• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    390
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Market forces on their own produce many if not all of the perverse incentives of capitalism. Only a centrally planned economy, built on a foundation of grassroots democracy, can hope to overcome those incentives by doing economic planning with an eye towards future sustainability and quality of life, rather than towards profitability.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I, a socialist don’t. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.

        Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we’re slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?

        If this isn’t true, why do think markets serve no purpose?

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      How would that even work.

      It’s very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren’t on about that.

      You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don’t want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.

      Then Japan’s comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.

        Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal

          • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            33
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well the main thing is the concentration of capital. Guys like Jeff Bezos aren’t interested in founding cooperatively-owned companies, and they have all of the money. Add in the fact that average people are very strongly atomized and prevented from forming stable social bonds, and the likelihood that you’ll get a cadre of people together who want to start a cooperative business and can also afford to do so is very, very low.

            That said, the few coops that manage to exist are often the best places in their industry to work, precisely because the profits are shared more equally than in the more common private or publicly traded corporations.

          • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.

            Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.

              In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.

              This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.

              • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                All people are essentially born with no assets

                False. The children of rich people are born rich. That’s a major part of the problem. It creates dynasties.

                • DataDecay@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I’m convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.

              • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Inflation’s been happening since currency was created. We don’t notice day to day because the effects are stretched over a long period.

                Try calculating the value of a 2010 dollar against the current 2023 dollar. You’ll find the cumulative effect of ~5% inflation each year is significant.

                In addition, periods exist throughout American history during which inflation has spiked noticably within a year or two - this is nowhere near the first time.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren’t there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Did… did I say they couldn’t? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          So ah… What’s the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.

          • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They said it in the first comment

            they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market

            • galloog1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The western left doesn’t agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.

              • hglman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.

                • galloog1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Wanting to burn down the system without a coherent and specific approach to replace it only hurts people.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM

          • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            48
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those lazy commies with their limp wristed excuses like: “The reality of living under a capitalist society”. Why don’t they just eat some bootstrap stew like my pa did and die of preventable illness generating labor value for someone else?

              • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                23
                ·
                1 year ago

                We were talking about worker-owned companies, none of those are worker-owned companies and therefore don’t actually refute anything.

              • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wait…so these are your examples of people who “did something”

                Do you realize that the edge every single one of these companies had over the others is the willingness to do whatever it takes to extract as much value from labor for the least amount of money, right?

                You are just making the case for the complete destruction of capitalism. Only soulless psychopaths are rewarded here. Winning is not beating these people at the same psychotic game that they’re playing.

              • Cynetri (he/any)@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                Tesla is not close to bigger than GM. They only make consumer vehicles and maybe a model of semi truck but I don’t think that’s being produced yet, while GM has been making consumer cars in addition to commercial and military vehicles for decades. They might be valued as more but that doesn’t really say anything in practical terms.

          • ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re asking people with little to no resources to take on people who have all the resources.

            You don’t seem like you understand modern capitalism.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals. What an absolute flaccid take.

      • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        The system actively discourages that. It was tried in the 70s. Banks wouldn’t work with coops because they were diffrent. Other companies wouldn’t work with them because they didn’t being as high a ROI. They were more efficient and stable, but under capitalism none of that matters.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like “there’s nothing stopping someone who’s born poor from becoming a millionaire”. Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there’s so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it’s almost statistically impossible. It’s so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok now I know you’re a troll. And a liar.

            Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they’re a rounding error. I don’t think you’re one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.

            Actually, I bet you’re not even a millionaire.

            Whatever it is, the point is that what you’re claiming is so statistically rare, I don’t believe you. And then you’re also claiming it’s common.

            Ergo, troll.

            I’m done talking with you.

            • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              As someone in the industry, I can say you actually do. It’s scary how easy it is to buy coffee harvested by literal or effectively slaves.

              • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don’t speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you’re so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you’re trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you’re talking about.

              • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?

              • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics… right?

                They aren’t growin em in fuckin Seattle.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            but the workers could do it if they wanted

            Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it’s so stacked against it occurring, it’s effectively impossible.

            The state of the economy today is what’s stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.

            Edit: I’m really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. “Nothing is stopping you.” Yeah and “nothing” is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of “nothing”. Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it’s possible.

              • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet’s is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.

              • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.

                You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you’re not competing if you aren’t actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you’re saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan.

            You know the great majority of people don’t have any such collateral, right? Holy privilege, dude

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Own outright? Or have a mortgage?

                Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that’s still over a third of the population who can’t even consider getting a loan like you described.

                And for those that COULD, they’re betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It’s not an even playing field, at all.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      1 year 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.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Highly depends on your coworkers. My current coworkers? Yeah they’re great, we have two electrical engineers on my team, buncha geniuses.

          My last job? Oh man I wouldn’t trust those guys as far as I could throw em.

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up

        This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I’m sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they’d be better elployees

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won’t fight for any of those things.

          Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It’s the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don’t.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, they’re just idiots. Myself and others have had the same training and responsibilities and do fine. It’s not that difficult of a job.

          • hexachrome [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            37
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            i shall surely reap the rewards of working at the same level as these irredeemably dumb people. then i will prove my point online or something

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m several levels up from them. But I have to deal with the problems they cause constantly. I did start at their level though.

              • motherfucker [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sounds like you’re a duct-taper. That’s also indicative of a procedural issue with the company you work for. Shit sucks. Hyper competent duct taper usually ends up being a pretty thankless job as well. Never getting to actually fix underlying problems. Always putting out fires. And everyone just learns to expect it from you, from above and below. And it sounds like you’ve learned to expect it as well. I know all workplaces have their dysfunction, but I hope you can either come to find this one more tolerable or find a better environment soon.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like you’re just an extra special boy. Surely that’s the only explanation to literally all of your coworkers doing their job badly.

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t say all I said most. It’s really probably not even most just a large enough portion of them that there’s always some issue going on caused by their negligence.

              • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sounds like you’re just a mostly special boy then. Surely that’s the only explanation to literally most of your coworkers doing their job badly.

          • potpie@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not just about treating current employees well. It’s also about offering enough at the hiring stage to attract more good workers. Higher starting pay and a better reputation as a place to work means more people applying, means that Methface Matt can’t compete with TypeA Teresa to get hired in the first place.

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People lie in their interviews all the time. The amount of conversations I’ve had with my boss regarding people he’s hired that turned out be idiots that have started with “I don’t know what happened with that dude, he seemed totally normal in the hiring process”. We’re also restricted in what questions we can ask during interviews because asking people probing questions is apparently not fair according to our HR dept which makes it pretty easy for them to BS their way in. Then we’re stuck with their dumb asses for months before HR lets us fire them.

      • masquenox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks

        I guess you haven’t met many CEOs, then.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You must need a better job. I’ve had plenty of workplaces where I could count on everyone around me.

        You know, the hiring manager usually has something to do with the quality of people hired. Maybe you could talk to them instead?

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That doesn’t really change the overall point. People are stupid. It’s the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.

          I think it’s worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it’s still a point worth considering.

      • AcidMarxist [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        if you dont raise your children to be adults, they won’t act like adults when they grow up. A revolution would mean people learning entirely new skills, like making decisions in the workplace. Most workers have no agency, theyre treated like machines, so I dont expect people raised in that society to know how to run a completely different one from scratch. Revolution is a process, it has to be built. Keep shitting on your coworkers tho, im sure its a productive activity

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They can’t even learn to do the tasks they are expected to do now. Even with frequent coaching. How the fuck can you expect them to learn to make business decisions?

