• Sarla@lemmy.world
    8010·
    1 year ago

    You can tell that this audience is primarily American because they still defend capitalism, even after being shafted by it over and over. Careful everyone, big bad socialism is going to take your kids and your wife!

    Don’t dare dream of something better, instead keep swallowing the propaganda of the state and its controlling elites.

    • Fredselfish @lemmy.ml
      23·
      1 year ago

      Man socialism keeps sounding better and better they will even take those pesky wife and kids off my hands/s.

      But in serious most Americans don’t know shit about socialism our capitalism they live under. Dumb fucks look at you with surprise when you mention our highway system would be considered socialist program.

        • Fredselfish @lemmy.ml
          111·
          1 year ago

          Roads and streets are funded 100% from taxs which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism but it’s as close as the United States will allow.

          Also most Americans always going on especially fucking Republicans and their voter base about how the government should be run like a business. But don’t realize the government should never be ran as one.

          The corruption already bad enough.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            5·
            1 year ago

            The closest you get in America to socialism is public libraries and free school meals. And they managed to make the latter controversial and, if not, incredibly shitty.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            85·
            1 year ago

            which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism

            This is part of the problem of people not knowing what socialism even is. Even the ancient slavery systems could have social programs (for example famed Roman grain handouts in Rome), and the first modern, universal state funded social programs were introduced in 1889 in German Empire. neither of them was by any means socialist because socialism is not when the government does stuff.

    • Evkob@lemmy.ca
      152·
      1 year ago

      Hey now, that’s unfair!

      As à Canadian, I can attest that we also blindly defend capitalism.

    • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
      43·
      1 year ago

      Communism does not have a good track record in places like Poland. After the absolute shithole that the PRL was, I dont kniw how you except people to defend communism.

      • shuzuko@midwest.social
        23·
        1 year ago

        Did they say communism? I don’t think they said communism. In fact, I’m pretty certain they said socialism, which is not the same thing unless you’re a propagandized American who licks boots.

        Communism is not the only alternative to capitalism, my dude.

    • Cfreeze@lemmy.world
      22·
      1 year ago

      Why complain when capitalism ruins something that it created? Isn’t that how it works? Something else will come along and don’t better or differently and people will flock to it until it sucks too.

    • fuklu@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      46·
      1 year ago

      Depends on what you mean by socialism. All systems have upsides and downsides. Late stage capitalism in the US has a lot of downsides, but workers taking over the means of production does not have a good track record.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        142·
        1 year ago

        Can you name a pure capitalist state that’s succeeded without socialist elements keeping it afloat?

        Follow-up: Why hand money to the leeches that do nothing but own shit rather than the workers that fuel the economy?

      • Cynosure@lemmy.world
        62·
        1 year ago

        Most socialist states are better after their revolutions as opposed to before. The USSR went from a borderline feudal society to putting people in orbit in 50 years. Additionaly, socialist states outperform capitalist ones in similar wealth categories.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        2·
        1 year ago

        That would be a decent question if we had examples of socialist experiments that were actually left alone to develop and not invaded 2 sevonds after america heard about them

      • Cynosure@lemmy.world
        12·
        1 year ago

        Most socialist states are better after their revolutions as opposed to before. The USSR went from a borderline feudal society to putting people in orbit in 50 years. Additionaly, socialist states outperform capitalist ones in similar wealth categories.

        • Silviecat44@vlemmy.net
          12·
          1 year ago

          Did they get to the moon? /s

          Anyway they aren’t around today without capitalism (modern russia) so your point is kind of useless

      • lokoluis15@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

        Because it’s unsustainable and actively degenerates everything in its environment in pursuit of an insatiable need for capital growth.

        Saying capitalism isn’t that bad is like saying early stage cancer isn’t that bad. It doesn’t change the nature of the cancer and what it will become unabated.

      • version_unsorted@lemm.ee
        1·
        1 year ago

        Anti-capitalism is centered around removing power from holding capital. By tying power to capital, there is an incentive to accumulate capital in disproportionate exchange.

