• hglman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.

    • galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ole can have criticism without perfect solutions response. Cool, how useless and pointless of you.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it broadens and deepens understanding.

            Alternatives come from that understanding. Criticism is the fundamental step towards alternatives.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, it broadens and deepens understanding

              How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

              Edit: “Thing bad” doesn’t broaden or deepen anything. “Thing has specific shortcomings which aren’t present in specific alternative to thing” is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not always, sometimes it’s just an acknowledgement of insurmountable facts. Pointing out the inability of a particular engine to overcome the laws of thermodynamics to output more energy than is input is not useful criticism. Pointing out the mortality of individuals is not useful criticism. Those shortcomings are specific, but unless there’s some alternative that doesn’t have those shortcomings, those aren’t useful observations, they’re pointless complaints.

                  • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    youre wrong.

                    if we’re talking about the input requirements of some engine to drive its load and those don’t match then “yells in thermodynamics” is an incredibly useful criticism.

                    if we’re talking about a project that relies on one person then discussing their mortality is an incredibly useful criticism.

                    in this case, the thing we’re talking about is markets and the comment youre accusing of being a pointless complaint is

                    I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.

                    which is an absolutely useful criticism. relying on markets to pass information is a holdover from before we had better methods to do so. the most profitable companies now use data outside the marketplace to make decisions to the point of developing enormous networks to collect, store, parse, interpret and disseminate that information. Cybersyn, the socialist version of this technology, allowed such powerful subversion of american plots against Chile that the only alternative was a fascist military coup.

                    so it’s not a pointless complaint, but an accurate distillation of criticism most recently offered up to the american public eye as the book The Peoples Republic of Walmart.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I, a socialist don’t. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.

      Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we’re slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Markets have lots of issues; you just named a bunch. Markets are subject to all kinds of hidden information manipulation contrary to prompting non cooperation and solving for individual maximums via exploitation like you literally outlined. Your wish to magically regulate them is just going to be corrupted.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is why I specifically mentioned decoupling from necessities. Regardless it seems like we are both blocked from the community LOL. But it’s not like I expected more from the community based around memes

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?

      If this isn’t true, why do think markets serve no purpose?

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No because I don’t give you a gift only if you give me one. It’s not a transaction. They are gifts.

              …but you turned it into a semantic point. If I farm sheep and you bake bread, it’s a market when I trade you wool for bread. If trade even as basic as this can’t occur then you’re relying on everyone to be self-sufficient.

              The alternative is you’re expecting everyone to put everything they produce into a kitty which is distributed to all, and I think that is a sure fire recipe for everyone to go hungry and for society to stagnate. There’s little incentive to be productive, and no incentive to be inventive.