• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    324
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    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.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    162
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    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?

  • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    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 🤷

    • BearGun@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Luckily an entirely uncorrupt government is not necessary, since that is indeed quite unlikely to ever happen. It is enough to have low corruption, which is much more achievable.

      • Treemaster099@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly at this point, even a low corruption government seems harder than balancing a boulder on a toothpick for the super powers of the world

        • ???@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe so, but… That might be because China and America have too much international power. Power attracts the corrupt and global power attracts the most corrupt on the globe.

          • noobdoomguy8658@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a book about why power seems to attract this sort of people - can’t remember the name right now, might update later.

            In short, it’s not power on its own, but rather the systems we built around and for power, making it unattractive for people we want to end up in power, while the people who we don’t want to end up in power pursue it regardless because they want power for the sake of it.

            What I’m trying to say is, this is another issue that we can actually tackle and solve to a large degree. There’s hope!

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

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

      same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it’s remotely possible to transition a state to communism from authoritarianism.

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do you want a middle class? So you have a class to aspire to and a class to denigrate? Why do you want classes?!

  • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Markets don’t “create wealth”. People’s work creates wealth. Banks don’t create wealth, they create debt and allow more money to go into circulation than actually exists.

    Regulation isn’t only desired, it’s crucial for any market economy to work, lest they devolve into corrupt, abusive monopolies and oligopolies. Granted, bad regulation can be equally abusive and real cases are plentiful.

    Just as important as regulation is taxing who has more money, because generating wealth won’t automagically distribute it in any ideal manner. The worst problem nowadays is just how easy it is for rich assholes to legally evade taxes no matter which country they’re from.

    • GuilhermePelayo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Markets don’t “create wealth”. People’s work creates wealth. Banks don’t create wealth, they create debt and allow more money to go into circulation than actually exists.

      I think the world would make a giant leap forward if we could all agree on this. Sad thing is that finance basically exist to muddy the waters of what value is. (EDITED, incorrect formating)

  • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Capitalism is not “when you have markets.” I totally agree that it’s important to have well regulated markets. But capitalism perverts democracy with bribery and lobbying. Democratic Socialism is when you have a democratic government and a democratic economy.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Democratic socialism and capitalism can coexist. As long as the former significantly neuters the latter. Capitalism is (supposed to be) an economic organization, not a political one. It’s just captured the government in the US and other places.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s just captured the government in the US and other places.

        That is a core function of capitalism, not some crazy coincidence. There are market economy models separate from capitalism.

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

          Could you point me to the economy models you are refering to?

          I think the biggest mistake of the social market economy practised in Germany, was overlooking or disregarding the fact, that policy and policymakers are themselves part of market forces by lobbying, corruption and bribery. This leads to creeping reduction in social standards and development of the economy towards are radical free-market economy, which in turn inevitably leads to feudalism and fascism eventually, as demonstraded live in the US currently.

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

            Market Socialism (like worker co-ops)is my personal preference:

            Private companies still exist, but instead of being beneficially owned by separate investors, they are collectively owned by the workers themselves. Think privately-traded corporations where all shares are held exclusively by employees. Profits can be reinvested in the company, spun-off into other ventures, or distributed between the workers themselves.

            This retains the competitive benefits of markets, while cutting out the non-working investor class. Fewer billionaires, stronger middle class.

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

              And, instead of dictatorial decisions coming from CEOs and separate investors, the decisions would be debated and decided by vote in the workers’ board. An actual workplace democracy

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s only one kind of democratic economy and we already have a word for it - it’s socialism. If the means of production isn’t owned by the workers it’s not democratic. It’s not socialist.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly markets aren’t the distinction, communist and socialist democracies all have markets. A really interesting model of that was Allende’s Project Cybersyn in Chile before the US sponsored fascist coup that put Pinochet in charge. There’s highly regulated markets within capitalist countries as well, bulk energy is largely very “designed” and regulated markets.

      The Marxian view of socialism would consider it as a transition state between capitalism and communism. While someone may be ideologically communist, they will likely have more political opportunities catering to socialist policies in capitalist democracies with a “left” party. Revolutionaries don’t believe this is possible, and argue capitalism’s structure won’t be threatened by socialist policies unless a revolution occurs, and might even consider comrades who support socialist parties as “not real” communists. Germany’s socialist party supporting ww1 is often used in forms of this argument.

      Ultimately in a lot of these capitalist democracies, there are individual leftists but no real political power, this is certainly the case in the US. Working to raise class-consciousness and labor organizing is basically the front of whatever left exists there. It’s a bleak time to be on the left, and sometimes I wish I could have the enthusiasm of the self-righteous liberals who naively think that if everyone regardless of identity was distributed equally in the capitalist system everything would be right and fair.

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

      And when democratic government turns into direct democracy socialism turns into communism

    • FalscherFuchs@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      although how do you want to achieve a democratic economy? voting? 🤣 corrupt politics and capitalism are symbiotic. how do you plan on getting rid of just one of them.

