If they could somehow monetize breathing, they would

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
19 points

you do know that under a socialist system worker-owned companies would compete in the market right? you’d still have lots of choice lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

My brain smooth would appreciate any elaboration please

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I’m interested to know more.

Some people only think of bad vibes of the Soviet Union when anyone talk bad about capitalism.

In my country, we have free healthcare, free education, livable wages, free market.

We’re not capitalist tho. A mix of socialism and capitalism.

100% communism is bad, 100% capitalism is bad, 100% socialism is bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

socialism isn’t just “government owns/provides everything.

There are different flavours. One of which entails workers owning the companies they work for, rather than the state owning everything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That is the point capitalists cannot comprehend.

Twitter have resources to crush small social media apps. Monopoly is a serious issue in capitalism.

If people own a company similar how lemmy is open source then they would have resources to fight back big corporations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

I think what you are reffering to as “not capitalist” is called social market economy, at least that’s what it’s called in german.

Some economists also reffer to it as Rhein Capitalism, because it’s mostly used in europe and was important to prevent west german citizens from wanting communism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Exactly!

I just know it did exist.

One good example is Germany. If the government didn’t phase out nuclear power as the citizens wanted they would have been in better place now.

Sometimes voting and democracy isn’t ideal as it’s easy to influence people if you have enough resources.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I am a worker under capitalism. The owner tells me how to work. I sell my time for money. I produce value for the owner. The owner keeps the difference between the value I produce and the money for which I sold my time. The excess value after paying for my time is kept by the owner. I have money to buy products.

I am a worker under socialism. I decide how to work with other workers. I produce value. I provide my value to those in need.

I prefer to own my time and value. I do not want to pay a state to give money to owners. I do not want to empower a state to use violence if I do not comply.

I am not sure how communism, socialism and capitalism are being used here. I am an anarchist. I would say states are bad, owners are bad, heirarchy is bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Totally agree.

What I mean is the state should define rules and enforce them. And for critical industries the state can support / supplement the companies.

This way big corps cannot have monopoly.

My main issue with capitalism/ USA system is lobbying and allowing corps to do what ever they want in the fine print.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Regardless of how you’re defining capitalism and socialism, you haven’t changed systems if all you do is change which private entity owns the company.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Could a worker-owned company sell itself to a single person, and become a company owned by one person?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s called freelancing. That’s already a thing and isn’t an issue because the worker is getting the fruits of their labor - there’s no capitalist making money off another person’s labor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Only if the workers agreed to, collectively.

Democracy would decide

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Okay, and what if that single owner then hired some wage laborers who got no ownership stake?

You’d just have socialism that could drift into capitalism?

Also I’ll remind you that in a free market system, a single owner who doesn’t share ownership with his workers, has arrived at that situation through a combination of customer and worker choice. Workers choose to work for non-socialized companies all the time. And there’s nothing stopping people from starting worker collectives in our present system.

So if in the socialist system the workers are free to go capitalist, and in the capitalist system the workers are free to go socialist, then really they’re just two instances of the same landscape of choice. And it would appear the workers have chosen capitalism.

After running my own business for a while, now that I’m working a full time job for someone else I really appreciate how I don’t have to think about ownership and I can just go home.

My company even offers a worker ownership plan in the sense that I can purchase stock in the company at a reduced rate.

But I’m digressing. My point is this free choice boundary between capitalist cooperatives and socialist cooperatives, where in each system people can choose to enact the other. And the result of all that is that people have chosen capitalism. Not just governments, but companies and individuals. They’ve just decided it’s an easier life working for wages, than trying to start or join a worker’s coop.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Showerthoughts

!showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Create post

A “Showerthought” is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you’re doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy’s Code of Conduct

Community stats

  • 7.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.4K

    Posts

  • 49K

    Comments