this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
529 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59424 readers
2928 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Doesn't it seem like communism and capitalism have the same end game? Company towns and one company that produces everything and you have no options. The only difference I guess is that under capitalism, the owners of the means of production are not accountable to anyone and can not be removed whereas under communism the owners of the means of production are democratically elected members of the workforce that are accountable to the people and can be removed if need be.
Are you sure you're not confusing communism with authoritarianism or fascism? Capitalism is more closely associated with the latter than communism.
In any place where state ownership of means of manufacturing was implemented it lead to dictatorship or dictatorship like state. So, one can see how one can confuse them. But no, I do not confuse them, for one is economic system, and another is political.
So, let me ask, in that model that you describe, who owns the means of manufacturing? State or not?
Why must the state own anything, for it to be a more equitable situation? The people who do the work should own the work, all getting a say in what happens, in terms of what they're doing, where they're going, and who's getting fired. The closest thing to "owning" an individual would have is a person, or likely a team, functioning as spokespersons for negotiating with the state or other companies, but only to communicate how the workers have chosen to conduct business, the only real power they have being communication.
Healthcare.
Why must the state own anything -with regards to the conpany-...
So Unions under capitalism?
This is, yes, one of the options my post allows for.
So, we have it now, then? Or are you advocating for forced Unionization?
Perhaps not forced, I'm not really a fan of that much state control, but broader adoption, more public and government support (support, not force), things like this. I'll confess I don't have a "perfect" solution, I doubt anyone does, but it's definitely not any of the ones we're using today.
Yeah, I am here with you. That’s what I meant in my original post by “but what’s the alternative?”. It is just many here acts as if there is an obvious thing to do, but the reality is far from it.
I think that a lot of people are jaded with capitalism specifically because there's not as much buy-in for unions as there should be. For instance, someone earlier made the distinction of "crony capitalism" elsewhere in this thread. That's a lot more like what we live in right now FEELS than actual capitalism.
You mean in communism? I'm no expert but I believe it's the workers, even though "owning" doesn't mean quite the same as we use it now.
“Workers” is too abstract. Which workers? How is it handled? How do you start new business? Who/how it is paid? Who gets the profit? In what proportions? The natural solution is to have state ownership and saying “the state is the people”, but this is exactly what was done in, say USSR. And it does not work well.