719
One in the same
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
719 points (90.3% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26167 readers
3218 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why not something like market socialism?
Market Socialism is a great common sense first step, but it leaves enshittification because it keeps the profit motive. Ideally the profit motive should be phased out.
I don't think it's a perfect system, however there are easy ways to prevent this problem. You simply make either the customers or the government one of the parties holding shares of the companies. That way the customers also get to vote on decisions, or the government on behalf of the whole society.
I feel like that's just a less efficient non-market form of Socialism, at that point it might make more sense to just fully socialize.
Fully socialize? Socialist market economy is a true socialist system already. You can't make it more socialist. Your confusing communism with socialism.
I'm aware that it's fully anticapitalist, but full Socialism would imply collective ownership of the Means of Production, not just ownership at an entity level.
Communism would also get rid of the state, so I'm not quite referring to Communism in this instance.
Your confusing Leninism for socialism. Not all socialism even requires a state never mind state ownership.
I'm not, and I understand. I think you're confusing my point, I think having unequal ownership among a collective of people is less efficient for Socialism.
Why? How could letting someone half way across the world that has nothing to do with a given workplace or enterprise vote on an issue they know nothing about possibly be more efficient? Surely having the people who are actual stakeholders in a co-operative make decisions about that co-operative would be more fair and more efficient than having a central bureaucratic organization, or worse individual voters across the world make decisions for them.
Also I hate to tell you this but markets are generally pretty efficient. Command economies much less so.
You can have equal ownership without requiring everyone to give input, and this prevents someone from gaining more ownership and thus more power.
How is someone going to gain more ownership? We are talking about worker co-ops probably enforced by law. You can add rules about how much of a business who can own of those who work there.
Then you keep enshittification as coops monopolize, which you said you'd allow the government and customers to also have ownership, by which point I'd say it would be more efficient to just share equal ownership to begin with.
Isn't market socialism literally just a form of capitalism? Like if you still have markets and a profit incentive then you're not really socialist
Not saying that's bad, just thinking really it has always seemed to me like capitalism with a strong social safety net. Which to me seems ideal, just want to know if I'm missing something?
I think you're confusing social democracy with market socialism.
In market socialism the working class owns the businesses they work for, possibly in conjunction with the government or their customers. There are no people who became shareholders by buying shares, and starting a business doesn't mean you get to own all of it. It's essentially a society where all businesses are worker co-ops.
It has nothing to do with a social safety net. In practice one would probably exist anyway, but it's not a strict requirement of this sort of system like it is in social democracy. Technically you wouldn't have to have free universal healthcare either.
It helps to know that the definition of socialism I am using is based on the marxist one: a society where the workers own the means of production.
Edit: Profit still exists in this system but it's shared more or less equally between the workers of that business. This means workers actually have a concrete incentive to work well, not just the vague possibility of a promotion. It also means you will probably see less short term profit making and less overwork hopefully.
How do you get your initial capital to start the co-op? Like you can't have investors, so is every worker required to buy in the the initial venture?
By the way you are entirely free to structure companies this way under a social democracy
You can set that up in any capitalist society, not just social democracy. It even happens in the US. That's one of the major advantages of worker co-ops. It's not true socialism though unless every business is run that way. I don't really want social democracy. I want real socialism.
As for funding I am not sure. Real worker co-ops must get funding from somewhere I would look into that. In a full market socialist economy the government could have a role in that. After all the current scheme of needing Capital to start a business isn't fair at all.
Right, but why do you require every person in the country to work under a co-op? Is it not enough to let them choose?
In your socialist society if a group of people agreed that they would like to set up businesses under a different model what would you do?
And further, if you're calling for an enormous change to the way we structure our economy then shouldn't you be able to articulate how that system will work?
Look around you my guy. Capitalism doesn't work. Most people who have the money needed to start or invest in a business are only in it to make themselves richer and to exploit others. My system prevents all of that.
I imagine the same thing we do now with people who have illegal businesses or businesses that go against regulations.
You have never talked to marxists before have you? They don't even know what economic system they want to use most of the time, because they don't consider that detail to be important and think we can figure it out after or during the revolution. If I started asking them these questions they probably wouldn't give me a straight answer and it would probably turn into an argument.
Meanwhile I am missing a couple of small details. Ones you can find yourself if you are willing to do more research than I have.
