Obviously, I’d love to come with some useful solutions to this whole story that started with discussion of UBI. In a sense, I’ve worked on this for a long time, but not in the context of economics such as UBI. So let’s see what I can do with that. As I said, you have to start by collecting all the data you have to define the problem, potential solutions, and what is known about those solutions. The problem is that you have to write the important data you find and then start over from the end to describe the conclusions that come from it. Basically you have to write forward to collect data and reach conclusions, but then you have to write backwards, stating your conclusions and then the (edited) supports for your conclusions. That raw research data is in the next "folded" section and includes Democracy, Classism, Marx, Socialism, The Wealth Of Nations... It might be of interest. There is a Fascinating Conversation About Class, Economics and Socialism below that I found and highly recommend

I often cover a lot of intellectual ground, so another way I often like to learn well known subjects is by debate. I read multiple opinions, presumably often opposing, and try to synthesize from them what the truth is and what is important. It's like how ballot propositions offer "Argument For, "Argument Against" and "Rebuttal".

Also, I'm good at logic and reason, so I naturally start at starting points and see how the reasoning about something developed. Early ideas like democracy or socialism, usually have problems, but you can see how and why they develop after that. It's why I looked at The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith for this, a flawed but very good primer on how economics has been looked at historically. Socialism is a great case about this. This is like some folks that like to damn Christianity by citing the rather brutal practices of the Old Testament, archaic and superseded practices for a brutal world, while intentionally ignoring the philosophies offered in the New Testament that are essential to civilization. Socialism is an ancient idea, but a recent concept of socialism was 'state" ownership of the means of production, or for that matter, all ownership (Marx). This has long been considered a failed idea, but is still used to define socialism by those that would like to discredit it. A far more sophisticated and honest view of all political and economic systems (the problems) is required if you want to come up with useful solutions.

Note that Cory's important point about motivation and "socialism" is an old question, commented upon as the Lotus Eaters of the Oddyssey.
 
Warning, it's the kind of analysis I like to do when asked a complicated question and I want to work out an organized answer for myself. I'm afraid they mostly annoy people, but it's just my curiosity wanting to understand something  complicated. Simple answers are useless, so don't look for them.

The future is unknown so this about defining the problem, providing solutions to the problem, as well as providing understandings of the problem. That understanding can be more valuable. With that, you can find mistakes then, and even work to correct them. Still, here is the solution. It requires adaptation by the system and the individual. The details follow The details follow

The System:
Will require equitable laws, which can currently only be provided by democracy.
The system will have to allow change because we are in a time of change. Ruling classes from kings to oligarchs do not like change. They also tend to monopolize resources the society at large needs.
Private capitalism is necessary to all societies, but must be restricted to limit individual's power, because power attracts psychopaths. (THis is true for political bodies including "monarchies", democracies, oligarchies and theocracies.
Health care and education will have to be considered investments instead of cost centers.
Housing will have to be affordable.
Raising a family will have to be affordable.
The system will have to be predictive and active, to exploit possibilities and avoid dangers.

The Individual:
Genetics: 
Humans will need to use artificial selection to replace the natural selection we have removed and called Human Progress. This is partly to compensate for the "de novo" mutations that happen every generation. It is also to lower the cost of the energetic (resource) equation of human survival. It will also allow positive selection, selecting for the child to get the best genes from both parents, something Natural Selection cannot do. It will have the "economic" and personal benefit of offering high quality "health, beauty and brains". Just as importantly it will allow the adaptation to the very novel ecology we need to adapt to. Note that this is not about changing the bell curve on the right. This is about moving the left towards the right. The genes are very available, so aritificial selction should allow a minimum IQ of what we now call 100.

Strategic:
Humans will also need Majic (below), the interaction between human neurology (instincts), knowledge contained in philosophy, culture, and choice. That is how you solve the motivation problem... and that is many different problems.

Humans will need a strategic system - knowledge from Philosophy and Science:
   a. That interacts with our neurons to create a high quality operating system for the brain.
   b. That teaches critical thinking skills so that a person can evalutae the truth of external and internal ideas.
   c. That provides the understandings that are critical to survival, but are not in the domain of science. 
   d. Science that describes and manipulates the physical world, including providing the resources humans need for survival.

... So there you have it, simple, my conclusions about what you will need, in the broader sense of UBI, after all this fucking around. Instead of "leaving the details for the reader", they are all laid out below. I hope you enjoy them.

As I have said before, I see the potential for a very bright future for humanity.
Oh, and thanks to all for the entertainment. This was a fun challenge.

More Details

I see some key economic and political points to consider when looking at UBI. I've always said the basic problem is the class war, but an awful lot of this can usefully also be called dominance behavior. A big problemfrom that is that it's not just about success by the "lower" class, but also there will be huge resistance from the "ruling" class.

A major problem that must be addressed was brought up early on, Cory brought up one of the great unknowns "Motivation", but really, what may be more important is "Purpose" because that leads to conscious motivations, and that is what matters in a society with automation where hunger is not going to be a person's main motivation. Also, purpose can protect one from the dangers of what the Greeks called "kinetic pleasures" ... wine, women, song, drugs ... not life.

That brings up another point worth keeping in mind. What are we trying to accomplish? What is our basic purpose? The big existential WHY question.
Biology says it is individual and evolutionary survival, the latter relates to the society and civilization that is the individual's life support system.
Philosophy says it is fulfillment(, which hopefully leads to some happiness).
These really should be kept in mind.

There is an insane amount written about socialism including a few Wikis, but I found one comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism that I think illustrates the problem we're looking for: Coercive Powers, that lead to the essence of Dominance, control.. Isn't that what it is all about? It has been in history. What does it mean now? It translates into 1. military coercion, 2. economic coercion, 3. legal coercion and 4. persuasive coercion . (Does limiting coercive powers mean freedom and liberty?)

So coercive power was primarily violence and military for the first few millennia of until ...say Rome. There was the economic power of merchants, but it was limited and easily controlled by military power. Then you added the persuasive power of the church. Then you developed the economic powers of commerce and persuasion of media in the Renaissance. That led to the Industrial age and the decline in hereditary military power (kings) due to technology. Economics grew in size and power. War became more based on economics. Democracy transferred power from rulers to people. Economic power got supercharged by computers. Huge corporations with monopolies have grown into economic powers. The internet and electronic media supercharged persuasive power, controlled by the wealthy. Private economic power has largely bought democratic politicians, willingly or unwillingly. ... and here we are. We are losing our political power we got with democracy. We become more subject to the powers of coercion. So how to get out of it? Should we even. Can we provide motivation without coercion?

Purpose, Motivation, incentive, or Inspiration?

This question started about UBI in response to the problem of automation and job losses. UBI is an economic solution, give some of the wealth generated by the society to people who cannot generate it for some reason. No matter what, that is a form of socialism, so get used to it and figure out what socialism would be needed to make the society with high automation work. It will be " most everything the current society provides" and some more... more than just UBI.
Currently Preamble to the US Constitution says it provides for a legal system, peace in the nation, the common defense, general welfare, liberty. It says nothing about economic security, though the legal system is supposed to support that.
There are other forms of socialism mentioned such as the Post Office... which got expanded to postal roads. Defense led to the Interstate Hiway System, which is socialism. Heck, much of the US infrastructure amounts to socialism, if often for businesses.
Let's make a fair assumption. To survive in modern times, a nation must consider health care and education to be mandatory investments, not cost centers. Now that's socialism, but would probably be accepted here. 
What's (problematically) left for survival is the needs for food and housing.
There are other details like Social Security which is a socialized Life Insurance system.
Get all those and you have what should be a functioning survival system, whether you call it socialism or not. It's really not that much. 
That would remove economic coercion . Democracy should eliminate military and legal coercion . A functional democracy should have laws to limit political bribery in its many forms... or you again get legal manipulation and coercion. The persuasive power of religion seems self limiting ove time. Zelinsky's ideas (and others) on limits of the oligarchs controlling media should limit media persuasive coercion  (along with other methods of propaganda). 