  • atyaz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree! Let me know when you find an uncorrupt government or uncorrupt corporation.

  • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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 🙃

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

      Where are these people you’re talking about, because all I see is a sea of red.

    • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because those of us that are center-right/right believe in less government. I wouldn’t trust the US government with my dogs health, let alone my own.

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

          You don’t have to worry about that if you have a good job with premium health insurance.

          America is a sink or swim country and there’s no life gaurd on duty. If you want socialism/communism, just move to China, Russia, North Korea, or Cuba because that shit ain’t gonna happen here.

          Sorry

          • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact that public healthcare probably won’t happen is different from the argument that we should trust predatory insurance companies.

            Plus you don’t have to go to China for public health care. You could go to Canada or the UK, obviously. And they’re capitalist as fuck. Although capitalism will likely get rid of their public healthcare eventually, they haven’t succeeded yet.

          • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those states fucking suck and no socialist or communist in the western world will tell you to envy them. Can I ask for a bit of social democracy (scandinavian governments) though, as a treat?

          • blackn1ght@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t have to worry about that if you have a good job with premium health insurance.

            And if you don’t have a good job with premium health insurance?

            If you want socialism/communism, just move to China, Russia, North Korea, or Cuba

            Ah yes, contemporary communist Russia!

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just wanna let you know, I’m an American leftist and I have that exact same distrust in government. I don’t want less government but rather none of it at all. Unfortunately, before that might become possible, a lot of the policies I advocate for do indeed require more regulations and bureauctats.

          • Loom In Essence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I 100% agree but I still appreciate anarchism as a critical position. Not a system to actually implement, but a criticism of the corrupt nature of the current regime.

            I’m not an anarchist but I’d miss their perspectives if they weren’t around.

        • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I hear you bro, It’s not that I’m not against having some socialist policies, I just don’t trust the people in power to enact them with the interest of the public in mind

          I also think the problem with this world is overpopulation. If you have too many people, then some of them become disposable. Look at how corporate media is flipping out now that the birth rate has dropped.

          It’s all about having enough people to exploit.

          PS: I’m not the one that downvoted you.

          • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Socialism is when the people take control and classes are abolished. So yeah I would hella agree I don’t trust the people in power to do it. I don’t want to do anything about the population of 8 billion, however it does clearly play into capital to have so many people to exploit.

      • TheFogan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bottom line to me is, no I don’t trust the government at all. Unfortunately the options are the government and private insurance. and seeing how the government is the only thing that stops them from charging super sky high premiums, and then find excuses not to cover anything when you get sick.

          • TheFogan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t, the point I was making is the corporations are unspeakably untrustworthy and always will focus purely on what gives them the most money. The government is usually corrupt and will often let these corporations do what they want to do. My point is the government at its worse, is the same as large corporations at their best.

            So when it comes to things like healthcare… yes I’ll take the gov over the corporations.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are hardcore liberals around here too. That’s what you get when there isn’t an algorithm to promote fascists.

  • Noughmad@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Market != Capitalism. You can have a free market without capitalism, and capitalism without a free market.

    The hexbears will attack me for saying that a regulated free market is good and a planned economy is bad. The others will attack me for saying that capitalism is bad and that we should have market socialism instead. But if we can’t have that, a capitalist free market has proven much less bad than any planned economy, as long as it’s regulated enough that it stays free.

    • Gamey@feddit.rocks
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s the thing, when people say free market they mean a unregulated one and not a social democracy, markets are a effective tool to generate wealth and progress but they don’t spread that wealth very well and profit over everything isn’t a great way to help people so you need heavy regulations and certain areas shouldn’t be under market control at all because people can’t choose to use them!

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since nobody agrees with terminology, we might as well just say: we should do Scandinavia

  • Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that a middle class, can only be a middle class if it’s in between an upper class and a lower class. It’s in the name: MIDDLE class.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There will always be a distribution of wealth. The key thing is how broad that distribution is.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, there’s no problem with a meritocracy as long as the top and the bottom of the gradient aren’t (literally can’t pay bills -> more money than you could ever spend.)

        Like in no sane world would people willingly become surgeons for the same pay as a sanitation worker, that’s just fucking stupid. Why spend a decade going through school to be a doctor when you could just go pick up trash and make the same money? We have to have some kind of variation in pay scale or society wouldnt function.

        Like you said, how much difference between the top and the bottom definitely doesn’t have to be what it is.

        • dessel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but in the current form of meritocracy both the surgeon and the sanitation worker are relatively poor compared to the upper class. And that exactly is the problem: you cant get rich just by working.

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

          Assuming that the education could be free, why wouldn’t you expect people to train as surgeons?

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

          I currently make more money than the average surgeon does in the UK, and it isn’t close. Top end is like 130k for them.

          People will still be doctors if you cut the pay doctors get, because they are, elsewhere, right now.