That is a wholly unsatisfactory response
Firstly capitalism does work, it is extremely efficient at what it does which is allocating capital, which I've never heard of a good alternative. Central planning seems pretty trash as an alternative example But where "capitalism" falls over isn't to do with it at all. Capitalism is an economic system, it doesn't dictate anything about how we setup things like welfare or even ubi if you want. Look at Europe, seems pretty chill to me in a lot of countries that are capitalist
Right so you would make any other structure of company illegal. I don't like that particularly, but from your moral system I get it. But then we probably have a fundamental disagreement there that can't be resolved easily
What really annoys me about socialists/communists is you always want to handwave your bullshit system. You don't even know how to start a business under your system but want to advocate for it! Being better than a moronic Marxist in this respect doesn't excuse you of understanding what your system entails Also please don't tell me to do my own research on your proposed system, you should be able to explain if you want entire countries to switch economic models
I don't owe you a "satisfactory" response. I have been trying to explain what system I favour and why given you hadn't heard of it before. This isn't a debate and I can't debate someone who didn't even know the thing I am talking about even existed before we had this conversation, so stop treating it like one. I am not an expert in any economic system, nor are most people and I doubt you are either. What I do know is that the current one definitely isn't good for many reasons. I also know that economics is largely pseudoscience and should be treated as such.
I actually live in Europe. That argument won't work on me. It's actually so absurd that Americans think Europe is this perfect place just because we aren't a third world country. There is a cost of living crisis ongoing where I live. I can't even find a job in my field despite having a masters degree (computer science), and had to move back in with my parents. There are homeless people on the streets. People regularly can't afford to heat their homes. There are loads more issues if you care to look for them too. Many of these are caused by capitalism.
I can't say anything about allocating capital because I am not an economist. I can say though the damage that has been caused to people and the environment. There is also no reason why something like market socialism would be less efficient to my knowledge as it uses many of the same ideas that capitalism does including the profit motive. I don't think it's a perfect solution by any means, and I am not confident a perfect solution is even possible. I do think it's something that's worth a shot.
What moral system do you think I follow exactly? All I want is a world where we don't have to exploit each other to survive, where everyone is looked after and the planet isn't dying. To be given the opportunity to improve yourself. Being rewarded for working hard or gaining skills would be good too, but not as important as the rest. Currently I am not getting any of these things and I am rightfully angry about that.
If you actually have a solution that would work better than I am all ears. I don't think social democracy and welfare can fix all that though, because I have lived in countries with those things and seen them fail. Even the ones that appear to do it well are normally exploiting the planet or other countries to do so.
If we humans can't work out how to make a system that works for everyone and for the planet then we don't deserve to be alive frankly. We deserve to go extinct and be replaced by something else.
That's actually one of the main issues I had with marxists funnily enough. That and some authoritarian tendencies. Though there are definitely some who have ideas on how to run an economy, and you might find some of these of interest.
Man I just find it frustrating that not a single socialist I've met or talked to can accurately explain their system given any amount of pushback
I can understand wanting to restructure your entire economy because you're currently facing issues with your current system. But in my opinion the failing isn't of the economic system but the system built around it. I truly believe with a well implemented tax system and regulations we could keep everyone's needs met Meaning potentially negative taxation for those of low income and higher taxation as you move upwards
I don't feel we can blame our economy for the way we're currently fucking over the plant it terms of climate. Many socialist projects were massively damaging to the environment as well, in both systems the only real fix is regulation. Which I wish we could pass but unfortunately the reality is that in a lot of places voters simply don't want it (which is dumb)
If you truly want to critique capitalism I think it would be beneficial to understand how it works and some level of the economics Which by the way if you can come up with a cohesive plan for socialism I'd love to see it. As I think fundamentally we want the same things, and I don't mind which way we go, it's just thus far socialism doesn't seem to be very practical
I dunno man, billionaires are a big failure of this economic system. So is alienation of labour. No one should profit from someone else's work. Even so I could forgive all that of it meant everyone had enough money from working say 20 or 30 hours a week, but that isn't the case.
I know capitalism isn't purely to blame for the environmental problems we have, but it is a major component. You can see this with oil companies and their owners lobbying governments not to pass legislation, producing propaganda, and funding bad science.
