• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.mlEnglish
    7·
    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
      1·
      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.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      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
        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.

    • hglman@lemmy.mlEnglish
      11·
      2 years ago

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

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        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.mlEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

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

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              1·
              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
                0·
                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.

  • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
    English
    2·
    2 years ago

    I think you will find any place thats well moderated and cracks down on bigotry and hatespeech will skew left.

    Weird how that is, huh?

    • dartos@reddthat.com
      01·
      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.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.mlEnglish
      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.

  • tracyspcy@lemmy.ml
    1·
    2 years ago

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

  • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
    1·
    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 🙃

  • Barometer3689@feddit.nl
    1·
    2 years ago

    I thought left also meant protection against unregulated markets? Without regulations it is just going to be capitalismplusplus.

  • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    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.

  • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    1·
    2 years 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.

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    1·
    2 years ago

    The statement in the image is just loaded with terminology that comes with a lot of baggae. It’s no surprise people tear into it. Can’t speak to whether that makes them leftist or just poly sci students.

    “Uncorrupt” misunderstands the nature of corruption. How do you envision resolving the interests of the forces that give validity to said government while still keeping a capitalist structure?

    “Generate wealth” presupposes a specific kind of wealth created by the government and given validity by the capitalist structure. You win at the rules of the game you made up. “Middle class” has a similar problem. “Prosperity” to a nation starving under the global capitalist regime might look quite different. Why use one benchmark over the other? Because of the game you want to choose.