You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t hate socialism.
I hate socializing.
A lot of people are capitalists when it comes to chipping in but are socialists when it comes to getting a hand out
Ghisline Maxwell’s dad published our textbooks
It’s true.
And all the bad consequences they told you would result from it are pretty much what capitalism is doing all the time.
Obviously, this is Russina propaganda. They are jealous of our freedom and prosperity. This is just a try to confuse us into becoming gay communists, so our military degrades and they can use their Mexican and Canadian proxy cells to take over our god-given country.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Had an exchange that went like
“The workers don’t know how to run the business”
“Did the owner tell you that?”
“… shit.”
Also workers don’t have to run the business, they can elect / delegate someone to do that.
If that owners managerial skills are truly necessary for the business’ survival then they should have no problem explaining that to their fellow workers and getting elected to manage. They just won’t get all the profit…
I’ve worked for some small businesses that the owners themselves could not be trusted to run operations without fucking everything up.
Size of organizations really is an important factor. For small-medium businesses, the owner probably needs to have the skills to operate things themselves, for medium-to-large the owners skills set changes to people managment (see the Peter Principal). Then you get to the places where the CEOs job is less managing people but setting directives at the request of the board and being the cult of personality/fall-guy for the investors.
Its that last one where I get why it works that way, but its baffling how an organization gets there without someone asking if thats a bad idea.
These were auto shops with 8-15 employees, the owners had started the business when you wrote appointments on a desk calendar and there were three oil filters on the shelf, one for Chevy, one for Chrysler and one for Ford. Ask them to make an appointment or order the correct oil filter for a 2016 Kia Sedona was expecting too much.
What’s more depressing than socialist architecture? Homelessness and starvation in a land with plenty.
you don’t find children dying of exposure because they refuse to put those little hands to use inspiring?
May I add the “owning vast media conglomerate mega-phone allowing the yacht owner to blast said explanation to the entire world” part?
I feel like capitalism with strong regulation and social safety nets is the way to go tbh. Good laws that allow for the thriving of coops and stuff. It’s just kinda hard to maintain that without a recent memory of a cataclysmic war, ig.
Terms like Capitalism and Socialism mean different things to different people. Yes, there are official or academic definitions you could reference. I’d argue that the larger movement of socialism is less about a well-defined prescription of how to run a society and more about criticism of capitalism, its consequences, and finding better alternatives. It’s about diluting the power of the wealthy (the capitalist or owner class, those who are hoarding the power and wealth) as much as possible and using democracy to distribute that power among the working classes to create a more fair and just society.
What aspects of capitalism make you feel it is a better way to organize society?
What aspects of socialism make you feel it is inferior?
we are in an manmade mass extinction event.
so capitalism where capital doesn’t bestow social power. maybe the capital should be owned by the people so it can’t be exploited against them.
I personally hate socialism because I was born in a socialist country and had a shitty childhood. Inb4 someone from hexbear or lemmygrad explaining me that my experience is not valid because it was “not real socialism”.
All those versions have the same problems if horrible, greedy people are at the helm.
Capitalism under an oppressive ruling class would have 99% not owning anything, and necessities priced out of reach.
Why does it not actually being socialism not bother you?
Could say the same about “not actually capitalism”.
I see, you don’t care to engage with the inaccuracy of the claim but, instead, choose to deflect.
It doesn’t have to be Laissez-faire capitalism to be capitalism. Fascism with red trim isn’t socialism. Hope that helps.
I was born in a socialist country and had a shitty childhood
The people explaining it to me: no yacht but username@lemmy.ml
It is a pity, because socialism doesn’t need to be what Marxist Leninists get a hard-on for.
You don’t have to have a centralised hierarchical system where the workers are but “considered” instead of having democratic control.
And they’ll do it with a straight face.
Me personally, I think it the workers don’t have control over society, it’s not socialism.
No, they hate “the other” would get treated kindly like them. There are some vengeful/racist garbage that have this “out group” damning thing, which sets us all into the pain with high ass premiums and shit. They paint over their rationalization as “rugged individualism,” but it’s basically “no, <out group> doesn’t deserve the services that I should get.”
And yes, above.
Actually I hate it cause my parents and grandparents suffered under it in the GDR. None of them own yachts or houses either.
Socialism isn’t far enough. We need anarcho-com.
Removed by mod
Anarchist tendencies have some inherent philosophical and practical flaws unfortunately. Anarchism relies on a naive, idealistic view of human nature, falsely assuming people are inherently good and cooperative once state authority is removed. Selfishness does stem from capitalist competition and private property, meaning solidarity cannot simply be unlocked by abolishing the state, but must be consciously organized through a new economic system.
I would encourage you to read Kropotkin"s “Are We Good Enough?” It’s short, and he addresses your charge that Anarchists have an unrealistic vision of human nature.
Thank you! I did read it today.
Kropotkin wrongly treats capitalist exploitation and wage labor as results of individual moral flaws like greed or slavishness. In reality, they are objective necessities driven by profit maximization and the workers’ lack of means of production.
By claiming that private property or a monarchy would be harmless among “good” people, Kropotkin reduces systemic power structures to mere vessels of individual morality. However, private property and the state are inherently coercive institutions of exclusion and force, regardless of anyone’s personal character.
Kropotkin’s reliance on historical progress (such as the abolition of slavery and serfdom, which actually just transitioned people into modern wage labor) fails to provide a rational argument for communism. The case for communism rests on overcoming the irrationality of capitalist production through planned, need-based labor, not on historical optimism.
Communism is neither a moral training ground to improve human nature nor a shelter to protect people from their own bad instincts. Instead, it is the conscious, collective interest of producers to abolish capital and the state because these systems subjugate their lives to profit and state power.
