• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

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

        If worker-owned workplaces still operate within a market, there will still be pressure to compete with other companies. People can still come up with new ideas to compete and change can still happen.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The ole can have criticism without perfect solutions response. Cool, how useless and pointless of you.

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, it broadens and deepens understanding.

              Alternatives come from that understanding. Criticism is the fundamental step towards alternatives.

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

                No, it broadens and deepens understanding

                How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

                Edit: “Thing bad” doesn’t broaden or deepen anything. “Thing has specific shortcomings which aren’t present in specific alternative to thing” is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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?

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

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

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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.

      • masquenox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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

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

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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.