• AaronMaria@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism and capitalism are. Simplified it’s who owns the means of production, that is basically the “capital” in the name “capitalism”, in socialism these means of production have a shared ownership. Now you can have a discussion of what that means, if state ownership counts or whatever but as long as individuals own the means of production it’s not socialism no matter how much you tax them(it would still be an improvement to tax them more it’s just not socialism)

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      This understanding of capitalism is a misunderstanding that both Marxists and neoclassical types share. It is not capital ownership that gives the employer the right to appropriate a firm’s whole product. The employment contract is what gives them that right. Sure, capital ownership affects bargaining power, but the root cause is that contract. Abolishing the employment contract while still having individual ownership is possible (i.e. a market economy of worker coops)

    • merc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? Is it a socialist country because most workers have 401(k) plans containing index funds, so they own a tiny portion of every major company? The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.

      What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state, is that whole system capitalist? To me, it’s clearly not. You could argue that it’s mixed, but I’d say if it’s 99.9% not capitalist, it’s not capitalist.

      Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.

      • Gabu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? […] The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.

        How did you mess up this badly? A “public company” [sic, the correct term is “publicly traded company”] is a regular private company where the owners are hundreds or even thousands of individuals. A publicly owned company is one where every single citizen owns the company simply by being alive or every single worker owns the company simply by working there.

        What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state

        I don’t even understand what you mean by this…

        Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.

        No, they’re not, and this shows a very serious hole in your knowledge of economic and social systems. While, informally, it’s sometimes said to be the case, that’s strictly an oversimplification to communicate a different idea. Countries like the US simply use a government-assisted capitalist model. Places like the Nordic countries have a more transitional system, but are ultimately still just capitalist.

        • merc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Of course they are. How can you be so confused. Countries like the US are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems. Some things are owned and run by the government (socialism), other things are owned and run by private individuals (capitalism). No society has ever worked where it was 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.

          • Gabu@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Are you illiterate? I specifically pointed to why that’s not the case…

            • merc
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Are you dumb? I specifically pointed out how you’re wrong.

              • Gabu@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You couldn’t specify your breakfast if you were in the middle of eating it. Grow up.

                • merc
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Ah, so you can’t find a flaw in my argument, instead you tell me to “grow up”, as if you’re an adult and I’m not. It’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about since you can’t argue your point.