Ask Lemmy

Socialism would certainly work better than capitalism does. Under capitalism, because every company is driven to increase profits and the rate of profits, we have tons and tons of:

• Production of shit we don't need (which people buy because of desire manufactured by marketing and a sense of having little control or meaning in their lives)
• Overproduction of shit we do need (e.g. fast fashion)
• The replacement of diversity with monoculture everywhere, making ecosystems less resilient and outright destroying them
• War for resources among competing empires and companies

In a socialist society (and, I would argue, a [libertarian socialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism society) society in which there were systems in place to prevent the accumulation of power), the base incentives of the system should be to fulfill human needs and promote human flourishing, as part of a web of ecosystems on Earth, and not to make a profit.

Here are a few examples of how that would make society much more efficient in its use of resources:

• We wouldn't need to produce useless things for profit like superyachts or fast fashion. Instead, we could produce high-quality, long-lasting clothing and come up with interesting ways to wear, share, and repair it.
• Instead of growing mostly crops to feed livestock, produce corn syrup and other flavorings/additives, and ethanol (as we do in the US); we could grow a greater diversity of human-edible, nutritious food.
• We wouldn't need to manufacture desire for consumption through marketing
• We wouldn't have to fight or exploit each other to gain market access
• Programs like universal free healthcare would make for a healthier population that would need less emergency medical care
• People would have more agency in their own lives and more say over the decisions that affect their community, which would provide a level of satisfaction that would reduce "retail therapy"

I would also argue that there is no true socialism if it is not anti-hierarchical, which includes liberation and full bodily autonomy for everyone having childbearing anatomy. Among other things, that means the right to choose when and when not to have a child.

If we could achieve a libertarian socialist commune-of-communes in which we could guarantee ourselves and each other a dignified and abundant standard of living, in which we could provide for the varying needs of different kinds of people instead of demanding that we fit one or two pre-approved molds, and which has mechanisms to prevent the accumulation of power, then I think we can turn to questions about the number of humans who can exist on Earth, how we might travel the stars to find/create additional homes, and so on.