• Sarla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    You can tell that this audience is primarily American because they still defend capitalism, even after being shafted by it over and over. Careful everyone, big bad socialism is going to take your kids and your wife!

    Don’t dare dream of something better, instead keep swallowing the propaganda of the state and its controlling elites.

    • Fredselfish @lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      Man socialism keeps sounding better and better they will even take those pesky wife and kids off my hands/s.

      But in serious most Americans don’t know shit about socialism our capitalism they live under. Dumb fucks look at you with surprise when you mention our highway system would be considered socialist program.

        • Fredselfish @lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 years ago

          Roads and streets are funded 100% from taxs which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism but it’s as close as the United States will allow.

          Also most Americans always going on especially fucking Republicans and their voter base about how the government should be run like a business. But don’t realize the government should never be ran as one.

          The corruption already bad enough.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism

            This is part of the problem of people not knowing what socialism even is. Even the ancient slavery systems could have social programs (for example famed Roman grain handouts in Rome), and the first modern, universal state funded social programs were introduced in 1889 in German Empire. neither of them was by any means socialist because socialism is not when the government does stuff.

    • Cfreeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Why complain when capitalism ruins something that it created? Isn’t that how it works? Something else will come along and don’t better or differently and people will flock to it until it sucks too.

  • Sabo_Tabby@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Amazing how many people will step in to defend the ownership of everything to a small minority. They will not reward bootlicking yet yall continue.

  • lasagna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Goes without saying. Look at the profits of the companies providing essential resources like energy. They most certainly didn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

  • mawkler@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    No, it means that the users should own the services, which is what the F in FOSS means

      • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        You skipped over the part where he says “You think I own this business? You think I own IKEA?” implying he would care if he actually had any skin in the game which he would if his job operated as a worker co-op.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Capitalism is a system of capital accumulation with the people who own the means of production hiring workers to operate them. Co-ops are a market economy, but they’re demonstrably not capitalism because capital is distributed fairly amongst the workers doing the work. Learn the difference between markets and capitalism.

    • this@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      That would be an improvement actually, because the customers of these companies are not users, they are other companies looking to advertise or buy users personal data. The users of for profit social media are in fact the product, not the customers.

      • erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Great counterpoint. This is what Reddit has been missing for the last 6-8 years: actual thought instead of regurgitation.

  • SociallyIneptWeeb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly I don’t even know where to start with this, so I’ll keep it simple. Enshittification of Twitter, Reddit et al. is not necessarily a result of capitalism, and likewise Fediverse doesn’t exist because “workers took the means of production”.

    For example the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly” (that’s why swear words and gore are banned), and in part due to a need to follow existing copyright law.

    Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Enshittification of those services is a direct symptom of capitalism.

      No one is arguing that the fediverse exists because of workers owning the means of production.

      You should really look into what “enshittification” means and how it’s a direct result of capitalism.

    • aski3252@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly”

      Sure, but the reason why they want to keep the site “child friendly” is because content for children is incredibly profitable and because advertisers don’t want their ads getting related to “controversial” content.

      Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.

      This is the reason why I don’t like equating socialism with “workers owning the means of production”. Worker-cooperatives can exist in a capitalist economy, which means they have to follow capitalist rules (including the drive to generate profits).

      When leftists say “workers”, they generally mean “the 99%” or “the working class”, not individual workers. When leftists say “the means of production”, they mean the economy/industry overall, not individual companies.

      If youtube was owned and operated in common, it would not be bound to profitability, but to use.

      We can also look at something like peertube, which is essentially a commonly owned version of youtube. Instead of being guided by profitability, it is used based on many different use-cases. There can be peertube instances that are completely private, there can be peertube instances that are used for a specific topic or community (for example kids) and there can be peertube instances which are not for children at all.

  • ConsciousLochNess@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is some LibSoc thinking. See: in early USSR days when they tried more worker-cooperative based ownership they had to stop because the factory workers kept just immediately selling their factories for money now that they owned them.