this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1731 points (97.4% liked)
Political Memes
5505 readers
1892 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
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
Democracy is pretty good, Dictatorships themselves suck. That's why Democracy should be extended to the work place, and shouldn't be mini-dictatorships.
You could do that. You could even distribute ownership, profits and risk among the workers. Literally nothing prevents someone from starting a business using that model. But then being paid a share of profits instead of a fixed salary is...probably not desirable for most people.
You're making a few assumptions, which unfortunately are wrong.
There is downward pressure against worker co-operatives. Number 1, Capitalist firms are far more willing to brutally exploit Workers to maintain competitive advantage. Number 2, there is little infrastructure in place to assist with starting worker Co-operatives, unlike Capitalist firms.
You can absolutely pay a fixed salary in a worker co-operative, and place any excess into funds for expansion or to pay steady salaries when in economic troubles.
Worker Co-operatives are desirable for workers, that's why worker co-operatives are far more stable, last longer, and have higher job satisfaction than Capitalist firms.
All of that to say that Worker co-operatives are only one form of Socialism, and they still knock the socks off of Capitalist owned and run firms, because it turns out, dictatorship is unnecessary and unpopular.
Dictatorships only suck because every dictator ever sucked. Because getting to this position requires the worst traits of humanity. Imagine a just dictator that couldn't be bribed. Even the thought sounds funny. Democracy might be nice, but where is it really? It's capitalism that really rules the world. Even if democracy is slapped upon as a label.
The Americans are the best (worst) example.
Dictatorships suck because there's no accountability. A just dictator that can't be bribed is still an unjust hierarchy that removes freedom and choice.
Democratically accountable Capitalism isn't Capitalism. If production is democratically owned and controlled, it's Socialism.
Yeah sure. Great. And now? Socialism (one that actually works for the good of all people, not just the leading ones) will never happen.
Said just dictatorship might be wrong, but it might actually work. The same kind of unrealistic ideology that will also never happen. I'd be all for either. Even if I'd be the loosing one in socialism.
Why do you believe its impossible for Workers to democratically own and control the Means of Production? Worker Co-ops already exist as proof of possibility, same with Lemmy and other FOSS software.
You would not be the losing one in Socialism unless you're a landlord or a business owner, in which case I'm sorry but humanity shouldn't hold back progression for your personal sake.
Oh you did get me wrong. I would loose in socialism, because I'm well off now. STILL I would prefer being worse off than now, if everyone would be equally good. I would loose a ton of moneyz, others would win. Only fair. I didn't want this system, I just got lucky in it. But those unlucky in it far outweigh the lucky ones. And yeah, noone should be sorry for those loosing.
Yet, I don't believe BIG changes are possible. Sure, some workers might unite and seize the means of production. But, it's not always just that simple. And surely, the majority of people who would loose would strongly oppose every uprising. And have the means to successfully do so. And let's say it's a car-factory. You might seize the means of production, but who will buy from you? And which bank will not freeze your accounts this day? And which company will deliver you with power? Parts? None. Unless they aaaaaaaallll revolt. Which they won't. As most regular Joes are happy with their few bucks, a TV and a beer. Why risk it all being homeless? What's with your kid that wants food NOW not a hope tomorrow?
No, you would not lose in Socialism unless you are a landlord or business owner. If you're an engineer, doctor, lawyer, or other skilled worker that makes good money, you would be better off in Socialism. Socialism is about worker ownership of the Means of Production. Again, unless you're a landlord or a business owner, you stand to gain. It isn't the bottom 50% against the top 50%, but closer to the bottom 99% against the top 1%.
If you're asking about leftist strategy, Unionization is a big one, see Syndicalism. Anarchists and Marxists, reformers and revolutionary Socialists, there are plenty of strategies for enacting meaningful change.
Landlord and many other assets for passive income. They would also be gone. I'm aware. But I'm not of the 1%. But be it as it may, it's not about me.
Strategies and plans are all cool for political discussions, but, my point being was, that it can't be done (anymore). We're way past the possibilities of changes of such a titanic nature. It was nearly un-doable before globalization, now it's an utopian dream.
Say you and all your friend-workers manage to seize the means of production in your really big company. Bosses are killed/kicked/whatever, you also managed a perfectly fair strategy that every worker is 100% fairly compensated yadda yadda. What then? How long do you think your bank-accounts aren't frozen? How long will it take for the power-company to show you who's boss? How long til your buyers (assuming you produced something) won't buy anymore (unless you're B2C maybe)? How long til your suppliers stop supplying? And you were one big mega-corpo amongst thousands. In just your country. And it might last a week. And that was already a big "IF", as you would need to convince the vast majority of co-workers to do the same shit at day X. And how many wouldn't dare to risk (especially in anti-worker-countries like the USA) being suddenly job- and then homeless? How many would like to but don't dare coz of the kids at home?
Unless any strategy contain a real-life-solution, it's just a nice topic for a theoretical discussion. No real thing. I would love to be wrong though.
Revolution doesn't happen in one place, reform neither. That's why I suggested reading actual leftist theory, like Syndicalism, because its clear that you ignored that part of my comment to again pretend there's no actual leftist strategy that had taken what you've said into account.
Touch grass, basically.