• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

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

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

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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?

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • masquenox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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
          1 year 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.

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 days 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.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

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

  • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The amount of left wing folks on some of the more extreme instances bashing the most left wing people in the American Democratic party because they’re not complete socialist idiologes is just wild. Like I want to see a major shift towards some form of democratic socialism in America and think we definitely need real change in that direction, but the hatred for elected officials closest to your views just because they aren’t extreme enough for you is silly.

    I don’t understand why they feel the need to attack the left win branch of the DNC when Joe Manchin equists. When the Republican party exists. Focus efforts on some positive change and getting people you want in office instead of trying to tear down what should be an ally. Make the people you think aren’t extreme left enough the conservatives of a new wave. The defeatest attitude that just criticizes the closest thing they have to what they want is just silly.

    Other than a violent change of the guard/revolution. It’s not going to be an instant process. You have to accept small progress where you can get it.

  • OneNot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know a lot of you are meming, but the amount of dogshit takes here is almost depressing.

    There is no single answer to what a good government looks like, there is no “best one” and surely any single one that is based purely on ideals or idealized human behavior will fail, no matter how hard you believe in it.

    One of the arguably most successful governments is the Chinese one and they are and were neither just, nor friendly, nor purely capitalist, communist or authoritarian. They are very China first and fuck everyone else and that works because of a lack of conscience and them adapting to everything without a second thought. Looking away and screwing people over as needed. You can be capitalist as long as it works for them. You can do whatever if it benefits them.

    The US does this too, in different ways with similar effects.

  • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Honestly, I think capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if it was limited to what it’s good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.

    But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.

    Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic “food stamps” system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury “fun bucks” that you don’t lose out on if you don’t have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.

    Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I’ve been mulling over, I’m sure there’s a million holes in it.

    • Dentzy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mostly agree; personally I see it more as a minimums covered than specific sectors, so, capitalism is acceptable -and might be a better environment for personal growth than most- as long as everyone has the basics covered, so a roof over their head, basic food, basic clothing, minimal energy to cover AC/Heating and other minimal usage (that would need to be set by specialists, but you get the idea, X KW/h free per person/month), good public transportation, full healthcare and communication access. And then, depending on your situation you can improve over it, by paying the extras, like, example, I think everyone should have access to a 5Mb Internet access for free (Maybe a 5Gb data cap to prevent abuse, but, after the 5GB it slows down, so, you never actually lose the access). That is good for basic browsing, messaging and Social Media applications, with that, people are never locked out of the online world, allowing for job hunting, for appointment taking and other similar necessities, communication with friends and family, but also, public organisms and private companies. This access is either managed by the government via Public Companies, or mandated to Private Companies as a necessary requirement to be allowed to work in the Country (like, you need to have a $0 plan available or you are not granted the bandwidth usage). Then, if you are interested, you can buy higher packages, those would be “controlled” by the Private Companies in a “capitalistic” way.

      Why I like this approach? I think that the current “deification” of work is wrong -pushed actually by wealthy capitalists-, people should be allowed to simply exist, even if they do not work (they can be lazy, yes -and I do not see anything wrong with it-, but also, they can be deeply depressed, heavily disabled -or taking care of someone that is- or simply focusing on art, sports or other activities that not necessarily grant income), my approach would allow for it, but then you can also work if you want/can -for as long as you want/can- to have more (bigger house, better Internet access, designer clothes). I am privileged, I worked hard to get where I am, but I am in a good position, I would not stop working if only my basics would be covered, for me, the work I get paid for is an acceptable trade off for getting a bit more, but even then, I would be way more relaxed and enjoying life, if I knew that losing my job would mean losing my “small luxuries” but not condemning myself to poverty.

      That’s why I don’t fully agree with your division by sectors, because some can be very clear -snacks-, but others are more complicated -like tech, having the latest smartphone very year is a luxury, having a simple working smartphone is a necessity in today’s world-, or it can even vary -Like Internet was a luxury 20 years ago, but it is a necessity today-.

      I hope you get the idea, sorry for the wall of text.

  • Decompose@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Uncorrupt government”

    This is as delusional as anyone can get.

    A wise man said it all once: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do conservatives on lemmy ever do anything but whine that they’re not immediately worshiped for their opinions?