AI is leading to automation that will destroy perhaps the majority of jobs. Musk says the robots will create too much wealth to use. So we're back to motivation and purpose. 

"Milton Friedman argued that the absence of private economic activity would enable political leaders to grant themselves coercive powers, powers that, under a capitalist system, would instead be granted by a capitalist class, which Friedman found preferable."
Well, what about the opposite? The capitalists or oligarchs are now controlling the politics. At least you can theoretically vote out political leaders in a democracy.

As a basic premise of mine, while we are in the transition between ecologies, any ruling class is a problem because we are in a time of change and change is bad for any ruling entity.

We know it will include protecting democracy from the wealthy. Probably economics will have to transition from capitalism to some form of socialism just as politics transformed from kings to democracy (rule by citizens). So how to do that. 
Democracy is about who makes the laws.
Democracy was created to prevent the excesses of the monarchy, private power. Democracy is accepted as the standard now. A people can only be ruled with their consent. I suspect economics will go the same path, from private ownership to controlled ownership, which would be called socialism. That does not mean no private property or state directed industry. It would mean the economy is oriented around benefitting the citizens. Probably do the European thing of making 100% income tax past a certain amount of money. Prevent monopolies. Limit oligarch access to media like implemented by Zelinsky.
The government already funds much of mega businesses, including health care. Fossil fuel is one of the biggest private spoilers. Keep in mind, yes government can fail but Zukenberg just blew $70 billion on the Metaverse, a dumb idea was never as good as Second Life was. Musk is looking like an economic disaster and his contract to create the moon lander for the Artimis mission looks like a fail too. Starlink could vaporize from one collision. 

Very like Milton Friedman said: let people do what they want and they will fill needs.
Notice I haven't mentioned UBI. I was just getting there... and that motivation thing.... 
China's nuclear program sure looks to show better innovation than ours, but that is not a given. We have to see what American private innovation can create. Or it may be about that as the philosophers say, discipline matters more than genius.

Distributed systems are always more reliable. That matters. 

Again, the problem is coercive power. Is there another way to fight that? Yep, Majic. 
People need knowledge of charisma to prevent emotional coercion. That's a real potential problem as Trump has demonstrated. Even if you recognize emotional power, it's hard to resist.. 

What seems to be most needed to initially understand this problem is the evolution of power and of economics...

1. Motivation and Purpose - not really hit here, but extremely important and where this essentially started with Cory's comment. The solution involves Majic.

2. There were a few main forms of power to consider. 
a. The power to kill, controlled by the "king" and jealously guarded. 
b. Economic power, monopolized by rulers when they could, but it took the skills of merchants to make wealth, so it could not be monopolized. That seems comparable to the middle class. There were always crafters in the city, but they were not that important. 
c. There was also the moral and psychological power of religions, which tended to get trumped by the power to kill, but thrived symbiotically with the military ruling class. 
d. Machines, as the industrial age developed.

3. Greed. Greed is one of the most important drivers. It can be for security, addiction, but is most dangerous when used to gain dominance.

4. Law. The importance of law cannot be over stated. Without it, there is no order and predators run free. Without law, there can't be the contracts that businesses rely on.

4. There seems to be two political structures in the West that can dominate power. Ruling class/feudalism vs Democracy. Ongoing class war. What is a lot of this is about.

4. Ownership - private vs collective. How the class war is fought.
5. Corruption. Not to be underestimated. Atlas Shrugged was partly about the destructive power of economic corruption. 
6. War - Sort of obsolete after the rifled musket. ... sort of and drones may repeat that. What about AI? Mostly a bunch of unknowns. 
7. Incompetence, never underestimate it.

8. Corporations as people. Just a nightmare going in the opposite direction of history.

2. What is Capitalism?  
Capitalism - Most commonly defined as private ownership, free enterprise, and free markets, which is extremely deceptive. It is more useful to use the word as capitalism is the use of capital as a tool of productivity. All systems need to use this whether capitalist, socialist, communist, or theocratic, commercial. Nations also have human capital they can use on occasion, including for war, but that is out of the scope of this. Slavery is just economic capital like any machine.
The unfortunate and important thing is that that capital is more often being used as a means of control rather than of production.
The important thing is that ownership (and primogeniture which was how ownership was transferred... and fed the class war) provided critical economic order that preserved wealth and capital. (Different inheritance law/order is considered one of the greatest weakness of the Islamic world, why it has not developed economically like the West.)

The point is that ownership is not magic. It is an agreement, a law, that is necessary to provide order in the society, and has worked well, based on incentive.

Some History of Power and Economics 
2. Late in the history of Sumeria, an international ruling class developed in the West that was descended from warrior, scribe and priest castes. It exists today in the remnants of the monarchy of England. Through all of this, the social structure was feudalism, with a ruling class and a slave class (by any name). A middle class is an anomaly in this, but lets register it, because it did exist. Interesting. It was never registered. Even merchants were, and military engineers, but not commercial engineering really.

3. Ruling class/feudalism vs Democracy. Ongoing class war. What is a lot of this is about.
We know that feudalism in its many forms from Sumeria to North Korea was about a ruling group of some kind, dominating the society. That is in contrast to the democracies of many forms which are ruled for the benefit of the citizens. Consider it in terms of who controls the power instead of any uninterested parties that lead like Plato's Priest Kings. In the past, rule has been primarily by force, which was used to gain economic wealth and power. Democracy and peace turned out to be much more economical than war, and at the same time, economy became more important than guns, but also useful to make bullets.

War has often been about plunder and resources, but also about grudges and glory. Currently it looks uneconomical and renewables will make it more so. Now we tend to be in an economic class war turning into an information war (pioneered by Russia)

So what changed? Why did all the monarchies fall? Larger investments in the industrial age created military powr and outweighed political power. 

Here's a broad sweep of history in the West. (During this time, Majic was operating as well.)
1. Mostly feudalistic military based monarchic (family run) empires that peaked with Rome.
2. The Christian Church brought new philosophies and the Catholic Church remade society, organizing the monarchies by ordaining them as God's will.
3. Increasing commerce (economic wealth) and disruptions by disease (especially the Black death) disrupted the traditional order leading to the Renaissance which led to new ideas including printing that could spread ideas. Some of those ideas were political.  
4. Corruption, greed and new ideas damaged Church authority in a big way. 
5. Monarchies were always damaged by greed and corruption, but military power could manage that. 
6. Then with the industrial revolution, world wide trade, and development of the New World, there was a net increase in economic wealth (capital). With more capital, more could be done. This also exasperated the economic class war and exasperated greed which came back to haunt them.

One cannot underestimate the serendipity and importance of Democracy developing in America. Most national Constitutions since then, have been based around the American Constitution. This was an introduction of law governing the ruling class, which it really never had before. It was great for business. 
This was followed by Napoleon in France who also led to a democracy... after a bit of untidiness, and Napoleonic law (three judges) is far more common than any other system, such as America has.

Other dominoes were falling, so notably Tsarist Russia. The ideas of Socialism were being formulated, and communism to implement socialism where the existing monarchy/military ruling class would fight it.
Arguably, that was an outcome of the economics, increased wealth, of the industrial revolution.

Must not skip the American Civil War, when for the first time in history, a non-professional soldier (using rifled musket), could effectively fight a professional soldier of the military caste with his lifelong training. This was a huge change. Also, wooden warships became obsolete, but that was of less basic significance.

Then Germany took advantage of that fact about machines and war, and messed everything up. Empires vanished. Colonial politics changed. Colonialism is basically past and we are at the end of the monarchies now. The US is a great military power, Russia is spent and no one really knows about China. We face ecological disaster while renewable energy redefines what the past was.

This is now.

Is socialism like democracy? Democracy is supported by the belief that a government is only legitimate when based on the consent of the governed. What would that look like in economic terms? Would it only be a legitimate system if it served the people in general?

