[impossiblefork]

Actually, as someone who dislikes capitalism, I don't like UBI. I think UBI is something which allows capitalism to continue even after it's sell-by-date. Historically, like a couple of years ago, my view wasn't weird among critics of capitalism either. We saw UBI as a liberal stabilization policy.

Sort of like how public education too, is a policy that is straight-up communism 'to each according to his need', and something which is required in order to stabilize a capitalist system.

But I don't want communism. I want socialism 'to each according to his contribution'. Of course, the Marxists believe that that's just a temporary phase and will fade away into communism, but I think you can get many kinds of communism, some rather bad, and although I don't agree with the Marxists on this point, and want socialism for itself, I also think the path through a 'to each according to his contribution' phase is likely to lead to better kinds of communism than what you'd out of a stabilized capitalism that ends up adopting more and more elements of communism to stabilize itself.

[specialist]

You wrote:

> UBI is something which allows capitalism to continue even after...

Strong agree with this statement. UBI is (yet another) monkey patch.

OC writes:

> Economic systems do not evolve like software updates; they shift like tectonic plates. They hold steady for long periods, storing pressure, then rupture.

Yup. Our economy is a complex adaptive system. Any equilibrium is short-lived and will soon collapse (aka chaos).

The recurring need to resuscitate (resurrect) our economy is the norm. More so as it has become larger and more complex.

Requiring hot fixes like debt forgiveness (help the little people) and bailouts (elites feeding at the public trough).

This cycle, pattern, trait, whatever of our classic liberal capitalism is intrinsic.

I am totally fine with it. Whatever keeps the trains running.

The aspect that pisses me off is the growing inequity. I strongly prefer debt forgiveness over bailouts. But, hey, that's just me.

Alas, we consider wealthiness a moral trait, so our political economy disallows straight up debt forgiveness (cuz moral hazard, derp derp). Bailouts are the sole remaining option (totally not a moral hazard).

The short periods when our nation does (ever so slightly) favor Labor over Capital, it's been in the form of handouts (eg Farmstead Act) and govt spending (Keynesianism 1.0 (FDR, LBJ) and 2.0 (Biden)).

You wrote:

> I want socialism 'to each according to his contribution'.

What about the young, disabled, and infirm? What even counts as disabled? Ad nauseum...

I've thought long and hard about this. Socialism, Communism, Liberal Capitalism, oh my!

TBH, I can't make sense of any of it. The complex dance involving morality, government, society, economies, etc. Any reading recommendations? The more modern, the better. TIA.

I did manage to distill what I want to just 2 points and 1 IDK:

   1) Help people help themselves, as best able.

   2) Also, help people who cannot help themselves.

   ?) TBD WRT anti-social behavior. I'll support anything that actually works.

I don't care what form of society, politics, or economy can achieve what I want. I don't care what the norm of "everyone helping everyone" is called.

Okay, rant over. Peace.

[impossiblefork]

Yes, absolutely, even if I want socialism, some welfare state stuff is of course necessary not to have an absolutely horrid society. We'll have to pay pensioners and take care of people who end up born with Down's Syndrome etc.

Also, some of your quotes aren't actually from my comment, have you run this through an LLM or something?

[specialist]

Sorry "OP" probably should have been "OC" for original content. And it probably should've been a separate reply (avoiding topic drift).

[impossiblefork]

Oh, I see.

No, it's not confusing it all, I just sort of filed your comment as slightly disordered and then didn't give it the focus it needed, so I missed it, but it's perfectly sensible.