7 ms·

Socialism is seizing the workplace from the capitalist.

WalterBright 2y ago
The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take. Better to have a system based on creating things.
- KingMob 2y ago
  > The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take. Pretty damning critique of capitalists there, comrade.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    What was America like before capitalists? and after? Where did all that wealth come from, comrade?
    - Apocryphon 2y ago
      Did you know there used to be people who lived on that land
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        I missed the railroads, steel industries, chip manufacturers, iphones, etc. that were looted from those people? BTW, studies of the bones of pre-Columbian Indians shows they worked hard and suffered from periodic famines, as well as a lot of violence.
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        Therein lies the commonality between all economic systems: where there are people, there is the taking. Industries tend to require raw materials, which many times are located in or around land.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Free markets are not built around taking. They are built around exchanging.
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        Ah, the starry-eyed utopianism. Marxists and Objectivists are truly funhouse mirror images; they may look completely different from one another, but both belong at the carnival.
        t-3 2y ago
        Free markets are a ideal which has never been achieved, much like socialism. There is, and never has been, a market without regulation, and with only voluntary participation and without stolen goods being exchanged.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        KingMob 2y ago
        Those things weren't looted from the natives. But the profits were looted from the workers who actually built all that stuff. Capitalists aren't the ones hammering in steel spikes or wearing clean-room fab suits.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - anonfordays 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - KingMob 2y ago
      Better for the natives and enslaved Africans, that's for sure.
- harwoodjp 2y ago
  Well actually socialism has been historically concerned with maximizing human creativity. Fourier’s utopian vision was “libidinal” work that aligns passions with labor. Marcuse has a similar view in Eros and Civilization. Chomsky views creativity as axiomatic for humans, and syndicalism the appropriate system for harnessing it.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - harwoodjp 2y ago
      > Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally. Not really. Socialism (the project of the labor movement) is concerned with workers being in control of their own work, not vessels for capitalist exploitation. Syndicalism is a form of socialism that emphasizes decentralization and federation, as opposed to command control. How resources are allocated under conditions of such federated governance is up for debate. > "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Socialism is older than Marxism and shouldn't be conflated with it. > Where are all the creative products the Soviets made? The USSR was a state capitalist/authoritarian regime, nothing like socialism.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > nothing like socialism That happens every time. Socialism gets implemented with high hopes, falls flat on its face, and gets declared to be not really socialism at all. How many times does it need to fail before one realizes it is never going to work?
        harwoodjp 2y ago
        If you read the literature around the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin's coup was highly criticized as un-socialist: Luxemburg, Goldman, etc. Simple litmus test for socialism: do workers manage production completely, through direct democratic processes?
- max_hoffmann 2y ago
  That’s why cooperatism is superior to socialism and capitalism. It’s a free market of worker-owned companies, creating things by running their businesses together.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    It's not a free market if you do not allow capitalism to exist. Note that capitalism does not exclude worker-owned companies at all. You're free to start one.
    - max_hoffmann 2y ago
      The free market is a set of principles between companies, not a principle for how companies need to be organized internally. Capitalism is based on single-owned companies. Cooperatism is based on worker-owned companies. Cooperatism is a better free market based economy. It’s capitalism 2.0.

The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take. Better to have a system based on creating things.

KingMob 2y ago
> The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take. Pretty damning critique of capitalists there, comrade.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  What was America like before capitalists? and after? Where did all that wealth come from, comrade?
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    Did you know there used to be people who lived on that land
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      I missed the railroads, steel industries, chip manufacturers, iphones, etc. that were looted from those people? BTW, studies of the bones of pre-Columbian Indians shows they worked hard and suffered from periodic famines, as well as a lot of violence.
      - Apocryphon 2y ago
        Therein lies the commonality between all economic systems: where there are people, there is the taking. Industries tend to require raw materials, which many times are located in or around land.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Free markets are not built around taking. They are built around exchanging.
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        Ah, the starry-eyed utopianism. Marxists and Objectivists are truly funhouse mirror images; they may look completely different from one another, but both belong at the carnival.
        t-3 2y ago
        Free markets are a ideal which has never been achieved, much like socialism. There is, and never has been, a market without regulation, and with only voluntary participation and without stolen goods being exchanged.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - KingMob 2y ago
        Those things weren't looted from the natives. But the profits were looted from the workers who actually built all that stuff. Capitalists aren't the ones hammering in steel spikes or wearing clean-room fab suits.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - KingMob 2y ago
    Better for the natives and enslaved Africans, that's for sure.
harwoodjp 2y ago
Well actually socialism has been historically concerned with maximizing human creativity. Fourier’s utopian vision was “libidinal” work that aligns passions with labor. Marcuse has a similar view in Eros and Civilization. Chomsky views creativity as axiomatic for humans, and syndicalism the appropriate system for harnessing it.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - harwoodjp 2y ago
    > Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally. Not really. Socialism (the project of the labor movement) is concerned with workers being in control of their own work, not vessels for capitalist exploitation. Syndicalism is a form of socialism that emphasizes decentralization and federation, as opposed to command control. How resources are allocated under conditions of such federated governance is up for debate. > "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Socialism is older than Marxism and shouldn't be conflated with it. > Where are all the creative products the Soviets made? The USSR was a state capitalist/authoritarian regime, nothing like socialism.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > nothing like socialism That happens every time. Socialism gets implemented with high hopes, falls flat on its face, and gets declared to be not really socialism at all. How many times does it need to fail before one realizes it is never going to work?
      - harwoodjp 2y ago
        If you read the literature around the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin's coup was highly criticized as un-socialist: Luxemburg, Goldman, etc. Simple litmus test for socialism: do workers manage production completely, through direct democratic processes?
max_hoffmann 2y ago
That’s why cooperatism is superior to socialism and capitalism. It’s a free market of worker-owned companies, creating things by running their businesses together.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  It's not a free market if you do not allow capitalism to exist. Note that capitalism does not exclude worker-owned companies at all. You're free to start one.
  - max_hoffmann 2y ago
    The free market is a set of principles between companies, not a principle for how companies need to be organized internally. Capitalism is based on single-owned companies. Cooperatism is based on worker-owned companies. Cooperatism is a better free market based economy. It’s capitalism 2.0.