[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/leftistpol/ - Leftist Politics

Fiscally Left-wing Politics; Pro-Reformist; Current events; Brosocialist safe space

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Infinity Next Beta period has started, click here for info or go directly to beta.8ch.net
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 1450167090337.jpg (507.21 KB, 850x565, 170:113, relax.jpg)

 No.303

I'm curious how socialists interpret tourism.

 No.304

I think it would be counterproductive to condemn tourism if your goal is to spread class consciousness in the developed world. Tourism is exploitative by nature. But capitalism by its nature is exploitative. Let people buy the goods and services that they want. Including working-class people. The reason why capitalism has been so successful thus far is because people buy into the illusion that capitalism grants them freedom. If you start restricting their behaviour directly or shaming them for buying certain goods and services, they start to resent it.

If poorer tourist destinations had something like a basic income, whether universal (UBI) or for people who are below the poverty line or within a certain range from the poverty line (means-tested welfare), the nature of tourism and sex tourism would be less exploitative.

If you didn't have to labour or didn't have to labour as much in order to get shelter, food, health care, clothing, transportation and other basic needs met, economic transactions within capitalism would be a lot more voluntary than they are now.

And in a socialist society where the workers or "the people" (the state) own the means of production, in theory, the workers would be getting a fair cut of the revenues. There would be no private ownership/shareholders taking their cut of the revenues. By receiving more money for their labour, financial transactions would be more free. That said, I don't see socialism (full ownership of the means of production by the state or workers) as obtainable anytime soon. Social democracy (private ownership of the means of production with public social services, social safety net, redistribution of income, some public ownership of the means of production) is much more attainable in the short-term than socialism.


 No.305

Forgot to make this point as well: The developed world is so privileged that many working-class people in the developed world actually engage in tourism themselves. It's a hard sell to tell working people in the developed world that tourism is immoral and they should avoid it. Considering that most working-class people here engage in tourism or aspire to engage in tourism if they make more money someday.

I haven't went travelling myself because I don't have much interest in it. It's funny how whenever I see profiles on dating sites and Tinder, women (many of them liberals and social justice warriors) like to talk so much about how they love to travel and brag about their "adventures". They love to show off. Showing pictures of their travel on Instagram, Facebook, etc.

I get the impression that people travel just to show off to people at social gatherings and on social media. I've never really seen the appeal in travelling. I don't care to swim in a gorgeous beach resort, sipping on alcoholic cocktails by the beach. Taking pictures of tourist attractions from a bunch of different angles when thousands/millions of people have already done this before and posted the images on social media. I don't really get the appeal.

Tourism just seems to really bring out some of the most decadent, consumerist, narcissistic behavior out of people. It's something people do to appear cool and interesting and "worldly". It's a status symbol, another way to show off.

When I see these women on Tinder and dating apps (and you could say the same about men), I get the impression that they are just slaves to the system working jobs that they hate to buy shit they don't need. Their day-to-day cubicle hell lives are so dreary and stressful that they try to sedate themselves with consumerist distractions.

I don't want to seem holier-than-thou though. But I get the impression that people spend a lot of their money in an effort to impress people. Even without consciously realizing it. And they also spend a lot of money indulging in the senses. I don't live my life to impress people. But I do like to indulge in the senses sure. But it's a trade-off that you have to balance right? The more that you consume beyond the basics, the more that you are a slave. The less free you are. The less that you consume beyond the basics, the less you have to slave. The more free you are. You have to make a personal decision. Is that expensive Caribbean getaway worth the labour hours necessary to purchase that vacation?

The dilemma that I have noticed as a freeter (part-timer or temp) working for an hourly wage vs full-time salaried employee over the years though is that if you are a freeter, you have more control over your time. But you don't have the same financial security because hourly wage part-time jobs usually don't pay very well. Where I live, if you make minimum wage, you have to work a full-time job 40+ hrs/week in order to get above the poverty line. Being a part-time freeter isn't so bad when you live with your parents (as I do now). But if you don't have that option or when your parents pass, you are on your own.

But if you are a salaried wage slave making good money (I've been in this position before. But I was a temp contract employee, not permanent), you have more money than you know what to do with. But you don't have a whole lot of free time and energy to pursue your interests. That was a dilemma that I found myself in as a full-time salaryman. I've been able to save a boatload of money and I'm greatful that I have that nest egg now. But I paid the price with my sanity, my stress and my unhappiness. My personal health.

Ideally it would be nice if there was a middle-way. Where we can get decent financial security without having to work so much. But that's not going to happen under capitalism unless we have a universal basic income policy or maybe a means-tested basic income with a not so insane marginal income tax rate on your benefits (means-tested welfare as it is currently designed not only pays below a basic livable income but it punishes welfare recipients who want to work by introducing a marginal income tax rate of up to 100% or even higher in some cases on their benefits if they work. This is called the welfare trap or welfare cliff.)


 No.313

>>304

>>305

Okay but what about all those island nations that pretty much subsist entirely on their tourism industries? Would such a thing still be possible under socialism?


 No.314

>>313

So as long as there is demand for tourism, I don't see why island nations that subsist mostly on tourism-related industry wouldn't be able to continue to do so. Whether the resort workers owned the resort. Or whether the government owned it.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]