        Anti-capitalism is NOT anti-market. Markets are an economic tool used in all economies. Socialism is offered as an alternative to shift power to collective agreement through direct vote (direct democracy) or reprentative agreement (republic). By not granting economic goverance to a democratic government, there is a limitation on the ability to keep commodities responsibly sourced and consumed.

        Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.

        • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
          1·
          1 year ago

          Based on your definition of what it means to be “anti-capitalist” vs “anti-market” I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?

          While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of “the means of production”, in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don’t think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.

          Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.

          One last thing I’d like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of “capitalism”.

          • version_unsorted@lemm.ee
            0·
            1 year ago

            These seem good: https://www.wordnik.com/words/capitalism

            from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

            noun An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

            from The Century Dictionary.

            noun The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
noun The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.

            from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

            noun An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.

            from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

            noun politics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun economics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun countable a specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.

            from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

            noun an economic system based on private ownership of capital
            • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
              1·
              1 year ago

              Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for “anti-capitalism” as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don’t inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be “anti-extreme wealth” rather than “anti-capitalism”?

  • Sabo_Tabby@lemmy.ml
    271·
    1 year ago

    Amazing how many people will step in to defend the ownership of everything to a small minority. They will not reward bootlicking yet yall continue.

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    4723·
    1 year ago

    Lol, enshitification of these services are happening because the owners want to extract as much money as possible from the users. Workers would do the same even if they owned it. How many people would turn down millions of dollars because users don’t like the change?

    • aski3252@lemmy.ml
      211·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I’m not sure why it’s nowadays common to simplify socialism as “workers owning the means of production”. It’s not exactly wrong, but it is often misunderstood.

      A company being owned by it’s employees is not necessarily “socialism”. In today’s global capitalist economy, there are worker-cooperatives as well, but they too exist within the capitalist economy and have to follow its rules, which is above all the profit motive. If you don’t orient yourself based on profit, you will be out-competed eventually.

      Traditionally, when socialists talk about “workers owning/seizing the means of production”, they are not talking about individual workers or individual businesses.

      Workers means “the working class”, which would be pretty much everyone (“the 99%”). Means of production means industry and the economy overall, not individual factories and businesses.

      What makes FOSS special is that the software is not privately owned by anyone, not by the devs, not by a couple of programmers, not by a company. It is commonly owned, anyone can use, copy and alter the code however they want without any artificial barriers. This of course makes it a lot harder to extract money from users.

    • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
      192·
      1 year ago

      In publicly-traded corporations, long term wealth extraction isn’t the goal. Getting sales up next quarter is. Employee-owned cooperatives are more likely to think long term. Plus, I’d vastly prefer to trust the average worker to do the right thing in a coop situation vs a manager doing it in a situation where they’re legally required (as standard publicly-traded corporations are) to prioritize the financial gains of shareholders above all other interests. Maybe you’ve lost so much faith in people that you think no one would ever choose to be slightly less rich for any reason. But plenty of people know there’s such a thing as enough, that there are interests as important as next quarter’s profits. They just don’t usually get MBAs.

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
      141·
      1 year ago

      You must think that humans are inherently greedy and/or are projecting what you would do in a scenario where you’re part of a worker co-op. Most workplaces aren’t worth millions. Most folks who round themselves in a worker co-op would most likely try to better the operation for everyone.

    • _ak@lemmy.world
      9·
      1 year ago

      Ah, yes, we can see it with all the communities running their own Mastodon servers and extracting the maximum of wealth from their users. /s

    • zoodlenoodle@lemmy.world
      71·
      1 year ago

      Yah, if workers own a tiny portion of the means of production, as they do now in various co-ops around the globe, they will be either (1) required to operate on the basis of profit in order to outcompete entities that are not worker-owned, or (2) cease to exist because they get outcompeted by those who operate on the basis of profit.

      This forces all existing co-ops to behave in line with capitalism as a whole. The point is to overcome that system of socio-economic relations: When calls are made for workers to own and operate production, as in this meme, they mean that the class constituted by workers — the proletariat — should be in control of all productive means. Not just that some workers should start co-ops, for this primary reason.

