If all basic needs were met (food, shelter, and medical), could socialism work (without the need for wars or famine to reduce the population)?
If all basic needs were met (food, shelter, and medical), could socialism work (without the need for wars or famine to reduce the population)?
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:
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:
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.
The problem is profits is what drives innovation, research and development. Without the incentive to improve your own situation you are not motivated to innovate and improve the life of everyone. That’s why it is doomed to fail.
Love your insight here, thank you!