• MxM111
    link
    fedilink
    -4511 months ago

    What’s the alternative? Communism? State ownership of the means of production? Those are worse.

    • @yeahiknow3
      link
      English
      4311 months ago

      Yes, the only options are crony capitalism and communism. Nailed it.

      • MxM111
        link
        fedilink
        -811 months ago

        Did not say crony. And yes, there are alternatives like feudalism, you think they worth mentioning? And I specifically mentioned state ownership too, so, you can count socialism (as economic system there too).

    • @bartolomeo@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      911 months ago

      Doesn’t it seem like communism and capitalism have the same end game? Company towns and one company that produces everything and you have no options. The only difference I guess is that under capitalism, the owners of the means of production are not accountable to anyone and can not be removed whereas under communism the owners of the means of production are democratically elected members of the workforce that are accountable to the people and can be removed if need be.

      Are you sure you’re not confusing communism with authoritarianism or fascism? Capitalism is more closely associated with the latter than communism.

      • MxM111
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        In any place where state ownership of means of manufacturing was implemented it lead to dictatorship or dictatorship like state. So, one can see how one can confuse them. But no, I do not confuse them, for one is economic system, and another is political.

        So, let me ask, in that model that you describe, who owns the means of manufacturing? State or not?

        • @Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          Why must the state own anything, for it to be a more equitable situation? The people who do the work should own the work, all getting a say in what happens, in terms of what they’re doing, where they’re going, and who’s getting fired. The closest thing to “owning” an individual would have is a person, or likely a team, functioning as spokespersons for negotiating with the state or other companies, but only to communicate how the workers have chosen to conduct business, the only real power they have being communication.

              • MxM111
                link
                fedilink
                011 months ago

                So, we have it now, then? Or are you advocating for forced Unionization?

                • @Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  011 months ago

                  Perhaps not forced, I’m not really a fan of that much state control, but broader adoption, more public and government support (support, not force), things like this. I’ll confess I don’t have a “perfect” solution, I doubt anyone does, but it’s definitely not any of the ones we’re using today.

                  • MxM111
                    link
                    fedilink
                    011 months ago

                    Yeah, I am here with you. That’s what I meant in my original post by “but what’s the alternative?”. It is just many here acts as if there is an obvious thing to do, but the reality is far from it.

        • @bartolomeo@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          You mean in communism? I’m no expert but I believe it’s the workers, even though “owning” doesn’t mean quite the same as we use it now.

          • MxM111
            link
            fedilink
            -111 months ago

            “Workers” is too abstract. Which workers? How is it handled? How do you start new business? Who/how it is paid? Who gets the profit? In what proportions? The natural solution is to have state ownership and saying “the state is the people”, but this is exactly what was done in, say USSR. And it does not work well.