Memes

What? There are plenty of communist Lemmy subs you can ask in. I just think you haven't tried hard enough.

To answer your question tho, no - because there would be no need. Communism does want mandatory participation, but if checked and balanced correctly everyone would work within their limits and not be relegated to a lower class of living - because that's sort of the point of communism. You'd work within your means until there was time to retire without being limited in access to services and goods. Theoretically, under a functioning communist system, there would be no manufactured scarcity.

Tbh I believe both communism and our current form of capitalism centralises power and ownership way too much. Social-capitalism, or even libertarian socialism, might be the ticket. It would undo at least 200 years of psy-ops and gamed laws designed to favour the rich and vesting power in them, which is the issue of centralised power that we're facing today - in what some call "late-stage capitalism" - or what I call the breaking point of society under a predatory, exploitative and imperialistic form of capitalism that seems more like the privatisation of the aristocracy than the supposed liberalisation of economy. Transparency, accountability and consequences for people in power and wealth is what's sorely needed.

PS: New public management is a con-job disguised as decentralisation meant to encumber governments under the guise of checking and balancing them, being effectively a psy-op in of itself to make people hate public services and taxes. As per usual, goddamn liberals - and I include socially conservative liberals in that polifical grouping. Dems and pubs are the same, want the same institutions and promote US imperialism - not fiscal independence, no matter what justification and mental gymnastics they put in the form of spreadsheets.

PPS: Also, additionally, commodification of the housing market was a mistake. It will always be stupid and harmful towards society.

I can only answer as capitalist. FIRE relies on accumulated interest. For workers it should be the same if 10 billionaires or 100,000 FIRE investors own their companies.

UBI should be fairer.

Both scenarios are the same. Work 20 years hard and then stop working.

The FIRE owner have an interest in low wages for the workers whereas in UBI, more income for workers could mean more to be shared.

Let me put it this way. For capitalism to continue there's an ever-marching goal of exponential profit. To get more profit you must work harder and the company must pay you less and work you longer. At some point you will be crushed. Nothing can expect exponential returns, yet capitalism constantly expects that.

Communism wouldn't need retirement because such a society wouldn't have an exponential motive for existence. Work would be done as needed instead of constantly more and more and more. I wouldn't mind being in my 80's and still "working" because all the work I'd do would have a direct positive result on my community instead of more money for someone pocketing the excess value of my labor over what they paid me.

Besides, who would need to push papers around for companies in an economic system that is moneyless and stateless? (communism is literally moneyless and stateless so USSR, China, Valenzuela, etc. are not communist since they have a state)