Assuming the title to be accurate, what is a good way for the working class (90%+ of all humans) to save and succeed in this current environment?

  • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Realize that all forms of currency are ultimately a grift to allow a class of violent weirdos to claim ownership over the fruits of our labor and that we could actually just share things with each other without commerce

    • aviation_hydrated@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I can see this point, but how else do we store our spent engery? I personally don’t want to be working when I’m 90 and the current only option is I have enough saved up something-that-holds-value long enough that I can pay for food and taxes (assuming I can own land)

      I understand the frustration, but we are sadly dealt these cards and must play or… And there isn’t much another option

      • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        100%. We all play the game because if we don’t we die. The metaphor you see all the time is that the reason were all swimming in this sea of capitalism is because if we don’t we drown. Our participation is not representative of consent I don’t really know what we do in the short and medium term but long term we need to kill capitalism

  • Anna@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Stockpile canned beans they will become the most valuable currency once the WW3 starts.

    #NotAFinancialAdvice

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The objection about a “finite planet” is about capitalism, not currency. A 100% communist system can still have fiat currency and function perfectly well, the two aren’t even related.

    It’s capitalism you don’t like, not money.

    • nfh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s a question of the most stable thing to use to mediate value for exchange of goods and services, right? Fiat currency is just the choice of “the state” as a stabilizing force. Certainly it’s better than trusting the scarcity of rare metals, but eventually “just trust the state” will become a problem, and we’ll need to think about rebasing currencies. In theory, computational complexity isn’t a bad choice, but nobody has come up with a solution that actually functions well as a currency.

      But I agree, the finite planet has nothing to do with any failings of fiat currencies, and only makes sense as a failing of the “number must go up” mentality endemic to capitalism.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Communism: A classless, moneyless society, based on the principle of “to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability”.

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I think you’re conflating communism and socialism a bit.

        Communism is a classless society where it is “from each according to their ability to each according to their needs”. Moneyless is often mentioned as well, but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary.

        Socialism is a transitional stage on the way to communism, where the working class controls the state (having taken it from the capitalist class’ control), and it is usually described as “from each according to their ability to each according to their labor,” though when they say that I don’t think they really mean that those who can’t perform labor should simply starve.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said “neither is moneyless.” What’s being conflated?

          And it’s worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word “moneyless,” clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).

          • davel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah you’re right. Sorry, @[email protected]!

            I didn’t say that neither is moneyless, only that I don’t think it’s strictly necessary for a society to be moneyless in order to be considered communist.

              • davel@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                You seem to think that money and capital are one and the same; they are not.

                Do European nations have “a bit of socialism”? Has the working class wrested control of the state from the capitalist class? Have they abolished private ownership of the means of production? No, in fact they’re becoming more and more neoliberal, where the working class has less and less influence on the state.

  • finley@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Socialism. The problem here isn’t with currency, it’s with capitalism.

    • aviation_hydrated@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Haven’t you seen how every time this has been done it leads to dictators and coups and massive starvation?!

      Yeah, it could be a faulty system or we just keep trying it in states that have enemies that don’t want it to succeed. I’ll have to do more research from more modern thinkers, because yeah capitalism isn’t sustainable without heavy regulation since humans are human…

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        A moneyless society that scales up to billions of people is unlikely to be possible

        Postcapitalist alternatives that use currency to facilitate trade between actors without social ties seem much more plausible
        @asklemmy

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Do you have socialism at home? Because if you’re in Europe, no, you don’t.

        Do you have fiat money at home? Because if you’re in the Eurozone, no, you really don’t, because you don’t have monetary sovereignty.

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          How is a lack of national monetary sovereignty relevant to whether or not a currency is a fiat currency? The euro isn’t backed by anything, it’s as much a fiat currency as any other.

          • davel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It is fiat money, it’s just that it’s not theirs, meaning their country’s government. It’s the unelected, undemocratic private bank cartel that has control of it.

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Most central banks are run by unelected civil servants appointed by the head of government or a similar position/body. By this logic, the US dollar, Japanese yen, Chinese renminbi, and British pound equally do not belong to those countries. The ECB is just subject to the heads of 27 governments instead of one.

              • davel@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                In the case of the US, the Federal Reserve is our “central bank,” and it too is largely the cartel of US private banks. But it doesn’t create new money—bank loan-created money notwithstanding—the Treasury does. And the system is intentionally made more complicated & opaque than necessary so that almost no one understands how it all works. So in practical terms you’re somewhat correct. But the US government isn’t as under the neoliberal thumb of the private banks as Europe is, at least when it comes to printing money for the military-industrial complex. Why the [US] Government Has Infinite Money

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Fiat can work fine on a finite planet, most money doesn’t even take up physical space anymore, just bits in an account ledger database. Ideally in the future governments will make sure their currency is backed or based on labor time, and nothing is technologically preventing that, nor is crypto-currency required for it.

    • aviation_hydrated@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The issue here is according to the Fed, the stakeholders get a 6% return, which is supposed to outpace inflation. So if the ones closest to the money printer get more every year, while the rest lose money due to inflation eating it, it doesn’t matter if it could theoretically work, it leads to an accumulation to the class system at the top while the lower classes must continually work forever since their savings are worth less every year

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Not OP, but as someone who was at one point excited by the potential of crypto, the ecosystem has moved more and more towards what it claimed to stand against initially

      It’s supposed to be decentralized, but things like mining pools have lead to heavy amounts of centralization in block production. If we look at Bitcoin, for an example, we see that over 51% of block production is controlled by just two mining pools. That’s not limited to just Proof of Work mining either. Proof of stake sees centralization in staking pools as well. That’s only just looking at one aspect of the network

      It has also not really been seen as a currency. People’s view of it as an “investment” which have the opposite qualities you really want to see. People are encouraged to hold it and never let go, meaning they won’t want to spend it which is adverse to its use as a currency. This has also lead to it being incorporated and dominated by the very financial systems it was initially supposed to move away from

      I don’t want to type out an essay, but I could keep going on in other ways that’s not really lived up to its promises.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Proof-of-work has inherent centralization pressures due to economy of scale. You get more profit per hash per second of mining power when you’ve got a bigger mining operation. That’s not the case for proof-of-stake.

      • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well, this is a fair criticism… of Bitcoin :)

        It’s supposed to be decentralized, but things like mining pools have lead to heavy amounts of centralization in block production. If we look at Bitcoin, for an example, we see that over 51% of block production is controlled by just two mining pools. That’s not limited to just Proof of Work mining either. Proof of stake sees centralization in staking pools as well. That’s only just looking at one aspect of the network

        Centralization of mining pools (and mining in general) is indeed a serious problem. In Monero we now have p2pool which is totally decentralized. For now it’s just shy of having 10% of total hash power, so there is a long road ahead, but we are moving there. ASIC resistant RandomX also helps to ensure mining decentralization.

        It has also not really been seen as a currency. People’s view of it as an “investment” which have the opposite qualities you really want to see. People are encouraged to hold it and never let go, meaning they won’t want to spend it which is adverse to its use as a currency. This has also lead to it being incorporated and dominated by the very financial systems it was initially supposed to move away from

        I don’t think this applies to Monero, which is more or less the only currency used in DNMs.

    • aviation_hydrated@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t agree with either of my statements, I’m just asking what people think of a new system. The current ones aren’t working for most living things on the planet in their current form, and it would be nice to have new thoughts

  • DontTakeMySky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Finding pockets of self sufficiency, or at least ways to prevent falling down to the bottom.

    Universal basic income helps this by making sure everyone has at least enough to live on.

    Homesteading and community gardens help this by making sure you at least have some basic amount of food available to you.

    Building walkable cities helps.this by allowing you to avoid or reduce the expenses of a car.

    Building resilient cities that leverage adaptive reuse help this by making it cheaper to start new small community businesses that keep money local.

    The solutions aren’t in the system of money we choose, it’s in building small sustainable ways to provide for basic needs, even in a small way.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m unsure of what a finite planet is referencing? Is op suggesting that economic limits are constrained to finite resources? This doesn’t take into account renewables, human creativity and a whole list of other things. If we create a matrix like environment where the limits can be expanded and create new products in that new environment we can still use fiat.

      • aviation_hydrated@infosec.pubOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think we need more restrictions on finances, so our human creativity can effect. What I see is that most advanced civilizations’ largest export is literal trash due to excess and waste, so I figured why not have a discussion about it

        Also, every fiat currency has failed in the two ways it can: hyperinflation or clout loss due to no trust in the issuing party (which tends to lead to hyperinflation). Innovation has stalled or at least hit the top of the S curve over the last 50 years, with mostly remixes of old ideas that tend to expedite the finite resources we have, so I don’t think technology will outpace inflation

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know why they’re conflating infinite money with finite resources. The two have no relationship to each other.

      • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Technically, Planet Earth is huge for us because we cannot use it efficiently or in a reasonable time, and we don’t even have to talk about the sun.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What do you mean fiat doesn’t work on a finite planet? Current economic models certainly don’t work on a finite planet, but fiat was here before them and will be here after they are long gone.

    what is a good way for the working class (90%+ of all humans) to save and succeed in this current environment?

    There isn’t one. A big chunk of that class can do just fine and you probably already have good normative answers in that respect, but the current economic model is one that demands poverty. Even with all of the ridiculous developments in production we have, the available infrastructure even with the qualms we might have with it, and all the other things going for us that you might want to list, the closest that the current economic model has achieved to escaping its age-old need for having a sizeable portion of the able-bodied population unemployed is by slightly expanding that same portion and then having them sell themselves by the hour and minute in the Gig Economy. If you want that whole 90% of the population to all be able to do well, you need to change the system they are operating within.

  • Barx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The working class cannot win without overthrowing the owner class. The owner class is the ruling class and functions, under capitalism, to extract from the working class and make capital into more capital. It cannot escape this role so long as capitalism exists and the owner class is in charge. The fundamental mechanisms by which that system works is coercive on both classes. “Nice” members of the owner class are hammered into complacency through failure and exit (becoming working class again) or abandonment of their principals. Or they luck out and are minor and largely irrelevant, facing no competitors or predators. Real solutions require that we organize and spread class consciousness.

    On an individual level, you can try to protect yourself from some of the most extreme economic violences, but they are inherently limited. Fiat currency only has value because the issuer is “good for it” and you can use it as capital and for personal purchases of commodities. Crypto is not money at all, it is an unlicensed security. If your interest is in money-like things, I would recommend inflation hedge-alikes gold and real estate. But these require you to already have significant savings. And they are something to hawk in order to leave the country and cannot replace a functional economic base or allow you to weather a true crisis staying in the country. Having a backup shelf-stable food supply and means to boil water is also a good idea.

    Our fates are all tied together under this economic system. We will quickly starve and die of preventable disease in a real, sustained crisis, as it will disrupt agriculture and utilities. Only a stable productive base, a real economy that produces what humans need, can provide when borders close or trade halts. And, realistically, everything you can do as an inflation hedge is much better when done at the community level. Mutual aid is more effective than a personal bean stash (do both!). A network of like-minded people can secure travel and estimate when to leave vs. fight. You can buy real estate with less capital if you go in together. Etc etc.