this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
369 points (85.5% liked)

solarpunk memes

3024 readers
3 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
  1. Socialism only means Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This does not necessarily entail Authoritarianism or central planning, and central planning itself doesn't even entail Authoritarianism by necessity.

  2. An economy can be democratically run via worker councils, which would constitute both central planning and economic democracy.

Essentially, you're just arguing off of vibes. You even said it yourself, "when people think," implying optic reasoning.

As for the mantle of liberal, you're using it to refer to philosophy, rather than its far more common usage as ideology. Using your own methods against your claim, when people think of liberalism, they know and understand liberalism the socioeconomic ideology surrounding Capitalism and individualism!

That's why I perceive your verbiage as optics, rather than anything of substance. In my view, you're a Socialist that rejects the term but accepts the model.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I know how leftists define it, but when communicating with non-leftists, it doesn't help in understanding the economic democracy position.

  1. Central planning with no markets whatsoever is extremely inefficient
  2. The existing proposals for central planning are authoritarian and don't allocate resources properly to new projects.

The strongest critique of a system is that the ideology used to justify it, after mapping out its logical implications, is actually opposed to it @memes

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So it's optics, then. I'm not sure why you're trying to convince leftists like myself of this, if your goal is to convince right wingers to become leftists.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I want to convince leftists that there is no benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists referring to themselves as socialist. It is an unnecessary association that only comes with downsides @memes

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There absolutely is benefit, though. First of all, I'm anti-market anyways, the profit motive is terrible and needs to be done away with, so that's my internal bias.

With my bias out of the way, Market Socialists gain a lot by stating they are Socialists because that very idea seems foreign to Liberals. If they hear Socialism and think mega-communism 100 gorgonzillian dead, then hear markets attached to that, that very term challenges and destabilizes their preconceived notions.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why is the profit motive terrible in your view? What should we replace the profit motive with?

What is the benefit to pro-market anti-capitalists to challenging that particular preconceived notion? It creates an unnecessary roadblock when pro-market anti-capitalists can just describe themselves as radically democratic liberals, who want to extend democracy into the workplace @memes

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Incentivizing profit instead of outcome results in power imbalances and enshittification. What was once disruption becomes scientifically engineered to extract as much money from the users as possible.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The only way incentives based on outcome work is when people produce directly for their own use. For cases where people produce for others, the profit motive helps coordinate people to produce. Power imbalances can be avoided by collectivizing means of production across multiple coops.

Enshittification requires IP monopolies. Economic democracy shouldn't have IP monopolies. Instead, it should secure software freedom. Digital public goods should be funded through quadratic funding @memes

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Citation needed. Profit doesn't incentivize working for others, it incentivizes extraction from others. There's still a power imbalance between customer and provider in a market.

Enshittification happens regardless of IP, it's a result of competition. Over time, people find new ways to extract more from their customers.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 9 months ago

Whether there is a power imbalance between customer and provider is dependent on how competitive the market is. When providers have market power, consumers can form associations to collectively bargain down providers' prices.

Is there an enshittification example without IP?
Enshittification usually happens with monopolistic firms not competitive markets.

What would you replace markets with specifically?

Quadratic funding lets public goods be free. I can't see how it's extractive @memes