• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Your confusing Leninism for socialism. Not all socialism even requires a state never mind state ownership.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not, and I understand. I think you’re confusing my point, I think having unequal ownership among a collective of people is less efficient for Socialism.

            • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Why? How could letting someone half way across the world that has nothing to do with a given workplace or enterprise vote on an issue they know nothing about possibly be more efficient? Surely having the people who are actual stakeholders in a co-operative make decisions about that co-operative would be more fair and more efficient than having a central bureaucratic organization, or worse individual voters across the world make decisions for them.

              Also I hate to tell you this but markets are generally pretty efficient. Command economies much less so.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                You can have equal ownership without requiring everyone to give input, and this prevents someone from gaining more ownership and thus more power.

                • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  How is someone going to gain more ownership? We are talking about worker co-ops probably enforced by law. You can add rules about how much of a business who can own of those who work there.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Then you keep enshittification as coops monopolize, which you said you’d allow the government and customers to also have ownership, by which point I’d say it would be more efficient to just share equal ownership to begin with.