• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Socialists don’t hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.

    Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.

      There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn’t. That’s the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The ole can have criticism without perfect solutions response. Cool, how useless and pointless of you.

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              No, it broadens and deepens understanding.

              Alternatives come from that understanding. Criticism is the fundamental step towards alternatives.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                No, it broadens and deepens understanding

                How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

                Edit: “Thing bad” doesn’t broaden or deepen anything. “Thing has specific shortcomings which aren’t present in specific alternative to thing” is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?

        If this isn’t true, why do think markets serve no purpose?

              • wewbull@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                No because I don’t give you a gift only if you give me one. It’s not a transaction. They are gifts.

                …but you turned it into a semantic point. If I farm sheep and you bake bread, it’s a market when I trade you wool for bread. If trade even as basic as this can’t occur then you’re relying on everyone to be self-sufficient.

                The alternative is you’re expecting everyone to put everything they produce into a kitty which is distributed to all, and I think that is a sure fire recipe for everyone to go hungry and for society to stagnate. There’s little incentive to be productive, and no incentive to be inventive.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Some of the workers may be managerial. But the managerial workers don’t own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they’re not considered the “superior” of any other workers.

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up

        This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I’m sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they’d be better elployees

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won’t fight for any of those things.

          Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It’s the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don’t.

      • masquenox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks

        I guess you haven’t met many CEOs, then.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      All types of governance and economic systems are susceptible to despotism.

      It takes a constantly educated and involved population to fight it.

  • SparrowHawk@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Your point is based on an idealistic and wishful “uncorruot government”. You cannot have an uncorrupt government. What’s needed is a different form of political decision making, one where the common folk participates in the political questions, not just some answers, where accountability is protected and a priority.

    I don’t know the exact blueprint for this, maybe it is as unattainable as an “uncorrupted government”. What I know is that nobody really tried it yet, while so called “liberal democracy” has proven its failings to all and the fascist have been taking advantage of those failings since the start. The only way yo avoid this is to change our questions, not to all agree on the answers

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    It can. In theory.

    The theoretical part is the “uncorrupt government” you speak of.

    The only way to keep a govt “uncorrupt” as you put it is under pain of literal death. And even then its not foolproof. Some will still be tempted.

    If you want a govt that will serve the people while being as incorruptible as possible you have to choose politicians by lottery instead of election. They get called, go serve, then go back to the life they had before. Like 4 years of Jury Duty. Political graspers, climbers, those will always trend towards corruption. Like that old addage, anyone actively seeking political office is unfit to serve in that capacity as their motivations are suspect. Power, authority, etc. All that is only intensified in a system as inconceivably corrupt and broken as ours is.

  • tracyspcy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    There is not such thing as middle class, pure sophistic. There are only 2 classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie.

  • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an “uncorrupt government” is remotely possible.

    Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it’s remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.

    There, now I’ve pissed off everyone lol

    Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷

  • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m actually very centrist; I don’t want to eat the rich.

    After all, I’m a vegan and think that anyone involved in the meat industry should be put in jail.

    So, dead center. That’s me.

  • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    My experience has been the opposite. I’ve found that the majority of users tend to lean towards neoliberal and center-right ideologies. I guess most of them are probably American, so their warped worldview has them considering these ideologies as ‘left-wing’ instead 🙃

    • dartos@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah but capitalism also made reddit great, before making it terrible.

      There’s a balance in there somewhere. What we got ain’t it tho.

      • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Reddit was never great lmaoo

        It was a pedo networking tool reknowned worldwide for it’s jailbate and non-consensual creepshots. These moderators received awards from admins. Then it got too much attention and got a PR workover, burning a woman CEO at the stake to satiate the gamer-fascists before becoming a bland Atlanticist CIA sockpuppet front of bland corporate posts.

        At no point during this entire thing did it ever approach anything comparable to greatness

        • dartos@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I may be wrong, but I don’t see socialism and capitalism as hard opposites.

          I see capitalism and communism are like hard opposites with socialism somewhere in between.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Capitalism is the state controlled by the capital owners with the workers repressed.

            Socialism is the state controlled by the workers with the capital owners repressed.

            They are literally hard opposites. One is a bourgeoise-state and the other is a proletarian-state.

            • dartos@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              I learned that “capitalism” is an economic system, not a system of government.

              So you could have a socialist state that funds essentials like healthcare and transportation through taxes with a market (capitalist) economy.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                That’s not a socialist state. It’s a capitalist state with welfare. If the political structure of the state itself has not been reworked to put the workers in power what you’re describing is just a state where the bourgeoisie (who control power) have decided to do welfare, usually for their own benefit such as reducing revolutionary energy by providing the workers with concessions (the welfare state). That is social democracy.

                You do not have socialism without overthrowing the hierarchy that places the bourgeoisie as the ruling class:

                Capitalism = Capitalists in power. Proles repressed.

                Socialism = Proletariat in power. Capitalists repressed.

                Communism = No more classes, only 1 class because the bourgeoisie have been completely phased out.

                • wewbull@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy. What political system would you see working with socialism as you describe it?

      • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Yes because people never communicated over the Internet before Glorious Visionary Entrepreneurs from the Great Private Sector took hold of it and gave us all these Valuable Products, they just sat on their ass wondering what to do with such technology like complete idiots.

        I swear free market ideology is the dumbest shit you can possibly believe in, I’d sooner become a fucking Mormon.

  • OneNot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I wish it was just “towards the left”.

    I’m very much on the left socially and left of center economically, but even I feel like every other comments section on here reads like some insane tankie commune.

    • droans@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It’s always a weird flavor, too. Like “I’m communist but only if I get all the wealth. Also I hate minorities but love the LGBT.”

      For some reason it just makes me think of Dennis on 30 Rock. “Fiscally liberal, socially conservative.”

      • Faresh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m communist but only if I get all the wealth. Also I hate minorities but love the LGBT

        Where did you see that?

        • droans@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s a bit of hyperbole, but Lemmygrad and Hexbear aren’t far off.

          A lot of their users believe that Russia is a communist state, not some crony capitalist society that would make Bezos blush. They also seem to really love Trump for some reason.