this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
302 points (90.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

29678 readers
1349 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If they could somehow monetize breathing, they would

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deleted@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is why I prefer socialism over capitalism.

In socialism, I’d be poor and have no choice of what I buy or eat but I can live and afford having children.

In capitalism, where you have freedom, the same rules applies to poor and rich citizens. The difference is that the rich can afford lawyers and are able to lobby to change/break the law on their favor. You don’t.

This is how the cost of living would go 100% up and you wage increase by 1.34% each year.

[–] razza856@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

you do know that under a socialist system worker-owned companies would compete in the market right? you’d still have lots of choice lol

[–] deleted@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I’m interested to know more.

Some people only think of bad vibes of the Soviet Union when anyone talk bad about capitalism.

In my country, we have free healthcare, free education, livable wages, free market.

We’re not capitalist tho. A mix of socialism and capitalism.

100% communism is bad, 100% capitalism is bad, 100% socialism is bad.

[–] razza856@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

socialism isn’t just “government owns/provides everything.

There are different flavours. One of which entails workers owning the companies they work for, rather than the state owning everything.

[–] deleted@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That is the point capitalists cannot comprehend.

Twitter have resources to crush small social media apps. Monopoly is a serious issue in capitalism.

If people own a company similar how lemmy is open source then they would have resources to fight back big corporations.

[–] within_epsilon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am a worker under capitalism. The owner tells me how to work. I sell my time for money. I produce value for the owner. The owner keeps the difference between the value I produce and the money for which I sold my time. The excess value after paying for my time is kept by the owner. I have money to buy products.

I am a worker under socialism. I decide how to work with other workers. I produce value. I provide my value to those in need.

I prefer to own my time and value. I do not want to pay a state to give money to owners. I do not want to empower a state to use violence if I do not comply.

I am not sure how communism, socialism and capitalism are being used here. I am an anarchist. I would say states are bad, owners are bad, heirarchy is bad.

[–] deleted@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Totally agree.

What I mean is the state should define rules and enforce them. And for critical industries the state can support / supplement the companies.

This way big corps cannot have monopoly.

My main issue with capitalism/ USA system is lobbying and allowing corps to do what ever they want in the fine print.

[–] quindraco@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Regardless of how you're defining capitalism and socialism, you haven't changed systems if all you do is change which private entity owns the company.

[–] Sarcasdick28@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

My brain smooth would appreciate any elaboration please

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Could a worker-owned company sell itself to a single person, and become a company owned by one person?

[–] razza856@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only if the workers agreed to, collectively.

Democracy would decide

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Okay, and what if that single owner then hired some wage laborers who got no ownership stake?

You’d just have socialism that could drift into capitalism?

Also I’ll remind you that in a free market system, a single owner who doesn’t share ownership with his workers, has arrived at that situation through a combination of customer and worker choice. Workers choose to work for non-socialized companies all the time. And there’s nothing stopping people from starting worker collectives in our present system.

So if in the socialist system the workers are free to go capitalist, and in the capitalist system the workers are free to go socialist, then really they’re just two instances of the same landscape of choice. And it would appear the workers have chosen capitalism.

After running my own business for a while, now that I’m working a full time job for someone else I really appreciate how I don’t have to think about ownership and I can just go home.

My company even offers a worker ownership plan in the sense that I can purchase stock in the company at a reduced rate.

But I’m digressing. My point is this free choice boundary between capitalist cooperatives and socialist cooperatives, where in each system people can choose to enact the other. And the result of all that is that people have chosen capitalism. Not just governments, but companies and individuals. They’ve just decided it’s an easier life working for wages, than trying to start or join a worker’s coop.

[–] Platomus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

That's called freelancing. That's already a thing and isn't an issue because the worker is getting the fruits of their labor - there's no capitalist making money off another person's labor.

[–] TeoTwawki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All systems fall to corruption. All. I believe an A or B choice is cheating humanity out of new solutions.

[–] deleted@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed about corruption.

But some systems are better than others.

In USA, as a billionaire, you can screw people and lobby aka “bribe” to get what you want.

And at the end, you pay 0 taxes.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In socialism … I can live …

Not according to history.

Under capitalism people die of heart attacks and diabetes. Under socialism they die of starvation.

[–] deleted@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This argument is invalid. You don’t die of heart attack.. you get shot by the cops my friend. /s