Hacker News Reader

Comment by c-smile | Hacker News Reader

Yep. Evolutionary way to get to communism where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [1]

[1] "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...", circa 1875

View on HN

I don't see how you can relate this to communism. Sounds more like oligarchy/roman empire: a few own almost everything, but most have almost nothing and are being controlled with bread and games. Marxism is the opposite where everything is owned by everyone (in theory).

What would be the name of the society where, say, 30,000 people + technology produce enough food and goods to satisfy the needs of the rest of Earth population?

So those people will get whatever they need for life but will not be technically obligated to produce anything.

We will first switch to 4 day working week, then 3 and so on, right? We will see Universal Basic Income "experiments" [1] more often until they become a norm.

At least we are on the way to all this...

[1] https://weall.org/resource/finland-universal-basic-income-pi...

For a fictional example, you can look at the United Federation of Planets, from Star Trek.

Some suggestions for naming this, depending on how you organize ownership, redistribution, who gets to decide what you need: paternalism, welfare capitalism, neo-feudalism, technofeudalism, welfare state, social democracy, UBI-and-oligarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy.

We are already in a position where we could house and feed everyone, but we choose not to do so. Instead a few own almost everything, money gets spend on killing people, instead of feeding them.

If we choose not to do it now, i don't see how we can make UBI work in the future.

Imagine literally being afraid of communism in 2025. I don't know if you noticed but there haven't been any communists in quite a while.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com