I feel like a lot of people wanna short it out of spite and a whale is gonna squeeze them out with a big buy like 2 weeks into trading. If puts are cheap I might grab one just for fun. It’m curious to see how WSB plays it.
Post GME prob have bots shilling it to lurkers wondering the same thing
After the price falls, I see them having a future as a data company. They already have 1 customer paying them $60m annually. Regardless of it’s future, they have over a decades worth of data in many areas. Spez already got his though.
Thats a good point, however I don’t forsee users staying there for long. So as you said they will have to milk their data for however long. That requires them writing good contracts that don’t give everything away all at once, as I’ve seen done in some companies I worked for, as well as maintaining a demand. But I don’t see any way Reddit can grow from here, their cattle users, as well as moderators are being treated extremely poorly. They are the product and Spez is doing his best to destroy his product.
Edit: Reddit reported its 2023 revenue was $804 million. Net loss was $90.8 million in 2023.
If I understand this correctly operating costs are ~890 mil. In order for them to be valued at 10 billion, they would have to at least bring in 100 mil profits. So they will have to increase annual contracts by 200 mil, or cut costs by 200 mil. All while maintaining user base happy. If they decide to cash out completely and live off the data they already own, they could probably cut costs drastically, let the website go to shit and hope they can live off of contracts for access to their already existing data for however long assuming they don’t fuck it up as mentioned. Also in that scenario ad revenue stream would go down.
Companies like Tesla can survive high valuation with no dividends, well, it’s a meme stock, but also the possibility still exists that they will pay out. There is already a lot of bad will against Reddit, and I see no way Reddit can grow and pay decent dividends unless they spin in a drastically different directiong.
Maybe, but I think it’ll take a bit longer. Reddit’ll be given some artificial value, then the initial stock will be flogged at 80% of that to make people think they’re getting a good deal, so loads of people will buy it, then the price’ll shoot up, so loads more people will buy that; meanwhile Spez’ll cash out his billions then when the true value of Reddit is realised there’ll be a “correction” - i.e. a crash, and the last bunch of suckers to buy will be sitting on a huge loss that’ll take years to recover from as it slowly inches back up by a couple of percent a year.
I left reddit for Lemmy because I was fed up with how auth-left that site was becoming. I thought that Lemmy, being still new would be better balanced and less hostile for a regular pro-market classical liberal like me.
And this is the level of shit I find in here. Fuck ya’ll I’m out.
This post is WAY more insightful than 99% of people realize. I would argue that the only people that fully understand are part of the corporate engine that drives it.
In your own words, they are economic systems. What do you call a system built on Capitalism, but with a slightly larger welfare net? Socialism? No, you call it Capitalism.
You’re calling me brainwashed for correctly pointing out that Capitalism is Capitalism, even if you dress it up nicely?
#Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[
"wää wää wää no it’s not socialism, it’s capitalism, but I refuse to believe it and I don’t have to explain myself"
you
Please define socialism for me.
Because this an official definition
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED BY the community as a whole. “we want a real democratic and pluralist left party—one which unites all those who believe in socialism”
Even the US has socialist policies, because “pure” capitalism is completely unworkable, because it kills the economy stone dead
Believe me, I’m not conflating Capitalism with markets. Capitalism is a specific form of market economy by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Means of Production, or Capital, by which they can pay Workers to use and create commodities via wage labor.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Examples of Socialist Market Economies do not include Capitalist Social Democracies, because the primary defining feature of Social Democracies is Capitalism with generous social safety nets, a kind of “human-centric” Capitalism.
You on the other hand are making the misconception that Socialism is simply when the government does stuff. You’re wrong, of course, as countless people here have pointed put.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Honestly. Like seriously honestly adult adult honestly. Why the fuck do you not bother to spend 30 seconds checking concepts you have no idea about, and instead pull shit out of your arse?
Market socialism isn’t defined by worker cooperatives, it’s defined by socialism which utilises market economy. Like the socialist democracies of the Nordic countries.
You can’t even define capitalism, yet demand everyone is utilising it.
If a country doesn’t have a planned economy, you won’t admit it’s not capitalist. Which is so dumb I can’t even find the words to describe it.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
No, it simply isn’t. That’s like saying “you’re not gay as long as you don’t penetrate another mans anus, sexual attraction to men has nothing to do with being homosexual”.
The simple definition of socialism is when the means of production are owned OR REGULATED BY the government.