            • CriticalResist8 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I used to work for a food type company and the way they decided to import and sell stuff locally was if the board of directors (the CEO who inherited the company from daddy + his siblings) liked the item. They hired someone, my coworker, to actually run the market tests and everything and then promptly ignored any suggestion she had to make about the viability of this product on the local market, instead relegating her to a busser that was in charge of ordering the samples they decided they wanted.

              I remember one item nobody liked (they would give us the remaining samples in the break room like some dogs getting the leftovers), but one of the siblings liked it and they got that close to putting it on the market because of it.

                • CriticalResist8 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I have so many stories from there. At the end of the year they would sell the soon to be expired stock to the employees for like half the price. On paper it was half (you’re just giving money back to your employer so fuck them I stole as much food as I could), but the person who actually took the money was super nice and often gave us further discounts. For them the difference was like a decimal in accounting.

                  They announced these sales by email with the time and date. And in 2020, the year of covid, when half the workforce was working from home, they made the sale as usual. I learned afterwards that on that morning, the siblings who owned the company went and parked their cars right in front of the warehouse where the sale took place, and filled the trunk with as much stuff as they could. Then 2 hours later the sale happened and there was almost nothing left.

                  Technically legal but a fucking shitty thing to do lol, your job is to have a blurry monitor and pretend to do Excel sheets and you drive a Porsche, I think you have the means to load up your car at the store like a grown adult if you need to.

          • AcidMarxist [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            same way we expect students in 9th grade to be capable of more complicated tasks once they’re in 12th grade. The nature of labor in capitalist countries is to sort out wheat from chaffe. “Good” workers become managers (although this is theoretical, ive had plenty of shitty managers), leaving the “bad” workers down at the bottom. This how the economy works right now, but it doesnt always have to. For example, unions sometimes have a probation period where you work as a temp, then join the union after a month or two. This gives you time to learn the job, before you have a say in how things are organized.

            I have more thoughts, but im working rn 😝

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good" workers become managers.

              These days it’s mainly external hires, but it used to be you got promoted to incompetence. You do a job well, you get promoted. You don’t do it well and you don’t get promoted. Thus you get stuck doing something you’re bad at

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like a structural issue. Your coworkers are overworked or underpaid or not informed correctly for the job they’re given. Maybe they know they’re not skilled, but the job is the only one available to them and since they need the money they’re stuck doing something theyre unskilled at. These are but a few systemic problems that might lie to reason.
            Ask yourself this: If all your coworkers are bad at their job, are you just an extra special boy, or might there be something wrong going on?

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        Your coworkers aren’t incompetent. Your coworkers are just half-assing at work because they correctly realize they’re not going to get paid more if they actually tried.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So they’re just selfish assholes that don’t mind creating more work for everyone else and potentially putting people’s safety at risk? That doesn’t do anything to convince me that they should have a say in how the business is run. If they’re not happy with their pay they can go elsewhere.

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where did I say anything about helping the business? I don’t expect them to go above and beyond, when they don’t do their assigned tasks correctly their coworkers then have to deal with the problems this causes getting bitched at by angry customers and such. On top of that some things if not done properly can create a safety issue. We have safeguards in place for this but again it’s just extra work for someone else to redo it. This attitude is causing far more problems for their coworkers than it is for the business.

                • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They’re on track to get fired so they’re not going to get paid for long. You totally ignored what I said about making all their coworkers suffer for their laziness. I thought all us workers were supposed to be in this together?

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Didn’t say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It’s just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.

        Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn’t.

        • CoLa666@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn’t put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else?

            Who said that’s the case?

            • CoLa666@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Than I don’t really get the idea. Could you elaborate?

              • As far as I understood, the company’s shares belong to the employees (“everyone gets a seat on the board”) and those elect a director which in turn organises the work structure, assigns roles etc. Correct?
              • Can he be replaced at all times?
              • How is the compensation of the employees determined?
              • How are employees handled which are not performing their duties?
              • Can employees be fired?
              • How can employees join and leave the company?
              • Do they return their shares on leaving?
              • Can they buy and sell their shares?
              • How do new employees get their shares? Are they assigned or bought?
              • How is capital raised for large long-term investments like a new machine?
              • If the employees bring up the capital, do they get interest?
              • What if no capital can be raised? Is the company terminated?
              • Can some employees put in more capital than others?
              • Is the financial gain distributed equally between the employees?
        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.