Goals. ... Non-coercive political and economic systems.

Moral instincts, Moral systems - Genes, Epigenetics. 

Occupational Castes and Classes
Historically... since the start of the cities in the West, say Sumeria and the city of Ur... It took different skills to make a city and so a civilization work. In the West this led to occupational castes with tribal (genetic) roots: peasants (farmers and herders) warriors (descended from herders), crafters to build the cities and economies, scribes and priests (who originally ran the cities and were related to the scribes). Later an international military based ruling class developed. Darlington never mentioned a merchant caste, but I always thought there was one.

This also naturally makes a classed society. The miller of grain naturally makes more wealth than the farmer that grows the grain. It is partly position and partly investment. The same thing applies to certain castes. The rulers have access to more wealth including taxes and trade. It makes the class war as old as civilization.
[Note the miller is making wealth by production. Traditionally the welathy classes did it by military dominatinn.]

There is an unusual aspect to human instincts, how they can be released. It is not just by an environmental event, imitation, or even by education, it is also by choice. Over and over in philosophy you see maxims that say that you are what you think. In the case of all advanced moral instincts, they must be taught and chosen to be fully released.
The point of the story below is that the old man gives the young man information about what paths (instincts) he has available and tells him that he has to make a choice of what path he will take. That information is extremely valuable.
Philosophy contains that information and far far more. The same story told below about instincts for conflict and cooperation, can be told about motivation and sloth. It is. Sloth is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins, very basic philosophy (though theoretically it needs to be expressed as its own maxim). 
The smaller point is that we need to teach motivation and teach to avoid sloth, making it clear that it is a decision, and explaining the reasons to make that decision, including the [vetted knowledge] outcome of the decision. 

That is the entire reason or my current book, to explain why we have to return basic philosophical knowledge to being part of our common culture. Besides building a highly effective operating system into the wetware of the brain, besides teaching teaching "critical thinking" skills and just how to think, besides teaching understandings that do not appear in science and never will; it is to teach what strategies we have available to choose from, their consequences, and to provide cultural biasing to choose the "better" strategy.

Majic
This one is difficult and is what I am working on now. Let's see if I can convince anyone, as I think this is the most important element there is to human survival strategy. It's about Choice

No matter what possibility, motivation, inspiration, purpose, etc. you are offered, eventually it comes down to choice.

Consider some biology, then look below at what Philosophy says about it...

We have a lot of behavior potentials. Most behaviors, possibly all, have genetic foundations. It must be emphasized that this does not describe a deterministic thing (usually). 
Innate behaviors have been recognized for  long time. Plato described them and attributed them to the soul. Conrad Lorenz provided the simplest description of an environmental stimulus that was "behavioral release" that released an instinctive behavior. It was simple but was the first time a biological basis of innate behavior was described. It was that a gosling would fixate on the first moving thing it saw and believe that was its parent. The "fight or flight" response to danger is another simple example of an environmental stimulus and instinctive response. Even that is not deterministic and can be overridden.

Carl Jung described archetypes as natural manifestations of human existence, inherited ideas, or images 
present in everyone’s subconscious mind, derived from shared ancestral experiences. 
Archetypes are dry river systems in our mind that automatically fill and connect anytime it rains.
Archetypes are a system of readiness for action. An emotional framework that tells us how to 
behave even if it isn’t spelled out.
Those instincts are woven into us through thousands of years of survival. The question is what causes those rivers to fill.

There are at least 4 ways to release innate, or instinctive, behaviors taht make those behaavioral rivers come alive. The first is the case above, an environmental release, which is common to "older" behaviors well wired into our minds by evolution.
A second way to release an innate behavior is immitation. That is common enough.
A third way to release an innate behavior is to learn about it and then try it. This is likely to also include immitation, but is a bit more involved.
The fourth way is to choose a behavior. This is particualrly important in the case of choosing to use our isntincts for competition or cooperation. It becomes a foundation of what we are. At the same time, it illustrates an important point. Simple, older instincts can be released by simple environmental clues. Newer instincts, like cooperation, take not jsut education, but eventually choice. It is an innate behavior, but it takes some degree of choice and commitment for it to become real.

The Philosophical Take On Choice In Maxims

“I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious effort.” - Henry David Thoreau
First, tell yourself what you want to be, then act your part accordingly. — Epictetus
You must define your life. Don't let anyone else do it.
Take responsibility of your own happiness, never put it in other people’s hands. — Roy T. Bennett
You are, after all, what you think. Your emotions are the slaves to your thoughts, and you are the slave to your emotions. Elizabeth Gilbert
“The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it.” — Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Your brain believes what you repeat daily.
If your mind reasons that you are a loser, guess what? You will be.
If your mind reasons that your life sucks, guess what? It will.
If your mind reasons that you should disappear because you’re worthless, guess what? I don’t have to tell you, do I? ##
 
As important as what is chosen, is also what is refused, such as fear, anger, hurt, arrogance. [#??] In terms of relationships, what gets mentioned over and over is that.... [Sorry, that's for the book and a distaction here.]

The Story of the Two Wolves.

There is a well-known short metaphorical story of the two wolves that is a morality story that represents an important idea of emotional self-control. It is about making a choice that individuals and humanity itself must make. The story is most often said to have originated as a legend from the Cherokee tribe, but various versions of the story have popped up throughout history. 

In this story, an old Cherokee Indian chief was teaching his grandson about life. He said, "A fight is going on inside me," he told the young boy, "a fight between two wolves. The Dark one is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The Light Wolf is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you grandson…and inside of every other person on the face of this earth.” The grandson ponders this for a moment and then asked, "Grandfather, which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee smiled and simply said, "The one you feed".

According to the grandfather, this battle between anger, greed, and false pride, versus kindness, humility, and love occurs in everyone’s mind. It is very easy to take this as a simple morality story, especially as our moral instincts make us receptive to such stories. What one has to recognize though is that this is also a story of how instincts work in us and that we can choose what our instinctive nature will be. This was especially discussed by Aristotle and Marcus Areleus. In the case of these strategies, between dominance and cooperation, it is not to hard to see the choice. When it comes to having children, it is also a similar choice, dependent on the knowledge and choices we have been exposed to. There are environmental clues that can prompt one to have children, such as a sister or friend having a child. Cultural values can also shape conscious choice. What is most important though is the long term development of instinctive nature which can come from social culture, but also can be effectively built by the messages in philosophical maxims shaping our thought. Cultural messages and the basic memes of philosophy can release and develop the moral instincts that lead to family. They are also essential to the functioning of society and must be the major balance of the cultural beliefs. It is why philosophy must be taught from a young age and teaching using maxims (or memes) is how that has always been done. Lack of that teaching is why this books starts with a long list of social problems we face.

Determinism.

Any time there is a discussion of instincts, there seems to be the question of determinism; is our behavior determined by our instincts and genetics. It is an old question. Now it is a stupid question and usually a strawman argument as demands for simple answers to complex questions usually are. Let me be clear. Yes, we do have behaviors that are strongly determined by evolution, like hunger, libido or our response to danger, but they are responses to external conditions and even those are regularly overridden by our conscious mind. We have behaviors that must be learned by imitation or education. Some of them have innate components and so are easy to learn. We also have the ability to chose our behaviors. We even seem able to create behaviors that have no source in evolution. There are some limitations, but they are not imposed by innate drives, but simply by innate limitations. No matter how hard you may want to, or spend time trying to learn how, you are unlikley to learn to fly like a bird.  

We are a product of our parents, our culture, our innate drives, and our decisions.

What I initially Wrote to Make First Impression of the Problem and situation.

