You having the idea that I don't critique capitalism
If if I was the villain you have in your head
Uno reverse! Or whatever the card is
There you go w the assumptions again. In reality I never said that.
You need to take your own advice.
I never said "you don't criticise capitalism". I was trying to understand why you're holding the "ideal" form of communism to standards you hold no other ideology or society to.
Curiousity isn't that curious if you repeatedly approach it from a hostile angle. You need to be more open and accepting of different paradigms. This thread would've gone a lot better with that, but instead you moved the goalposts yourself from
starting in an "ideal communist society" and then repeatedly challenging people to prove how we get to the ideal society in the first place.
Ubi is tricky. I think a very basic Ubi that keeps someone alive but not very comfortably would benefit society. As would free education and vocational training. If you got all that and still were stuck you could still survive but you wouldn't have any excuses as to why you couldn't go further.
"UBI" has "basic" in the name. If you want a "basic UBI", you want a
reduced UBI. It doesn't seem to me that you support it, despite often saying that you do?
I'm not framing this as criticism, I'm trying to work out where your line is. Because it's relevant to an ideal communist society, right? If you think society relies on "excuses" not to go further it feels really like you have a fundamental issue with the entire concept of such a utopian concept. You don't think we're fit for it or something?
Like yes, I'm assuming. But I'm trying to understand, so work with me here.
And what incentives are there are in an ideal communist society, amusing no form of authoritarianism is involved?
I answered this a while back, when you first asked.
Hi! Would you like to do this thing?
If I didn't work, I'd still write software. I specialise in tools and processes that help people do their jobs better - and that's a preference I've developed in my spare time (and professionally ofc, but I tend to create things for our clients more there).
How would I buy things for myself if there is no incentive for an income?
I don't really have much experience talking about income-less systems. But if you're simply talking about a society where we still have money (or the like) . . . exactly as we do for luxury goods now?
Am I misunderstanding you?
If I had money, and wanted a piece of artwork, I'd commission it. They could use this money to indulge in whatever they like. If they have no need for money, then the hypothetical spirals further. They could say no. They could offer it for free. They could trade for another service.
It's obvious that were both using very different definition of "coerce". I do not see it that way as it's ultimately up to the individual to make their own choice, not some shadowy cabal.
Coercion is coercion, regardless of the force exerting it.
Have you never been in a no-win position? A situation where your choice can't alter the outcome in the slightest?
I'm not even talking harm reduction. I'm saying "whatever you do, the same effective result happens". Starving to death because you need money to buy the basic amount of food your body needs to survive is the same as being starved to death by any other means. The difference is the shape of the force imposing it.
I feel like this is an "institutional vs. personal" issue at its core. That said, you seem fine with attributing issues to the institution of communism (well, Communism via the USSR or China, but I'm not getting on a tangent there). So maybe it's a bit of not seeing the institutional picture combined with a dislike of the Communist regimes mentioned?