• CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Definition of Socialism: the workers own the means of production.

    Which country were you born in where you owned the means of production?

    • mea_rah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I was born in country where intellectuals were in jail and uneducated workers were put to management positions, because they should own the means of production or some bullshit like that. You can imagine the end result of that.

      And again, this is the same “that wasn’t true socialism” argument. Obviously it wasn’t. The socialism as per your definition can’t exist on a country level. You can see it being implemented on a small company level (think family owned businesses) but the bigger it gets the more the cracks show and it just does not scale.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Nonsense. You don’t need money going to shareholders in order to scale. You need management structure. Even anarchists would say they’re against unnecessary hierarchy, and at least a little structure is generally necessary. Top management does not need to be paid 300-to-1 over the average worker. Nor do they need to specifically represent shareholders, which is what a CEO is.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          No we’d say we’re against hierarchy because hierarchy is evil and organisation doesn’t imply it. It’s an important corner stone to look out for as hierarchical realism (the notion that organisation just doesn’t work between equals) is the fundamental opponent. On the contrary, if you look at systems, complexity and chaos theory it becomes clear that it’s hierarchical systems which are fundamentally flawed, can, by their very structure, not process information nearly as well. SNAFU.

        • mea_rah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Right but as soon as you have hierarchy, you have classes. You can have hierarchy in family owned business and it can work with everyone doing their best for the good of the business/family. But these social structures fall apart as the hierarchy grows bigger. And very soon what’s good for your family is not necessary good for the business - including non-monetary stuff like how much time you spend working or how hard your job is. Notice how there’s not a single CEO or shareholder in the picture and the system is already falling apart.

          There is this famous saying from communist times: “If you’re not stealing, you’re stealing from your family” That pretty much sums it up.

          You can’t have working socialism with humans, because the system is inhuman by its very nature. (and I don’t mean it in bad way even if the consequences end up being really nasty for many human beings)