In general, I would say the problem is obviously class war. It’s an echo. It’s an economic war between the wealthy and the rest of us. In history, there has never been a middle class, just the wealthy above the law and the poor subject to the law. In a lot of ways, that is what the class war forces right now are pushing for, which makes no sense because it is the middle class that has built their wealth. Some of them know that and actually at Davos they were, many millionaires and billionaires were saying that they need to be taxed more. The problem is the ones that don’t look at it that way. Many of them don’t recognize that their wealth came from the middle class and they need to support it. Their natural tendency is to just go back to their being rich and poor. They may not even care. Just as long as they are the ones that are in charge, they may not care just what they destroy. The problem is it won’t work. That’s basically feudalism. So feudalism is not just about a ruling class and the poor. It was a ruling class and basically everyone else was a slave. That is what history has been taking us from. Now my ecological terms I say that we have three ecologies to deal with. There was a hunter gather tribal one which we have definitely left. I had always thought that the apologies between Hunter gather, and the civilization one I’d like to talk about was a transient psychology, but it’s not. It’s feudalism and it’s actually a stable psychology, fairly stable. If we don’t develop civilization, solve the genetic problems I talk about and the economic problem is that this is meant to address, we will revert to feudalism. I’m not sure what it will look like. I’d like to avoid it.

So the point is to lay out the problem. So if economic competition, class warfare, ruling class, and slavery is the problem, what are the solutions? A number of them have been tried in the world. You can pretty much rule out the colonies for looking for solutions for this, sort of. If you look at Asia, if you look at China in the 19th century, they were sort of a colonial power, sort of an empire, but they had so much trouble that they were nonfunctional and so now you have communist China. We know about the outcome of the Russian revolution, which led to what they called communism there and socialism. In Europe, you had the various monarchy and the revolutions against them that led to democracy. You had the revolutionary concept in the British colony in America of a democracy. So after that, some revolutions went to democracy and someone went to communism. The Ottoman Empire collapsed and basically just left a mess behind it. After World War I, the German empire basically collapsed. You had nazis and you had democracy. Democracy seems somewhat contagious. There are many forms of it in the world, mostly copies of American constitutional democracy. An alternative to this was what happened after the French revolution, Napoleon left some very useful governmental institutions, particularly the courts and Napoleonic law, which you will see many places in the world instead of a jury, they have three judges. This is all very interesting as a little bit of a summary of how different cultures progressed beyond feudalism. Democracy became numerically the most common.

So how did they solve these problems? Everybody said they were a democracy, probably related to the concept that rule must be with the consent of the ruled. Obviously reality is rather distance from this. One of the things you should look at because it’s very misunderstood and very relevant to this is capitalism. Capitalism has been given somewhat mythical status. There’s two ways to understand capitalism though. Using capital as a tool of productivity. All societies have to do that. Communist, socialist, democratic, everything is built by investment using capital, with a couple of exceptions where human capital was used, such as in China, but that is the exception. Capitalism should be you, capitalism should be considered the use of capital as a tool of productivity. The thing is in the United States what capitalism really is is ownership. Ownership is an organizational system very like primogenitor used to be. The firstborn son always inherited all titles and wealth. It was variations on this but the point of that, it was a system that worked, and that’s what matters order, and that’s why law is so important and our democracy is based upon a constitution, a body of law. The almost universal nature of law shows just how important it is and how important the order is that it provides.

Socialism should be examined next. Notice that whether it’s communist, capitalist or socialist, it all says it’s democratic. Even North Korea claims to be democratic. But it’s really just a monarchy and older form of government, basically feudalism. Socialism is the alternative to the ownership of capitalism. Now it should be noted, but this is a hugely emotional subject, and communism always comes into the subject here. Now, in this case as compared to capitalism communism dedicates that all property, particularly the tools of productivity will be owned by the state. That annoys the capitalist. What annoys the capitalist far far more is the communist tendency to claw back ownership. What belonged to them now belongs to the people. When capitalist get hysterical about communism, it is because of that change of ownership. It’s when they start screaming that socialism is communism too. Now, socialism theoretically means state ownership, but it’s involved a lot like many of these systems do. Even in communist China, you have private ownership because that works. There’s that motivation part.

Really, you have some form of either a monarchy or democracy. Your economic system is either private ownership, collective ownership, or some combination of the two. Collective ownership has shown historically to be mostly a failure. Most of the problems in the United States currently are because of excessive private ownership based on un regulated capitalism. Instead of capitalism, meaning to use capital as a tool of productivity, it has been used as a tool of political manipulation, trying to turn a democracy into a monarchy.
The most successful socialisms are the European ones. They are democracy. They are certainly socialism in their habit of trying to provide social services to its citizens such as education and medical care. Some have been successful at providing housing.

You have to compare this to China, which started out as a Communism, but the Chinese always do things differently than everyone else. You have a ruling group, the CCCP, but in a sense since the CCCP is open to all citizens want to join and demonstrate loyalty to its ideals, it is a representative democracy. It can have aspects of the monarchy, as has been demonstrated, but by most standards, it’s a single party democracy.

The problem all of these systems have to deal with are corruption based upon self interest, so you need to control that self interest or it comes at an excessive cost to the society. You also have to make the economy work, which history of demonstrated demands private ownership. History also shows that excessive private ownership leads to some form of monarchy or oligarchy. It seems like Europe, as been able to manage those problems, as has China, by regulating private ownership. Europe has a graduated tax system so that you have a little incentive to make vast fortune. The United States promoted competition by limiting monopoly, something which has been neutralized by the wealthy class. China allows private ownership and even vast fortune, but what happens is if you start to compete with the political body, you get re-educated. That system seems to work in that context. Now China has a huge problem with corruption. That is partly due to the single party rule means there’s no checks and balances. It is also though because the Chinese seemed to tend more towards corruption... and monarchy.

Now examining this as a problem in the United States, this problem existed in the United States long before anyone mentioned UBI. This was the class war that led to the Gilded Age. This led to the new deal and what we’re seeing today is actually a response to the new deal long before it was a response to having Obama as president. At the same time in both cases, it’s the same money class, ownership class trying to monopolies power. The issue of Obama being president and the racism that led to basically was just used by them as a tool of political control. Racism isn’t the fundamental problem, it’s just one of the political tools of the ruling class, the ownership class. So if you distill this down what it looks like if you’ve got a few things to consider what is feudalism versus democracy. Another is ownership. Another is investment, another would be military because political control is not just by propaganda manipulation. It also extends beyond the country into imperialism something that must be kept in mind as a factor.

It’s probably finally brings us to UBI. That lays out the problems and the situation, the situation and the problems. Now it’s a question of figuring out how you can solve it, particularly using the solutions available, and that have been tested.

Democracy>

But, in a nation of immigrants and men who had worked their way up from day laborers to become prominent men, Lincoln stood firm on the Declaration of Independence. He warned that if people started to make exceptions to the idea that all men are created equal, they would not stop. They would “transform this Government into a government of some other form.” “If that declaration is not the truth,” Lincoln said, “let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out!” To cries of “No! No!” he responded: “[L]et us stand firmly by it then.”

The Declaration of Independence, a foundation of democracy in all nations that have Constitutions based on the U. S. Constitution, meaning most of them; says that all men are equal, it is not a classed society.

The Constitution further defines that law comes from a charter, the Constitution, not from a ruling class of any kind. Basically it is saying that there shouldn't be coercion; particularly not military, political or religious. Economics is another thing and really, it was expected (as was race and gender). That is interesting, because it is economics, based on automation, that is changing all this now.

Nobody thought about propaganda much. 

Classism ... This is a Dandy One...

In 1858, Senator James Henry Hammond (D-SC), a wealthy enslaver, rose to explain to his northern colleagues why their objection to human enslavement was so badly misguided. “In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life,” he said. Such workers needed few brains and little skill; they just had to be strong, docile, and loyal to their betters, who would organize their labor and then collect the profits from it, concentrating that wealth into their own hands to move society forward efficiently.

