios]

The "many options" I'm talking about are otherwise known as "left-wing politics". Unionisation, building a cooperative-based economy, UBI (though for some reason this has right-wing support too), minimum wages, nationalising important industries and resources, building systems of mutual aid, honestly I could go on for a while. Equality versus hierarchy is what the left-right political struggle is about, after all.

[yetihehe]

Apparently those options are not good enough to be implemented.

- Unionisation - helped for a while, then those companies where it was implemented didn't survive because they could not make anything effectively.

- building a cooperative-based economy - would be nice in theory if all people could cooperate. But in reality, they do not, there will be freewheelers who game the system.

- UBI - not tried yet is the only difference between UBI and communism. So, it's good but only in theory, we don't know practice yet. I personally believe it's the best solution out there, but life may verify that like communism.

- minimum wages - we have minimum wages in Poland, they don't help that much, but weren't updated and inflation eaten them away.

- nationalising important industries and resources - all nationalised resources are being wasted away for political reasons sooner or later. I know this from practice

- building systems of mutual aid - that helps, but if nationalised - they are squandered for political reasons. If commercial - being squandered due to greed. But yes, they are mostly working in most countries.

Options are many, implementable are not.

[beaconstudios]

> Apparently those options are not good enough to be implemented.

These options have actively been opposed by those in power, because left wing politics weaken their power. Case in point, all those coups backed by the US government against left-wing governments.

> Unionisation - helped for a while, then those companies where it was implemented didn't survive because they could not make anything effectively.

Not true - Hollywood is heavily unionised to this day. I'm curious to know why you believe this though; is it just an assumption because we don't see many union shops these days, or do you have other reasons to believe this? Because there are other reasons to credit for the lack of unions nowadays, namely anti-union propaganda and deliberate weakening of unions by neoliberal politicians (which is basically all of them nowadays, but Reagan and Thatcher are the classic anti-union tag team).

> - building a cooperative-based economy - would be nice in theory if all people could cooperate. But in reality, they do not, there will be freewheelers who game the system.

That's not what a cooperative economy is. A cooperative economy is an economy based in cooperatives; basically a company but owned by the people who work there.

> UBI - not tried yet is the only difference between UBI and communism

At least we're in agreement that UBI could be good. Love the 'real communism has never been tried' reference though.

> minimum wages - we have minimum wages in Poland, they don't help that much, but weren't updated and inflation eaten them away.

Yes, minimum wages should be pegged to standards of living. Otherwise politicians intentionally don't update them so they become redundant.

> nationalising important industries and resources - all nationalised resources are being wasted away for political reasons sooner or later. I know this from practice

That's not universally true. They're certainly trying to disassemble nationalised healthcare here in the UK, but it's usually done by right-wing politicians who are anti-nationalisation anyway.

> building systems of mutual aid - that helps, but if nationalised - they are squandered for political reasons. If commercial - being squandered due to greed. But yes, they are mostly working in most countries.

Mutual aid is community networks of people who help each other out, not a national or economic political project.

I do understand the skepticism around leftist politics - after all, many have failed under pressure from right-wing power structures. Some have devolved into worse systems than the ones they opposed (though it's important to point out that libertarian socialists and anarchists opposed the USSR right from the beginning). But don't assume that because leftism is not currently winning, it's because it's inherently flawed, rather than facing a stronger opponent that must be overcome.