          When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don’t have big mistakes dictated from upon high.

          At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn’t mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I’ve ever heard in my life.

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m great to work with. No one has to worry if the task they assign me is going to be done right and on time.

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every single job I’ve had was made worse by management. Not just worse for us, but worse for customers/clients as well. I have zero faith in management, I have complete faith in the people actually working on the floor knowing what would be best to do on the floor.

        Now you ask about “not making it fail immediately” which to me gives me an impression of thinking it is still a business that needs to be grown.
        I imagine a lot of shop floors would agree their time and resources were better spent elsewhere. No one needs Funko pops, I don’t doubt those workers would find something better to do

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      All types of governance and economic systems are susceptible to despotism.

      It takes a constantly educated and involved population to fight it.

      • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Serious question. Is it possible to do this with very large populations? It seems like it might get inherently more complicated with several tiers of government (federal, state, county, city, etc…)

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It definitely feels like Dunbar’s Number is a gate to keep this from being effective in large communities.

          If we can’t view more than a finite amount of other humans as being “real,” how do we begin to get massively large groups of humans to care for one another? This is a question I don’t have the answer to.

          • Deceptichum@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because you don’t have to view them as “real” to know that caring for others can make things better for you too.

            I don’t think the issue is the being able to care, the issue is the arseholes turning groups against each other for their own gain.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              “I only do the right thing because God will punish me if I don’t” vibes lol.

              Why can’t you just operate from a principle of making things better for everyone?

    • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. We could also eliminate carbon emissions by moving everything via unicorns and fairy dust.

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Military Intelligence”

      Two words combined that can’t make sense 🎵

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wtf is an uncorrupt capitalist society? We have to try to keep both in check and will never be perfect.

    • idunnololz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly I believe this to be a way more important issue to discuss than the whole capitalism vs socialism vs communism vs whatever else argument. If your ideas can easily be perverted by corruption then it won’t work.

      I have some ideas but I’m just some idiot on the internet. I think you need checks and balances. Have at least two groups with similar power at odds with one another. One example is corporation vs government. But I don’t think just 2 groups is good enough. Ideally you probably want 3 groups at the very least. I know many governments around the world already uses this sort of structure internally (eg different branches of government), but I don’t think these solutions take into account the existence of mega corporations that can act across country borders.

      • FalscherFuchs@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        you mean for example germanys separated power of the legislative, executive and judicative powers? yeah, that works out pretty shit.

  • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year 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?

  • beef_curds [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’ll be happy to know there’s a social media site just like lemmy run by capitalists. It has all the benefits that capitalist ownership provides.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    164
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do conservatives on lemmy ever do anything but whine that they’re not immediately worshiped for their opinions?

  • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an “uncorrupt government” is remotely possible.

    Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it’s remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.

    There, now I’ve pissed off everyone lol

    Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷

  • TheGreatFox@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    uncorrupt government

    I think you meant “free real estate for the CIA and their a puppet dictators”.

    It’s what happens every time another country doesn’t want to sell their natural resources for pennies.

  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “wealth for many” yeah but not the majority, and oh whoops what happened to the rest? Oh boy would you look at that they’re all destitute because capital needs a reserve army of labour in order to function.

    Oh whoops would you look at that the market has a tendency to create a monopoly, that’s weird.

    Oh wait would you look at that the regulations are ineffective because the capitalists hold outsized influence in literally every capitalist “democracy” due to them holding the means of production, them having more resources available, which then gives them more time and ability to influence elections. Oh whoops media is a market and media shapes perception how did that happen?

    Corruption isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

    Reality has a Marxist bias