Hammond called such workers “the mud-sill of society and political government.” Much like the beams driven into the ground to support a stately home above, the mudsill supported “that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement.” The South had pushed Black Americans into that mudsill role. “We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves,” he said. The North also had a mudsill class, he added: “the man who lives by daily labor…in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and ‘operatives,’ as you call them, are essentially slaves.”

Hammond was very clear about what he believed the world should look like. Black Americans should always be subordinate to white men, of course, but white women, too, were subordinate. They were made “to breed,” as “toy[s] for recreation,” or to bring men “wealth and position,” he had explained to his son in 1852. Hammond’s promising early political career had been nearly derailed when he admitted that for two years he had sexually assaulted his four young nieces, the daughters of the powerful Wade Hampton II (although he insisted he was being wronged because he should get credit for showing any restraint at all when faced with four such “lovely creatures”).

If women and Black people were at the bottom of society, southern white men were an “aristocracy” by virtue of their descent from “the ancient cavaliers of Virginia…a race of men without fear and without reproach,” “alike incapable of servility and selfishness.” By definition, whatever such leaders did was what was good for society, and any man who had not achieved that status was excluded because of his own failings or criminal inclinations.

The southern system, Hammond told the Senate, was “the best in the world…such as no other people ever enjoyed upon the face of the earth,” and spreading it would benefit everyone.

The next year, rising politician Abraham Lincoln told an audience at the Wisconsin state fair in Milwaukee that he rejected Hammond’s mudsill theory. Lincoln explained that Hammond’s “mud-sill theory” divided the world into permanent castes, arguing that men with money drove the economy and workers were stuck permanently at the bottom.
*

Interesting comment by John Jay:

Jay believed chaos was the next tyranny.
He co wrote the Federalist Papers.
Not fiery speeches.
Careful arguments.
He warned that without strong courts, freedom would rot.
That liberty needed structure to survive ambition.
When George Washington became president, he turned to Jay.
Trust mattered more than popularity.
Jay became the first Chief Justice of the United States.

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - 1776. Start at the basics.

Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) is a foundational text of classical economics that advocates for free markets, division of labor, and limited government intervention (laissez-faire). It argues that individuals pursuing their own self-interest unintentionally promote the public good through an "invisible hand," driving economic prosperity far better than government regulation.

Key Concepts and Themes

Division of Labor: Smith opens by arguing that productivity increases dramatically when tasks are divided among workers, citing a pin factory example where specialization increases efficiency, as detailed in Britannica.
The "Invisible Hand": The concept that individuals acting in their own self-interest—seeking to maximize their own gain—are led to contribute to the overall economic well-being of society, as explained in Center for American Civics.

Critique of Mercantilism: Smith argues against the prevailing economic theory of his time, which focused on accumulating gold/silver. Instead, he posits that a nation's true wealth is measured by the total production and trade of its people, according to Study.com.

Free Trade and Markets: He argues that competition and free exchange drive down prices, improve quality, and allocate resources efficiently, as found in Investopedia.

Role of Government: Smith promotes "limited government," restricting its role primarily to protecting society from violence, maintaining justice, and establishing public works (infrastructure) that private interests cannot support, as explained in Reddit and Investopedia.

Capital Accumulation: In Book II, he explains that for the division of labor to work, capital must first be accumulated, which enables the purchase of tools and payment of workers, according to Britannica. 

Smith's message was that economic exploitation, through the monopoly trade of empire, stifled wealth-creation in both home and foreign lands. Moreover, protectionism preserved the status quo, and privileged a few elites at the expense of long run growth.

Free trade as keys to national wealth, though his broader philosophy also stressed moral frameworks and necessary institutions for fair play. He championed free markets over mercantilism, believing individuals pursuing profit would meet societal needs better than state planning

Given that state of Economics at the time Smith wrote it however he managed to put into writing something that up to that point wasn’t really understood or accepted. It took a long time before others came along and went into the details.
For it’s time it was revolutionary.
The Wealth of Nations is probably more appropriate for a History of Economic Thought than as a general introduction to Economics
*
It's rather simplistic, to the point that the majority of the contribution to modern economics is covered in the first couple of chapters of an intro to econ textbook. It's a very long-winded and not very user-friendly way of studying the basic concepts compared to a modern textbook. The modern economy is also much more complex than the 18th century economy that Smith was studying, so many aspects are not included simply because they weren't present at the time it was written.
There has been so many advancements in the realm of economics that you can understand the concepts much easier by reading a textbook 
*
That's a very important statement to make. As economies change, so does economics. What may be true at one stage (such as agriculture being the only industry that wasn't sterile) can prove laughably false in a century.
*
It's still worth reading so that the reader can knows what it says and can place it in the history of economics.
*
His history of money is ahistorical nonsense. 
*
As for your specific question, among other things, for example Adam Smith adheres to the Labor Theory of Labour (Where value, and therefore price, of goods is determined by the amount of labour required for it's production), replaced in mainstream economic thought by the Subjective Theory of Value. [This was written before the machines of the industrial revolution.]
*
I think Smith underestimated the role of capital accumulation in driving growth, and the State’s potential role in driving that. Wealth of Nations was published right at the start of the Industrial Revolution, so the potential of physical capital was not as obvious. I wonder what he would have thought of the Soviet Union’s giant factories or China’s public infrastructure.
*

The four common types of wealth, popularized by authors like James Clear, are Financial (money/assets), Social (relationships/network), Time (freedom/control over your schedule), and Physical (health/well-being), with some variations adding spiritual or intellectual wealth; these pillars are seen as essential for a truly balanced and fulfilling life, not just money.

For Marx, capitalism is a kind of society, not a philosophy.

This capitalist society began in western Europe around 1600 and then spread all over the world through colonialism, imperialism, (and today "globalization") during the following centuries. A capitalist society for Marx is one that by definition has two classes: 1) a working class (proletariat) which survives by selling its labor, and 2) a class (bourgeoisie) that owns enough capital (wealth that is used to get more wealth) that it is capable of surviving off of the interest from its investments (and thus does not need to sell its labor). 
[The problem we see today, is greed and dominance making this unworkable.]

Marxism is a socioeconomic and political theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century, centering on the idea that history is driven by class struggle. It argues that capitalism inherently exploits the working class (proletariat) by the owning class (bourgeoisie), ultimately predicting a revolution that will replace capitalism with a classless, socialist, and eventually communist society. 

Key principles of Marxism include:

1. Historical Materialism: The belief that economic forces (how goods are produced) shape the structure of society, including its culture, laws, and politics.

2. Class Conflict: Society is divided into the bourgeoisie (who own the means of production) and the proletariat (who sell their labor), with their interests in direct conflict.

3. Exploitation and Surplus Value: Capitalism operates by paying workers less than the value their labor creates, with owners keeping the "surplus value" as profit.

4. Alienation: Workers in a capitalist system feel disconnected from their work, the products they make, and their own humanity.

5. Revolution and Communism: Marxists believe that the proletariat will inevitably develop class consciousness, revolt against the bourgeoisie, seize control of the means of production, and establish a classless, stateless society. 

Marxism is a political philosophy and method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a dialectical materialist interpretation of historical development, known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict.
Marxism serves as a framework for analyzing capitalist structures and critiquing issues like income inequality, with its core tenets detailed in foundational texts like The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. 
*

What is the difference between a communist and a Marxist?

Marxism is the comprehensive theory and analysis of capitalism, class struggle, and historical materialism developed by Karl Marx, while Communism is the political and economic ideology aiming to implement the final stage of Marxism: a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of production, achieved through revolution, transitioning from a socialist state. In short, Marxism is the blueprint (theory), and Communism is the proposed end-goal (system), with many communist states using specific Marxist interpretations (like Marxism-Leninism) to guide their actions.
*
Marxism (The Theory)
Focus: Analyzes capitalism, predicts class conflict (bourgeoisie vs. proletariat), and critiques exploitation and alienation.
Method: Uses historical materialism to understand societal change through economic and class struggles.
Transition: Envisions a socialist phase (dictatorship of the proletariat) as a temporary state to redistribute wealth and suppress capitalist remnants.
Key Idea: Capitalism's internal contradictions will inevitably lead to its downfall.
Communism (The Goal/System)
Focus: The utopian end-stage: a society without classes, money, private property, or a state.
Ownership: All means of production are communally owned.
Distribution: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". 
Governance: Ultimately, the state "withers away" as class divisions disappear.

