Democratically owning the means of production among the workers. Instead of some greedy rich guy who’d want to give as little of the profit as possible to the people actually making the product or providing the service.
Work isn’t just physical you know. Management, planning, etc is work too, and they’d get paid according to how many want to do them, and how hard they are.
The difference is, like I said, that some greedy rich bastard who’d want to give as little of the profit as possible to the people actually making the product or providing the service wouldn’t own that means of production.
Simple. You know all those scientists that work at $40 billion chip plants? They would actually take the $40 billion and not some random suit who doesn’t do any of the actual work. Executive leadership is important, but it’s not worth 1000x the average worker’s salary.
Co-ops and unions are certainly steps in the right direction, but they’re more like temporary band-aids over Capitalism instead of implementing proper Socialism.
All while the world’s current top superpower is right beside them, sees them as an enemy, and has a still ongoing embargo on them for 60 years now to prevent them from trading with other countries. That’ll hopefully change once China’s Belt and Road Initiative is complete though.
Clearly this model works. It does require expelling landleeches, plantation owners and billionaires if they don’t hand over the means of production to the workers (like Cuba did after the revolution), but I don’t think most people would mind that.
It also historically requires fighting off the US though because military, oil, and other private corporation owners can’t exploit Socialist countries as much, which is harder.
It is though? People directly nominate individuals in their area, and the ballots are checked in public where anyone can attend.
This results in a Parliament that evenly and properly represents the entire population. That’s why Cuba has an unusually high percentage of women in the government, 53.22% now (U.S has 29.0%), and better LGBT rights than the U.S. nowadays.
Being rich as an advantage is also taken away by banning advertising yourself/anyone. You need social connections with the people in your area (Socialism) instead.
Not knowing something is fine, but being ignorant and arrogant about it is unfortunate. Though I suppose it is unbelievable, if you’re in a Capitalist country, to hear that a nation has solved homelessness, starvation, and education by just changing its political/economic system (and fighting off the US after).
Imagine its sheer potential once it can trade with other countries with that massive advantage, after the US is eventually forced to stop the embargo.
Communism without actually sharing isn’t communism. Democracy without fair elections isn’t democracy. Socialism without the socialisation of the benefit of production is not socialism. Your ignorance of these things doesn’t change what they are.
North Korea calls itself democratic. Everyone in the country votes for a new leader every five years. It’s just that there’s only one name on the ballot.
One would be foolhardy to call that democracy.
One would be even more foolhardy to argue that this means that democracy is a stupid idea.
That’s an oxymoron. There is literally no such thing as a capitalist cooperative. By definition, co-ops are socialist. Also, the right wing populist wants to socialize the airlines?
Democratically owning the means of production among the workers. Instead of some greedy rich guy who’d want to give as little of the profit as possible to the people actually making the product or providing the service.
See, that works for a farm.
I don’t see how it works for a $40 billion chip fabrication plant.
Work isn’t just physical you know. Management, planning, etc is work too, and they’d get paid according to how many want to do them, and how hard they are.
The difference is, like I said, that some greedy rich bastard who’d want to give as little of the profit as possible to the people actually making the product or providing the service wouldn’t own that means of production.
Simple. You know all those scientists that work at $40 billion chip plants? They would actually take the $40 billion and not some random suit who doesn’t do any of the actual work. Executive leadership is important, but it’s not worth 1000x the average worker’s salary.
So who builds it? Do you just get together with 40,000 of your friends and go “hey if everyone here chips in a million, we can compete with TSMC”?
Organizing it through a Socialist government would probably be the easiest.
And complaining about such a tiny challenge is hilarious lmao
Oh no, a challenge. Let’s not even try.
There are examples of exactly this occuring regarding renewables, there are community funded battery/solar farms here in Aus.
If it can be done on that scale, it can definitely be scaled up, it’s just a matter of willingness of the community.
You mean capitalist cooperatives? They exist and even Milei wants to turn Aerolíneas Argentinas into one
Co-ops and unions are certainly steps in the right direction, but they’re more like temporary band-aids over Capitalism instead of implementing proper Socialism.
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Cuba has one of the most open democracies in the world
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Because proper socialism always devolves into tyranny
As capitalism is currently doing…
Source?
[gestures wildly at everything]
Strawman.
How so? Cuba has one of the most open democracies in the world. Plus free healthcare, no homelessness, and enough free high level education to provide Italy with doctors during the pandemic.
All while the world’s current top superpower is right beside them, sees them as an enemy, and has a still ongoing embargo on them for 60 years now to prevent them from trading with other countries. That’ll hopefully change once China’s Belt and Road Initiative is complete though.
Clearly this model works. It does require expelling landleeches, plantation owners and billionaires if they don’t hand over the means of production to the workers (like Cuba did after the revolution), but I don’t think most people would mind that.
It also historically requires fighting off the US though because military, oil, and other private corporation owners can’t exploit Socialist countries as much, which is harder.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Cuba has one of the most open democracies in the world
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That first paragraph already proves that you can’t be reasoned with
So you understand my point. Thanks lol
No, it’s just pointless to argue with someone so out of touch with reality he believes Cuba is one of the most democratic countries
It is though? People directly nominate individuals in their area, and the ballots are checked in public where anyone can attend.
This results in a Parliament that evenly and properly represents the entire population. That’s why Cuba has an unusually high percentage of women in the government, 53.22% now (U.S has 29.0%), and better LGBT rights than the U.S. nowadays.
The power of a proper democracy.
Being rich as an advantage is also taken away by banning advertising yourself/anyone. You need social connections with the people in your area (Socialism) instead.
Not knowing something is fine, but being ignorant and arrogant about it is unfortunate. Though I suppose it is unbelievable, if you’re in a Capitalist country, to hear that a nation has solved homelessness, starvation, and education by just changing its political/economic system (and fighting off the US after).
Imagine its sheer potential once it can trade with other countries with that massive advantage, after the US is eventually forced to stop the embargo.
People always say this and then fail to provide a single example of when proper socialism existed and then destroyed the country.
“This theory when applied didn’t end like in the book, therefore it’s not really that theory”
Communism without actually sharing isn’t communism. Democracy without fair elections isn’t democracy. Socialism without the socialisation of the benefit of production is not socialism. Your ignorance of these things doesn’t change what they are.
Again, the “the theory when applied doesn’t look like in the book so it’s not real communism”
No. The theory when applied doesn’t follow the book. The difference is something called contextual nuance, and you have no grasp of it.
Your position is like North Korea claiming democracy doesn’t work because they say they are one and it’s not working.
North Korea calls itself democratic. Everyone in the country votes for a new leader every five years. It’s just that there’s only one name on the ballot.
One would be foolhardy to call that democracy.
One would be even more foolhardy to argue that this means that democracy is a stupid idea.
Likewise with socialism.
That’s an oxymoron. There is literally no such thing as a capitalist cooperative. By definition, co-ops are socialist. Also, the right wing populist wants to socialize the airlines?
Yes, he does want to give the airlines to the workers
Also touch some fucking grass to see how agricultural cooperatives work under capitalism