I actually understand some level of how capitalism works already. Maybe I could learn more, but honestly what I have learned already I find disgusting. How anyone who actually understands it doesn't find it irredeemable I struggle to understand. That being said it's certainly a complex system, that certainly seems efficient if you don't actually look too hard. I think that's what stops people seeing the very obvious flaws.
I don't consider it bad for people to make a profit off my work though. They're always risking something in order for me to be in a position to make profits to begin with. If they weren't I wouldn't need the employer, I'd just have a risk free business that I'd run myself
I don't think the oil companies are a failure of capitalism either. I understand how it looks that way, as they do some real sketchy stuff in the name of profit. But at the end of the day our governments should be regulating them to death, but they aren't and the reason sadly enough is likely that the average citizen simply doesn't care. In countries where an actual majority of the population care you see much better results Even under full on communism you could still run in to this issue anyway. Oil is a big industry for a reason, it's really useful and relatively cheap you could easily see a communist society choosing to use it ignoring the downsides
I think capitalism's flaws are obvious, which I like. Because we can easily rectify them with government regulation Do you have an example of a flaw of capitalism that can't be solved? Other than just the idea that profiting off someone else's labour is wrong, as I think that's really more of a philosophical question that I don't think 90% of people would agree with
It's not just about risk though. It's about having the capital to start with. Most people would never have enough capital to start a large business like amazon. Even if they did you have to get obscenely lucky and be at the right time on the market. Rich people might technically be taking a risk, but they have the money to finance many, many of these risks and so long as at least some pay off it's a net profit for them.
Capitalism inevitably leads to government corruption. There is as far as I can tell no easy solution for this besides removing them for the very economic system they are supposed to legislate for - which obviously has other issues. That's why government regulation doesn't work and isn't a solution. As they say: money is the root of all evil.
First you can't have a communist government do any bad things, because communist governments don't exist! It's a contradiction as there is no state under communism. You mean Marxist governments practicing state socialism, and I have already said I have issues with Marxists. I also think it's pertinent to mention that state socialism is meant to be temporary in a Marxist regime, and not all Marxists advocate for state socialism either.
Market socialism (which isn't communism - not even close) could theoretically have these issues yes. There are however no billionaires to bribe anyone, so in practice I think these issues would be less severe.
A large part of the problem with the climate issue is public education - that's why people don't care. Education is something even state socialist economies have generally done well at. Obviously this can never be done perfectly, and there are always some idiots when it comes to issues like this and things like anti-vaxxers. That being said there is a lot that can be done when people aren't being brain washed for profit. Conspiracy theorists make bank off of people who are gullible - removing the profit motive there would actually be useful here. I can see it being a problem in an economy under market socialism as the profit motive still exists.
Just on the risk point. To reduce the scope a bit
People not having the assents to start large businesses is of course a thing. You need to be quite lucky to start a business to begin with, I wouldn't dispute that and I hate the dumb thing the right does where they assume everyone can start a successful business
However I would like to know, in your ideal system where would the starting capital come from? And how do we decide which businesses should have capital allocated to them? Your comment on "communism has no government" would make this seemingly quite difficult
I am not advocating for communism though. I am explaining what communists believe to the best of my ability - which is somewhat limited because I am not a communist. There are also no "businesses" as such under communism, and also no money for starting capital. There is also no profit. You are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people here. Also "communism has not government" isn't my comment, it's a statement of fact you would know if you actually spoke to communists or made an attempt to understand their ideology.
I asked for your ideal system. I was saying further that communism would have a hard time here. But please do explain for market socialism/whatever you prefer
Sorry when I say business replace with whatever name you want for the organisation you'd replace it with. My point being, lets say I want a place that makes a new kind of product that I have an idea for. Now 10 other people have ideas for other products, not necessarily in the same sector If the market can't decide, and government doesn't exist. Then how do we decide what gets resources allocated? Do we do direct democracy?
I'm more interested in your system than communism though of course, as communism seems impractical
And please don't tell me "maybe you should talk to them or try to understand". I literally am, but communists seem far to quick to just say "capitalism bad" and call it a day, or somehow worse "I don't know how it'll work, we'll work that out after the revolution"
The point is not necessarily about profit rather about what the profit comes from namely the positive (property rights to produced outputs) and negative product (liabilities for used-up inputs), which together are the whole product. A basic tenet of justice that capitalism violates is that legal and de facto responsibility should match. In a worker coop, the workers are held jointly legally responsible for the whole product matching their de facto responsibility for producing it @lemmyshitpost
Is this a bot?