Key Differences Summarized
Marxism: A philosophy and critique.
Communism: A political system and societal goal.
Relationship: Communism is the intended outcome of Marxist theory, but real-world "communist" states have often been authoritarian socialist states, differing from Marx's stateless ideal.
*
In summary, the goal of Marxism is to achieve a classless, socialist society through the understanding and application of its philosophical and economic principles.
*
Marxism is a specific theory (analytical framework) while socialism is a broad political/economic ideology; Marxism is a type or component of socialism, focusing on class struggle and revolution to achieve a stateless, classless society, whereas socialism itself is a larger umbrella for collective ownership of production, encompassing various paths (like democratic socialism) that might use gradual reforms or different governance models than strict Marxism.
*
The main problems with Marxism often cited include its idealistic view of human nature, failing to account for inherent self-interest and leading to authoritarianism in practice; its questionable economic theories, especially the labor theory of value; and its tendency to overemphasize class struggle while neglecting other factors like race, gender, and individual agency, with historical implementations resulting in widespread suppression of freedoms and massive human suffering. Critics argue its utopian goals clash with real-world complexities, making central planning inefficient and promoting group identity over objective truth, leading to potential totalitarianism.  

Here are the core issues:
Human Nature & Power: Critics argue Marxism assumes humans can be molded by external conditions, ignoring innate traits like ambition, leading to utopian visions that, in practice, require immense centralized power (a "dictatorship of the proletariat") that historically becomes oppressive, suppressing individual rights. 
Economic Flaws: The labor theory of value, central to Marx's critique of capitalism, has been largely superseded by modern economic theories, and Marxist predictions of capitalism's collapse haven't materialized as expected, while the idea of a post-scarcity society is challenged. 
Historical Outcomes: 20th-century communist regimes, inspired by Marxist-Leninist ideology, resulted in catastrophic loss of life (tens of millions) and severe restrictions on freedom, undermining the theory's practical viability. 

Overemphasis on Class: Marxism focuses heavily on class conflict, often downplaying or ignoring other significant drivers of inequality and identity, such as race, gender, religion, and individual choices, leading to an incomplete social analysis. 

Suppression of Dissent: In practice, achieving a classless society often involves silencing opposing views, creating a monoculture of thought and suppressing free expression in arts, science, and politics, as power concentrates in the hands of a ruling elite. 

Inefficiency of Central Planning: Centrally planned economies, required to eliminate markets, have historically struggled with innovation, resource allocation, and meeting consumer needs efficiently compared to market economies. 
*
What is the end goal of communism?
Communism (from Latin communis 'common, universal') is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.
*
Eight criticisms of Marxism
The class structure today is more complex.
Capitalism today is less exploitative
Control of the economic base does not mean control of the superstructure
False consciousness is a problem concept in postmodern society
There is less alienation today
Capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty
Communism didn’t work
Marxism was a metanarrative.
*
Marxism is the idea that history isn't ruled by a god or some ultimate supernatural force. It's governed by what humans make (like cities or ways of producing) and the effect of these things in his humans live and how happy they are as a result. And it's the idea that how we live in a particular era has a huge influence on how we think and talk and act.

The fact that our current society is made up of two warring "classes" is just one aspect of this theory.
*
Central to Marxism that wage labor is the mechanism that is used by the exploiting class to screw over the laboring class, under capitalism.
*

Marxism is a macro theory of sociology which means that it looks at the way society functions as a whole.

Marxism is a conflict theory because it is about the belief that our society is made up of two social classes. The Bourgeoisie, who are rich and own the labour of the poor and the Proletariat, who are lower class. The proletariat are exploited by the bourgeoisie in order for the rich to maintain their power and status, as one can only have power if another is without.

The idea is that through socialization, the bourgeoisie control the proletariat and use institutions like religion and education to encourage them to work and accept their low status. Eventually, the proletariat will realize that they ate being exploited and they will usurp the bourgeoisie. They themselves will become the new bourgeoisie and the cycle starts again.
*
Marxism is essentially about freedom. The whole idea is that capitalism is a mechanism for oppression, were it not than the theory wouldn’t advocate for a revolt from it. Yet, in a Kierkegaardian sense of judging this crisis on the subjectivity of its existence, its just circumstance.
[This is interesting, because it expands ownership is a method of oppression....]
*
The positive vision of Marxism is essentially this: a classless society free from coerced labor, in which everyone is free to pursue their own self-actualization.
*
I would say that there are two theories that are central to Marx's thinking: 1) a theory about what capitalism is like and 2) a theory about what should be done about capitalism. Many people today talk about capitalism as if it were a philosophy (so you will hear people say, "Well I am as much of a capitalist as the next guy" or "real capitalism requires..."). For Marx, capitalism is a kind of society, not a philosophy. This capitalist society began in western Europe around 1600 and then spread all over the world through colonialism, imperialism, (and today "globalization") during the following centuries. A capitalist society for Marx is one that by definition has two classes: 1) a working class (proletariat) which survives by selling its labor, and 2) a class (bourgeoisie) that owns enough capital (wealth that is used to get more wealth) that it is capable of surviving off of the interest from its investments (and thus does not need to sell its labor). Throughout human history, most societies have lacked one or both of these two classes and thus have not been capitalist societies. The proletariat are different from chattel slaves (who do not own their own labor and are unable to change employers) and from peasants (who live off the land, not by selling their labor). Despite being legally regarded as the owners of their own labor, however, the proletariat are vulnerable; while a chattel slave is directly coerced into working harder by way of the master's whip, the proletariat is indirectly coerced into working harder through the fear of being unemployed (being fired). The fact that coercion in a capitalist society is generally indirect means that many members of the proletariat may not in fact recognize that they are vulnerable; they may see themselves as free, and they may like capitalism.

The bourgeoisie are also different from feudal lords (who were generally content to merely be wealthy). The bourgeoisie are driven to maximize their profit (to make as much money as they possibly can), and if they do not they will be put out of business by other capitalists. This means that for Marx, capitalism is tremendously dynamic and productive, but it is also inherently violent. One of the primary ways the bourgeoisie increase their profit is by reducing the costs of labor; this generally means either making the working class work faster or by reducing their pay. (Today conservative economists will use nice sounding phrases like "labor flexibility," "best practices," "efficiency" to describe this dynamic.) This means that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the proletariat (who often desire things that reduce their vulnerability) and the bourgeoisie (who care only about maximizing their profit). Exacerbating this is the fact that the bourgeoisie also have disproportionate influence over the political system even in societies in which the proletariat have won the right to vote.

Marx's solution as to what should be done about capitalist society is socialism. Marx was not the first socialist, but his big contribution to socialism was to suggest that because capitalist society depended upon the exploitation of the working class (taking advantage of workers' fear of unemployment in order to make them work faster or make them accept lower wages), the working class could be the agent that brings about a socialist society. For Marx, to bring about socialism, the working class must first become organized and then must struggle to gain control of the state. (This is different from liberals who understand politics as reasoned debate and from anarchists who do not want to take control of the state.) They must then use the state both to eliminate the vulnerability of the working class and to eliminate the wealth (and power) of the bourgeoisie. If they are successful, they will create a classless society, a society in which everyone is a member of the same economic class; presumably this society is also more democratic than the democracy allowed in a capitalist society. To accomplish this, though, the working class in each country must combine their efforts with the working class in other countries. Otherwise, socialist workers will find their efforts thwarted by competition with workers in capitalist societies and by the military aggression of the capitalist countries.

