this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
718 points (90.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26940 readers
3173 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 28 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Still think something between communism and capitalism would be the best. Both show a lot of problems but both have benefits. A well regulated and equal competition with linear growth(not like capitalism with its exponential growth that produces musks and bezos') sounds right to me. I think UBI would be exploited so just give them the basics in food, shelter, internet access, etc. But of course in the hellscape called modern politics everyone has to be an extremist so only hardcore capitalism, hardcore communism, genocide, etc are represented.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 36 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Market economies are actually pretty great for a lot of things. The problems we have in capitalism are 1. the capitalist class, who make their living without contributing anything by min-maxing wages and prices, and 2. the privatization of necessities.

  1. A market economy for non-essentials would work splendidly so long as the income of each business was distributed to the people who actually did the work. The problem is non-working shareholders. Every worker should be a shareholder, every shareholder should be a worker. Market socialism is the way.

  2. Market economies cannot work efficiently for essentials. If the alternative to a purchase is death or serious injury, it ceases to be a voluntary purchase, the downward pressure of abstinence vanishes, and prices skyrocket. We've seen this in healthcare and housing. We need a public option for both.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 9 months ago

Profit motive still forces enshittification, unfortunately.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

There's also a lot to be said about financial norms and systems, for instance regardless of the organization of labor the way we measure GDP is fundamentally a very flawed and arbitrary approximation of "wealth" yet it is the driver behind so many political decisions. My (admittedly unqualified) understanding is thst we could significantly improve quality of life and market efficiency by addressing some of these flaws.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Market Socialism would be a great improvement in stability and quality of life, but it wouldn't solve enshittification outright, because the profit motive is still there. Ideally that would be phased out.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Every improvement is incremental, a stable system is developed by individual steps in the right direction. Overly ambitious changes tend to regress back to the last point of stability.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

This is the way

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

I think if we can steer this burning trash pile into a regulated coop-based economy, with a star-based voting system (I'd settle for ranked choice at this point), whose economy isn't propped up by the cheap exploitation of developing foreign nations, I'll be much happier. While we're at it, solving homelessness and developing more sustainable infrastructures would be great.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 13 points 9 months ago

Capitalism is very clearly not a one-size-fits-all solution…but if there’s one thing capitalism hates, it’s competition.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

capitalism corrupts

Also there's nothing inherently wrong with extreme ideology as a concept. It's only a call for radical change to the current social order. Liberalism which is to say our modern "democratic capitalist" structure would have been considered extremism during feudal times.

The extremist boogie man is a lie peddled by those who benefit from the status quo to insure those who don't are too scared to change it

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Extremism usually relies on wishful thinking tbh. Also see this handy chart:

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 21 points 9 months ago (5 children)

The problem is that some of them don't have to wait for society to collapse, sometimes society is destined to decay into a specific form. The final stage of capitalism is fascism

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why not something like market socialism?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Market Socialism is a great common sense first step, but it leaves enshittification because it keeps the profit motive. Ideally the profit motive should be phased out.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's a perfect system, however there are easy ways to prevent this problem. You simply make either the customers or the government one of the parties holding shares of the companies. That way the customers also get to vote on decisions, or the government on behalf of the whole society.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I feel like that's just a less efficient non-market form of Socialism, at that point it might make more sense to just fully socialize.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Fully socialize? Socialist market economy is a true socialist system already. You can't make it more socialist. Your confusing communism with socialism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I'm aware that it's fully anticapitalist, but full Socialism would imply collective ownership of the Means of Production, not just ownership at an entity level.

Communism would also get rid of the state, so I'm not quite referring to Communism in this instance.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't market socialism literally just a form of capitalism? Like if you still have markets and a profit incentive then you're not really socialist

Not saying that's bad, just thinking really it has always seemed to me like capitalism with a strong social safety net. Which to me seems ideal, just want to know if I'm missing something?

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I think you're confusing social democracy with market socialism.

In market socialism the working class owns the businesses they work for, possibly in conjunction with the government or their customers. There are no people who became shareholders by buying shares, and starting a business doesn't mean you get to own all of it. It's essentially a society where all businesses are worker co-ops.

It has nothing to do with a social safety net. In practice one would probably exist anyway, but it's not a strict requirement of this sort of system like it is in social democracy. Technically you wouldn't have to have free universal healthcare either.

It helps to know that the definition of socialism I am using is based on the marxist one: a society where the workers own the means of production.

Edit: Profit still exists in this system but it's shared more or less equally between the workers of that business. This means workers actually have a concrete incentive to work well, not just the vague possibility of a promotion. It also means you will probably see less short term profit making and less overwork hopefully.

[–] throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

How do you get your initial capital to start the co-op? Like you can't have investors, so is every worker required to buy in the the initial venture?

By the way you are entirely free to structure companies this way under a social democracy

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

By the way you are entirely free to structure companies this way under a social democracy

You can set that up in any capitalist society, not just social democracy. It even happens in the US. That's one of the major advantages of worker co-ops. It's not true socialism though unless every business is run that way. I don't really want social democracy. I want real socialism.

As for funding I am not sure. Real worker co-ops must get funding from somewhere I would look into that. In a full market socialist economy the government could have a role in that. After all the current scheme of needing Capital to start a business isn't fair at all.

[–] throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 8 months ago (19 children)

Right, but why do you require every person in the country to work under a co-op? Is it not enough to let them choose?

In your socialist society if a group of people agreed that they would like to set up businesses under a different model what would you do?

And further, if you're calling for an enormous change to the way we structure our economy then shouldn't you be able to articulate how that system will work?

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The requirement that all firms be worker coops is to protect workers' inalienable rights to democracy and to get the positive and negative fruits of your labor. An inalienable right is a right that cannot be given up or transferred even with consent. These workers' inalienable rights flow from the tenet that legal and de facto responsibility should match. A group of people agreeing to it is not sufficient for validity because responsibility can't be transferred even with consent

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Market postcapitalism with worker coops doesn't mean the workers own the means of production. That idea of what postcapitalism looks like is Marxist baggage that needs to move into the dustbin of intellectual history. A worker coop can, for example, lease means of production from another worker coop or individual without violating the workers' inalienable rights to workplace democracy or to get the fruits of their labor @lemmyshitpost

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)