No @lemmyshitpost
You would find David Ellerman's work interesting. He provides strong arguments against capitalism and in favor of a worker coop market economy, and he also addresses the problem of capital allocation. I would recommend to you his book, The Democratic Firm. Here is a link to the book from the author's website: https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DEMOFIRM.pdf @lemmyshitpost
Out of curiosity what is this system you are describing called? I am guessing it's not truly socialism if it allows for entrepreneurship. I have to say I've not run into this exact system before. Would I be correct in thinking that unlike in market socialism it's possible to directly own parts of a business you don't work for or are a customer for?
The system is usually called economic democracy because it democratizes the economic sphere. All firms in economic democracy are required to be worker coops. As a result, voting shares are exclusively held by those that are actually working the firm. Non-voting preferred stock can be free floating property rights that can be held by outside investors. it is democratic because only the people actually governed in the firm (i.e. workers) have voting rights over management
Wouldn't that allow people to profit who put in no work? I think this becomes a moral issue on some level as I don't generally agree with people making money off of the work of others.
The payment to investors in this case isn't based on a non-worker solely appropriating the fruits of labor. The payment is satisfaction of the liability workers jointly appropriate as part of the negative product. Paying covers the costs of the negative product. It is compensation to the investors for the capital they supplied and the work they did building up that much capital @lemmyshitpost
The requirement that all firms be worker coops is to protect workers' inalienable rights to democracy and to get the positive and negative fruits of your labor. An inalienable right is a right that cannot be given up or transferred even with consent. These workers' inalienable rights flow from the tenet that legal and de facto responsibility should match. A group of people agreeing to it is not sufficient for validity because responsibility can't be transferred even with consent
There can be investors in market-based postcapitalist society. They just can't hold voting shares, so they hold non-voting preferred stock.
Freedom to structure one's own company as a worker coop doesn't undo the systematic violations of workers' inalienable rights in all the other capitalist firms. The only way to fix that would be turn those firms into worker coops as well
See that isn't very consistent is it? If you hold non voting stock you can't vote on company decisions. But the company does now need to pay you a dividend, which according to you would be immoral as it would mean a third party is profiting from their labour correct?
The problem isn't the fact that the investors get some value. It is that the employer gets sole property right to the produced outputs and holds all the liabilities for the used-up inputs despite the workers' joint de facto responsibility for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. This mismatch violates the tenet that legal and de facto responsibility should match. Worker don't create output ex nihilo. They use up inputs. Dividends help satisfy those input liabilities @lemmyshitpost
Market postcapitalism with worker coops doesn't mean the workers own the means of production. That idea of what postcapitalism looks like is Marxist baggage that needs to move into the dustbin of intellectual history. A worker coop can, for example, lease means of production from another worker coop or individual without violating the workers' inalienable rights to workplace democracy or to get the fruits of their labor @lemmyshitpost
What idea needs throwing in the dustbin? The "workers own the means of production" part? What exactly is wrong with that idea?
There is no reason why only workers should own the means of production nor why the means of production a firm uses must be owned by the workers of the same firm. Leasing out means of production to other firms is a perfectly valid way for worker coops to exchange products of labor. What is illegitimate is the employment contract as it violates inalienable rights. There are distributive justice and efficiency arguments for common ownership of capital, but that includes non-workers
Aren't workers not owning means of production the reason surplus value can be extracted from them? Workers owning means of production is the definition of socialism for a reason. How can you guarantee the workers won't be exploited without this?
The workers aren't exploited in a worker coop. The workers jointly appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor. The workers don't create the product ex nihilo they use up inputs (e.g. the services of capital). Paying lease is satisfaction of liabilities for using up capital services. Leasing out labor's product allows workers to sell a part of the product's services rather than sell the entire product. The employment contract gives the employer the product @lemmyshitpost
Those are some very fancy words. Now I know how people feel when I talk about computers.
You're right that wasn't very clear.
Capitalism is exploitative due to the employment contract not non-worker capital ownership. The employment contract is bad because it gives the employer 100% of the property right to the produced output (i.e. ownership of new cars in a car firm) and 100% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs (i.e. factory machine services) while employees get 0%. The workers don't create the output out of nothing they use input materials @lemmyshitpost