Conversation

Replying to
I think the goal of marginal - or, better, substantial and long-term - improvements in the daily lives of ordinary people has the potential to free up a huge number of wasted hours of people's lives and give the breathing room to make much bigger changes.
2
Replying to
Yes. But the "many, not the few" slogan is pretty pitiable when you understand how many of the profits of how many people's economic activity are needed.
1
Replying to
You want a Norway-esque UK, yes? It will work up to a point, but requires a substantial resource drain on everywhere else. The equilibrium state is neocolonialism. Not saying Brits shouldn't vote Labour. Saying we need to do better than social democracy as a planet. Layers, etc
1
Replying to
For sure, it's a drop in the ocean compared to what's really required - but whenever anything close to the necessary changes start to be made, those at the bottom get hit first and hardest. A fairer system across the board should even out the inevitable pain that is to come.
1
Replying to
Oh by all means. Let all nations form states, then nationalize, if for no other reason than to crash a broken system so it can be replaced.
1
1
Replying to
That's it for me. Same thing with Basic Income; I don't actually think it would solve anything - it might even prolong a flawed system - but it could be a very useful stepping stone if it was implemented properly and defended at all costs.
1
Replying to
I think if the current power gave us UBI, it wouldn't really be UBI. So we need decent people in positions of power first, then local UBI (or other such society-changing measures), then a substantial movement to save the world as we know it in a way that doesn't kill poor people.
1