and how a few societies in northern europe operate day to day. but for how long they can hold out from the short sighted and narrow minded is the question

Socialism does provide motivation for production. Just not as greedily as capitalism. Capitalism promotes excess and greed and inequality. Socialism promotes need being fulfilled. You work with the collective, you get. Also, with modern technology, automation would work wonders for socialism.

[struggle.ws]

"Despite the limitations of the Industrial revolution in Spain, it demonstrated clearly that the working class are perfectly capable of running factories, workshops and public services without bosses or managers dictating to them. It proved that anarchist methods of organising, with decisions made from the bottom up, can work effectivly in large scale industry involving the coordination of thousands of workers across many different cities and towns. The revolution also gives us a glimpse of the creative and constructive power of ordinary people once they have some control over their lives. The Spanish working class not only kept production going throughout the war but in many cases managed to increase production. They improved working conditions and created new techniques and processes in their workplaces. They created, out of nothing, a war industry without which the war against fascism could not have been fought. The revolution also showed that without the competition bred by capitalism, industry can be run in a much more rational manner. Finally it demonstrated how the organised working class inspired by a great ideal have the power to transform society."

[deleonism.org]

I'm with you. But what will we do for money?

@dare2dream Money is only necessary if you convince yourself we need it. Any metric which segregates us into classes is inherently going to corrupt itself into an oligarchic state. Segregation of that kind is both morally and ethically unsound. Period.

Something that harms a large percentage of the population and makes their lives unnecessarily difficult to benefit other individuals can be said to be objectively bad.

@Blindbird It can be easy to pick out extreme cases and call them good or bad, but it gets a lot fuzzier when the conditions are as extreme.
Is it right to sacrifice one person to save a million people? a thousand people? a hundred? ... ten?
Is it right to sacrifice one person for another person?
What if you didn't have to sacrifice them, but only chop off an arm?
Or they get fired from their job?
or they get a pay cut? (or paper cut - ha ha.)
what if the person who will be saved is your child and the person being sacrificed is a murder?
what if all the people involved are family members?
obviously the scenarios are endless and death doesn't have to be a part of them.
My point is, extreme cases are easy to call, but when the case isn't extreme at all, what might be ok in the mind of one person, might not be ok in the mind of another. And perhaps there is no clear right or wrong in some situations.

[theconversation.com]

@scurry most of the harm done to people is NOT in the name of saving others. That argument is at best disingenuous. By far the most harm done to the greatest number of people is and historically has been in the name of the profit motive. Let's have an argument that more accurately reflects tge state of things at the moment shall we? How peoples lives is protecting one billionaires or corporations massive profits. One life? Millions of lives? How many people need to die to protect health insurance, hospitals and big pharmas assets. To keep them "free" to keep strangling americans in debt so a priveleged few may benefit?

@Blindbird I hear ya. And while i personally find it appalling, i recognize that it's my opinion, (and perhaps the opinion of millions of others as well) but only an opinion.
Yes - there is certainly an argument to have here and when it comes down to it, I'm fairly certain that we are on the 'same side', but there could still be an argument for either side.
Consider "Survival of the Fittest".
The biggest, strongest ... Lion... theoretically gets the lioness and passes on his bloodline.
In essence, the biggest, strongest & richest ...Humans... are doing just that.
I'm not saying I agree. I'm not saying it's right. I'm simply drawing a comparison. Is what's ok in the animal kingdom frowned upon for humans, even though that's how we got to be where we are as a species? and indeed, how the rich and powerful got rich and powerful?
Again - I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

I'd like to think that we have plenty of viable replacements. The problem is they are mutually exclusive in their truest forms. That combined with the fact that people don't normally like change for fear of social ostracization and elite/government retaliation slows, retards and outright stops the process of transition to better systems.

Especially the night before Thanksgiving and Christmas. Unregulated capitalism in its purest form.

Watch as cops arrest people picking through the garbage that’s thrown out. Watch as many items in the store are beyond the economic reach of the workers that stock those shelves.

@Prescott whole foods maybe, but Kroger or Giant Eagle have many items priced what the market will bear

@jwd45244 definitely not Kroger. I used to work at one and it wasn’t uncommon to have food drives to help feed needy employees in the Kroger “family.”