      The idea that owners would sacrifice their profits if their business were merely a co-op is, I agree, not necessarily true. (Though workers in co-ops who are directly connected to the point of value production would definitely be more willing to sacrifice profits for decisions that enhance social value.) The point, however, is to move beyond an economy owned and operated for profit and forge a society in which profit is not the basis for operation in the first place. If, for example, workers’ needs were guaranteed, the impetus for profit-seeking would evaporate, though will not be absent, at least while the artifacts of capitalist society persist in us and our institutions.

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
      1·
      1 year ago

      That’s not exactly how things be.

      If means of production were all owned by workers, then that means they are operating them for their own benefit and the benefit of their communities. Why? The profit motive is not quite as strong. You are no longer needing to amass wealth to live a happy life. Because those who control the local farms are part of the community. Those who control local factories are workers that are part of the community. Each of those operates the means of production to fulfill their own needs, and their community

  • moosetwin@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    22·
    1 year ago

    Attention, people of Bikini Bottom! You have been cheated and lied to! The gentle laborer shall no longer suffer from the noxious greed of Mr. Krabs! We will dismantle oppression board by board! We’ll saw the foundation of big business in half, even if it takes an eternity! With your support, we will send the hammer of the people’s will crashing through Mr. Krabs’ HOUSE OF SERVITUDE!

  • lasagna@programming.dev
    192·
    1 year ago

    Goes without saying. Look at the profits of the companies providing essential resources like energy. They most certainly didn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

    • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
      223·
      1 year ago

      Workers don’t give a shit about customers because that’s how the incentive system is set up. Give workers the profits, you give them a good reason to give a shit about how clients feel.

      • lightrush@lemmy.ca
        3·
        1 year ago

        As well as ensuring those profits will keep flowing through their retirement, and you get the long term planning incentive.

    • this@sh.itjust.works
      201·
      1 year ago

      That would be an improvement actually, because the customers of these companies are not users, they are other companies looking to advertise or buy users personal data. The users of for profit social media are in fact the product, not the customers.

      • erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml
        52·
        1 year ago

        Great counterpoint. This is what Reddit has been missing for the last 6-8 years: actual thought instead of regurgitation.

      • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
        9·
        1 year ago

        You skipped over the part where he says “You think I own this business? You think I own IKEA?” implying he would care if he actually had any skin in the game which he would if his job operated as a worker co-op.

    • ralC@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      4·
      1 year ago

      Unsurprisingly, those who manage their own small business and aren’t at mercy of a giant corporation do. So…🙄

  • onlinely@lemm.ee
    111·
    1 year ago

    Yes, or at a bare minimum, CEO-proof everything and put more power in the hands of users of monolithic infrastructural utility products like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit

  • vibe@discuss.tchncs.de
    101·
    1 year ago

    Or at least have them be publicly owned common good, owned by multiple countries with editorial independence from the get go and funded through taxation. That would be a start.

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    84·
    1 year ago

    Communism works nice in theory, and in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. But we e can definity re-shitproof internet based services.

    • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
      12·
      1 year ago

      Shitty people always ended up in charge and found a way to enrich themselves. Maybe in the far future once we have a true artificial intelligence, communism can truly work after they elect some unbiased AI (no skynet please) to be their leader.

        • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
          1·
          1 year ago

          Who will direct productions if someone not in charge of anything? Who stops bad actors from inciting their society into anarchy if no one wield any power to control the population?

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            2·
            1 year ago

            The answer to both questions is the people themselves. We’re stronger together. No individual can stop the collective will.

            • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
              11·
              1 year ago

              That’s very noble but sadly I don’t trust humanity at current state to be able to do that. We’ll probably need to genetically engineer selfishness out of humanity’s gene pool before communism has any chance to success.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                2·
                1 year ago

                No, we don’t need eugenics to ensure socialism. People are plenty empathetic as it is. The biggest hurdle to true selflessness at the minute is living in a society that incentivises greed. And that is the fault of capitalism.

              • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
                1·
                1 year ago

                I don’t trust humanity at current state to be able to do that

                Which is precisely why the first step of the communist experiment is Class Consciousness.