Socialism

Socialism is an economic and political system advocating for collective or government ownership of the means of production, rather than private ownership. Its core principle is to manage resources to meet human needs equitably, fostering a classless society, reducing wealth inequality, and prioritizing production for use over profit. 

[Let's skip Christian and Platonic concepts of socialism, because they were really weird and are unneeded here.]

More’s Utopia, which apparently recommends communal ownership as a way of controlling the sins of pride, envy, and greed. Land and houses are common property on More’s imaginary island of Utopia, where everyone works for at least two years on the communal farms and people change houses every 10 years so that no one develops pride of possession. Money has been abolished, and people are free to take what they need from common storehouses. All the Utopians live simply, moreover, so that they are able to meet their needs with only a few hours of work a day, leaving the rest for leisure.
*
Another early socialist, Robert Owen, was himself an industrialist. Owen first attracted attention by operating textile mills in New Lanark, Scot., that were both highly profitable and, by the standards of the day, remarkably humane: no children under age 10 were employed. Owen’s fundamental belief was that human nature is not fixed but formed. If people are selfish, depraved, or vicious, it is because social conditions have made them so. Change the conditions, he argued, and people will change; teach them to live and work together in harmony, and they will do so.
*
Similar themes mark the writings of François-Marie-Charles Fourier, a French clerk whose imagination, if not his fortune, was as extravagant as Owen’s. . Modern society breeds selfishness, deception, and other evils, Fourier charged, because institutions such as marriage, the male-dominated family, and the competitive market confine people to repetitive labour or a limited role in life and thus frustrate the need for variety. By setting people at odds with each other in the competition for profits, moreover, the market in particular frustrates the desire for harmony. Accordingly, Fourier envisioned a form of society that would be more in keeping with human needs and desires. Such a “phalanstery,” as he called it, would be a largely self-sufficient community of about 1,600 people organized according to the principle of “attractive labour,” which holds that people will work voluntarily and happily if their work engages their talents and interests. All tasks become tiresome at some point, however, so each member of the phalanstery would have several occupations, moving from one to another as his interest waned and waxed. Fourier left room for private investment in his utopian community, but every member was to share in ownership, and inequality of wealth, though permitted, was to be limited.

Despite their imagination and dedication to the cause of the workers, none of the early socialists met with the full approval of Karl Marx, who is unquestionably the most important theorist of socialism. In fact, Marx and his longtime friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels were largely responsible for attaching the label “utopian,” which they intended to be derogatory, to Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen, whose “fantastic pictures of future society” they contrasted to their own “scientific” approach to socialism. The path to socialism proceeds not through the establishment of model communities that set examples of harmonious cooperation to the world, according to Marx and Engels, but through the clash of social classes. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” they proclaimed in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. A scientific understanding of history shows that these struggles will culminate in the triumph of the working class and the establishment of socialism.
*
Socialism after Marx... Christian socialism; Anarcho-communism - religion, capitalism, and the state are forms of oppression that must be smashed if people are ever to be free. ; Fabian socialism - Instead of revolution, the Fabians favoured “gradualism”; Syndicalism - Trade Unions, worker control; Guild socialism; Revisionism and revolution;

Planned Economy, State Directed Economy, Market Socialism, 
*

Key Aspects of Socialism: [This seems very archaic]
Public/Collective Ownership: Means of production (factories, farms, natural resources) are owned by the state, cooperatives, or the community, not individuals.
Economic Planning: Economy is often centrally planned or state-directed to distribute resources and services like healthcare and education, rather than relying solely on market forces.
Equitable Distribution: Aim to reduce or eliminate large gaps in wealth and social class, ensuring goods and services are available to all.
Types: Ranges from democratic socialism (achieving change within a democratic system) to market socialism (using markets) and state socialism.
Goal: To create a more egalitarian society by replacing the competitive market system. 
Socialism is often viewed as a "transition" phase or alternative to capitalism that emphasizes cooperation over competition. 
*
What does socialism mean in simple terms?
In simple terms, socialism is an economic and political idea where society, often through the government, owns or controls major industries and resources, aiming to share wealth and resources more equally so everyone's basic needs (like healthcare, education) are met, reducing poverty and inequality. It contrasts with capitalism, where private individuals own production, by prioritizing collective well-being over private profit, though many countries blend socialist and capitalist elements in what's called a mixed economy or social democracy.

How it Works (Examples):
Democratic Socialism: Supports social ownership of key industries but within a democratic framework, allowing some private business and markets (like in Nordic countries).
Public Services: Think of public schools, fire departments, or Medicare/NHS as socialist-like services, providing essential needs for everyone.

In Contrast to Capitalism:
Capitalism: Focuses on private ownership, free markets, and profit, which can lead to wealth inequality.
Socialism: Focuses on public or collective ownership and distribution for need, aiming to reduce that inequality.
*

Why is socialism considered so bad?

Critics argue socialism stifles innovation and growth by removing incentives, leading to inefficiency, shortages, and lower living standards, as central planning struggles to meet diverse needs, often requiring authoritarian control that limits individual freedom, while historical examples are cited for economic collapse and human rights abuses, despite proponents seeing it as a path to equality and security.
Economic Concerns
Reduced Incentives: Less reward for individual effort can lower motivation, innovation, and productivity, slowing economic development.
Central Planning Inefficiency: Government planners struggle to allocate resources as effectively as markets, leading to mismatches between supply and demand, shortages, and waste.
Stifled Entrepreneurship: Restrictions on private enterprise and property can prevent successful businesses from growing and competing.
Social & Political Concerns
Concentration of Power: Government control over industry can lead to immense power in the hands of the state, potentially resulting in corruption or authoritarianism.
Loss of Freedom: Critics argue socialism often requires authoritarian measures to enforce central plans, limiting free speech, private property, and individual choice.
Historical Failures: Point to examples like Venezuela, the Soviet Union, or Cuba, where central planning led to economic collapse, severe poverty, and political repression.
Counterarguments & Nuances
Varying Definitions: "Socialism" ranges from democratic socialism (mixed economies with strong social safety nets, like Nordic countries) to authoritarian communism, leading to different outcomes.
Capitalist Flaws: Proponents argue capitalism also has issues like inequality and exploitation, and that socialist elements (like social welfare) can improve societal well-being.
Goals vs. Methods: While capitalism prioritizes individual freedom and socialism emphasizes collective well-being, both systems aim for societal prosperity but differ on how to achieve it.
*

One of the very first things people ask the DSA tends to be one of the hardest to answer: what is socialism?

Socialism is a very long tradition and you can find bits of socialist thought in most religions and philosophies. But when people say socialism, they usually mean the ideas that bubbled up in Europe after the French Revolution of 1789, which famously overthrew the monarchical government of the time. It was nice, but it didn’t solve most of the problems people faced. Instead, the revolution made it obvious that people’s lives aren’t only organized by their governments. We don’t just live in states or nations. We don’t just live out cultures. We also live in, and create, societies. Power is not just governmental. It is also economic, gendered, racial, imperial — it’s social.

As the name suggests, socialism is one way of trying to think through this question — not just what should our government be like, or what should our culture be like, but what should our societies be like? And that question can only be answered once we’ve worked out what our societies are like.

Socialists knew at least two societies had existed in Europe: feudalism and capitalism. They were different in all sorts of ways, but the most basic differences were who worked for whom, and why they worked. In feudalism, peasants worked for the aristocracy because the aristocracy owned the land and had access to other kinds of non-governmental power (like swords and goofy, but effective, armor). They also more or less owned the peasants. So, the peasants worked for the aristocrats because the peasants needed to eat. The aristocrats got most of the money and used it to buy swords and goofy armor and bigger castles and so on.

Socialists knew that their 19th-century societies weren’t like this. The people who owned the land didn’t use their money to buy swords, etc. They used it to buy more land or more peasants — or more and more factories. The people who worked in the factories weren’t peasants. And the people who owned factories weren’t necessarily aristocrats. There were two new classes: laborers and capitalists. The laborers earned a wage or a salary because they needed to eat, and the capitalists received the profits from their factories, which they mostly used to make new factories. Aristocrats are sexy because they “waste” their money on booze and wigs. Capitalists do not waste money. They reinvest it because they want to grow their profits.

