• cynetri (he/any)@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    10 months ago

    Socialism is an economic system defined by production of goods and services according to their need, in contrast to capitalism where they’re produced for profit. Two totally different, incompatible systems

    • ToyDork@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Okay, then I’m willing to admit fault but… Which is it? Worker control of production, or production according to need?

      Or are you honestly going to tell me you think Collectivism (worker control of government and economy) or Communism (according to need and with no profit-making allowed) are the only forms that socialism takes?

      Not saying you’re wrong, only that conflicting definitions do not help your cases, Cynetri and GreenTeaRedFlag.

      • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Worker control of production, or production according to need?

        These end up being the same thing, that is sort of the point of capitalism going away. The profit motive is disconnected from human utility.

        • ToyDork@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Honestly, why not just peg the value of 100 of a a currency to the energy used to create a loaf of bread? Then bread will always cost close to 100 and other products will be priced according to energy and not speculation. The recipe would need to be standardized and compared but not automatically equivocated to supermarket/bakery/homemade bread, and changing it once the hypothetical currency is live would not be an option, but you’re asking to replace the entire capitalist economy so I can only hope you understand a revolution doesn’t come without risk and has never truly succeeded yet for anyone ever.

          • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Honestly, why not just peg the value of 100 of a a currency to the energy used to create a loaf of bread? Then bread will always cost close to 100 and other products will be priced according to energy and not speculation.

            Markets aren’t that efficient compared to planning. There is a reason why firms nowadays work off of a bastardized descendent of Cybersyn.

            but you’re asking to replace the entire capitalist economy so I can only hope you understand a revolution doesn’t come without risk and has never truly succeeded yet for anyone ever.

            Tell that to Cubans, who had a longer life expectancy than people than the US even with the blockade before Trump intensified the blockade.

            • ToyDork@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I just said, for anyone. Democracies included. This isn’t about who did what, it’s about how everyone has failed to create everlasting utopia and I’m sick of people assuming a given political system will ever fix any problem on its own.

          • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            10 months ago

            That might work. Really it isn’t that hard. Most societies through history have practiced some form of social production. Without the fear and lie nation of capitlaism the desire to do good and not live in a bad place has been drive enough to make things work.