this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
28 points (78.0% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
809 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago (32 children)

Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.

Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm confused, isn't criticism without alternatives itself useless and pointless?

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it broadens and deepens understanding.

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

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you really think all exchange of goods is a market?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So Christmas gifts are a market?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 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.

load more comments (29 replies)