Capitalism has changed a lot since then, but the basic structure is the same: our economies, and our societies, are organized around the idea that some people will own the factories (or land or newspapers or social media platforms) and most everyone else will work for them. And all of this is done in search of profit. That is unique to our kind of societies. Aristocrats did not seek ever-growing profits. They sought political power and a good time. Peasants did not seek to become ever more productive. They stopped working if they had enough to eat. But capitalists seek profits, and they can only get them by making the rest of us ever more productive. That is the society we live in: capitalism.

Socialists think this isn't great. The most basic reason is that it makes small numbers of people very rich, and large numbers of people miss out on that wealth, even though all the people are working harder and harder to keep the profits rising. And, because only a few people own the factories/newspapers/social media platforms, those people get a much bigger say over everything. They get a bigger say in the government; they get the only say in their factories; they get a bigger say in communities. Capitalism is fundamentally anti-democratic.

For better or worse, there has never been a socialist society. If one ever exists, it will not have a fixed class hierarchy in which most people work and a few people profit. It will have economic and social democracy as well as (or instead of) democratically elected governments. And it will not necessarily be designed to increase profits.

If you think that sounds good, then get ready to fight for it. Socialists have tried a lot of stuff over the last two centuries, and we’re still trying.

Ukrainian President Zelinsky has had to deal with a similar problem of the oligarchs and ran on an anti-oligarch platform. He won.
Victor [Medvedcheck] was very like Rupert Murdoch in that he owned numerous news outlets that spewed hate and lies 24 hours a day.
Zelinski passed laws specifically to limit the power of oligarchs over media.
He did what Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt did: The de-oligarchization law of May 18, 2021.
It basically said it was fine to be rich, but if you are using your wealth to get your way politically, that was a crime
He said that for Ukraine to flourish, it had to be a country of laws that worked for the many instead of just the few.
It defined in oligarch as a person who fit three of the following four criteria:
1. Net worth greater than $89 million.
2. They have significant influence over mass media.
3. They control a business that exercises monopoly influence over part of the economy.
4. They involve themselves in politics by funding politicians, political parties, political campaigns or think tanks. That is, they are politically active.

If they include three out of four of those, they are included on the official Ukrainian List of Oligarchs and so they may not run for political office, they may not fund political parties, they may not have any meaningful control over part of Ukraine political life, may not purchase assets that are privatized (a Soviet Union thing), must disclose their assets. Also, government officials in Ukraine or required to report any meeting with any oligarch.

300 Years From Now...
This Sci-Fi Show’s Post-Work Society is TOO REAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17rwvcQ8ADs

In this video essay, I look at The Expanse’s vision of a post‑work society. AI automation might make work obsolete in the near term future, leading to mass unemployment -and taking together with the coming overpopulation crisis, I compare this realistic sci-fi show's prediction about “Basic Assistance” to our world's premise of Universal Basic Healthcare (UBI) to show what life could and should look like beyond the 9‑to‑5 grind. I break down how automation anxiety, universal basic income, and the collapse of traditional jobs play out in this gritty sci‑fi world.

AI has made work a privilege.
On Mars is a multi-generation terraforming project where everyone has a role and a job.
Basic Assistance on Earth.
Bullshit Jobs... That provide no value.
A New Story... UBI - Leah Werner - Everyone wants to work. 
If reputation was currency, what would you do? Help others. Raise kids. Teach. Food production. 

Gents, [I think this was sent Oct 2025]

This topic popped up before but was viewed uncomfortably, so I mused on it a bit as I tend to and figured I'd write something to clarify my thoughts on the subject... Ssocialism. It has so many meanings.

Note that I wrote this a few weeks ago, but some relevant events have occurred ... today, so I will finish it...

... Why can't we just go back to kings and primogeniture where everything goes to the oldest son? It worked for a long time, with murder as almost the only lubricant required.

Let's skip socialism for a moment to consider some foundations. When we think of socialism, I think we tend to think of Karl Marx, so we have to comment on Communism. In a time of monarchies and industrial revolutions and machine tools, he defined communism as socialism by revolution. ... Which could bring us back to socialism, but I don't think it does. It's better to think about it in terms of class warfare. I mean, that's usually what it was and certainly in Marx's Russia.

Then there is capitalism, which should be defined as using capital as a tool of productivity, those machine tools (and railroads, mines, etc.) Really though, that's an amazingly amorphous definition compared to a simpler definition, ownership. It's why we have so much money floating around looking for an asset to provide it a body. In terms of class warfare, we call that the ownership class... or the wealthy.

Back to socialism. Are we talking Russia, China, Venezuela, Northern Europe or what? Socialism is supposed to be some form of government to prevent the abuses of an ownership class. Russia hardly counts. after the Russian Revolution, total psychopaths ran it was a gang. Revolutions causes chaos and chaos is great for psychopaths. I guess they did murder the ownership/ruling class so there's that, but it was a despotic gangster state, not socialism aside from state ownership of a very primitive economy. ... They murdered a lot! Now China experimented with all kinds of things including serious despotism, state ownership, collectivism, socialism..., mass murder, and now, they do capitalism better than America does. They also keep the ownership class on a very short leash. Just ask Jack Ma about that. So what about Europe? To me, their democratic socialism looks like investment via education, health care and even housing. Nobody wants to talk about them though as they are boring and aren't trouble makers. 

But let's talk about European socialism anyway. I mean, it looks ideal in so many ways. No gangsters... mostly. Social unrest occasionally, but what do you expect from the French? Let's not mention the UK. If European socialisms can solve their population problem (I'm working on it) they look like a good stable socialism, without the mass murder even. There's not much class war because they keep the ownership class under control by progressive taxation.

Then we have the good old US of A, where socialism and communism are very dirty words, but what are they? What is going on in the US of A? Apparently, the class war is plenty hot and has come to the point of social immobility. The middle class was economically killed off by Ronnie Raygun's trickle down economics... ya know, that came from the Heritage Foundation, way back then. Now the three H's and the F word. Housing, health care, and higher education are too expensive for the working class. Then there is the F word. Family and it too is pretty widely unaffordable. In history, there has never been a middle class. Just the wealthy above the law and the working folks subject to the law. (What Trump and his ilk really want is to go back to when they could rape whoever they wanted in the working class with no consequence.) 

So I propose America Socialism. The way I see it, it's nothing unusual. Bernie said it. The lynch pin is health care. If Americans were to get used to that, there would be no going back. Sell free college education as investment in Americans and America. You could do it if the wealthy weren't so greedy. Ban corporate ownership of single family homes... Rentiers were the boogey man of Marx. Hey, throw in subsidized child care. I also recommend limiting just how wealthy folks can get and how they can use their wealth to manipulate politics.

So what do you have left? I know. How about another definition to think about. Communism as socialism by revolution is so passe... Marx's time, not more accurate than how capitalism is used. The relevant meaning of communism is some spectrum of control of the ownership class, from perhaps higher taxation to property confiscation... to termination. All are considered communism by the ownership class. For that matter, looking at the Versailles Ballroom and yesterday's Great Gatsby Halloween party at Mar a largo, I suspect that group considers allowing the plebs to vote is communism.

As for those events to consider (1) Fed Chairman Powell says the Job market is dead, based on AI. (2) To recoup the investment in AI, companies will have to use it to replace people. (3) Crummy, but practical robots seem to be ready to market (not sure the state of these). We're there. This system is toast.

Now this is basically where I stopped writing before. I was going to send it to see if I got any interest in it. Today though, I was listening to a SciFi story while driving and heard "Ain't That A Kick In The Head". It tells it more fun. What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4lb5bxZVIM

Enjoy, M