Which part of “OR REGULATED” do you not understand?
This is exactly what I meant with my first comments. Delusional fuckers like you, pretending all market economy is capitalism. Even the US doesn’t have “pure” capitalism, as the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies.
I did define Capitalism, it’s a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.
I honestly almost suffocated. I laughed so hard I could barely breath, exactly like Risitas.
You seriously think you’ve “defined capitalism”? And to think you’re doing it in the exact way that shows I’m correct in that you’ve conflated capitalism with market economies? :DDD I can’t fucking believe this.
I’d like to keep pointing out how ridiculous this is, but I think you’re like a 14-year old yank or something and I don’t want to be that mean to kids.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of industries and especially FOR PROFIT. (In case you were unaware, that’s what the “capital” in “capitalism” means.) FOR PROFIT*. That’s the main thing. Putting profit above everything, and being owned privately. The definition has nothing to do with “trading commodities and paying workers”. I… honestly I’m just slightly in loss of words at your stupidity.
Here in Finland our railroads aren’t private. Hell, there’s not even one single privately owned liquor store in the country. We still use market economies. Which means you are allowed to sell your time to an employer who has a private business, in exchange for money. Unlike the US though, we don’t even have a minimum wage set in the law. Why? Because our trade unions are so strong that there is a de facto minimum wage in all industries, so a de jure one isn’t even needed.
Capital does not mean “for profit,” Capital refers to the Means of Production. Market based economies driven by profit predate Capitalism, which is only a few hundred years old. If you’d read Capital, you would have known that.
Railroads being government owned and operated is an example of Socialism! Hooray, you did it! But that’s just one part.
Market economies are not when you sell your time to an employer. That’s wage labor. Market economies involve competing entities, and can take the form of mercantilism, Market Socialism, Capitalism, and many other forms of Market. What you describe is just Capitalism though, haha.
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
You’re one of the most incoherent right-wingers I’ve encountered, I’ll tell you that much.
I love how you keep pretending you’ve read Das Kapital. “But markets existed before Marx!”
Yes. They did. And what exactly happened that made Marx assert that that era had been different from the era he was living in? The industrial revolution, which made it possible for people looking to profit to actually build such huge profits that they could grow their capitalist enterprises and keep growing them by exploiting the proletariat. Anyone who’s even read the Wikipedia article on Marx would know that ROFL. (I’m enjoying myself immensely, thank you.)
Before the industrial revolution, there was a different balance in the world. Lowly people just wanting to be rich simply had no opportunity to do that. After the industrial revolution, those people could become so rich, they rivaled the nobility, which is why we consider it the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism, AS MARX WRITES. Weird how much you’ve missed of the book you’ve definitely read, huh?
Greed existed before the industrial revolution, markets existed before the industrial revolution, and even government economies existed before it. But there wasn’t a way for those greedy fuckers to exploit people on a massive scale. With the industrial revolution, that way was shown to them. That’s what Marx’s whole book is about.
I’d say “nice try”, but it really, really wasn’t a nice try. Downright pathetic, in fact. :(
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
We don’t lack a minimum wage, just like I said. We don’t have one in law. You don’t understand what “de jure” and “de facto” mean? :D This keeps getting better. Here, let papa explain. The trade unions prevent anyone from hiring someone without utilising the rules the trade union has set. This means that despite Finland’s government not having a law which regulates minimum law, no Finn can work anywhere without having a set minimum wage. That minimum wage just doesn’t come from the law. This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Edit oh and “rightwinger”? What fucking logic are you using? :DDDDDD Please, send me what you’re smoking, I’m begging you :DDDD
I did give a simple definition of Capitalism, it’s a Mode of Production by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital that they pay workers Wages to use to create commodities. Commodities, by definition, are goods and services produced for sale, ie for profit.
I genuinely thought you at least knew what a commodity was, but given that you think I was ignoring profit when speaking about commodities, a concept tied fundamentally to the concept of profit, I can take that to mean that you truly haven’t read Marx, as one of the earliest chapters in Capital Volume I goes over the definition of Commodities.
I know about the Industrial revolution, and I similarly know that just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism. I am not sure why you are pretending I do not know that, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie teamed up to overthrow the aristocracy in most monarchies, which is why it’s stated that feudalism gave way to Capitalism in the first place. Class conflict and the analysis of such is the foundation of Marxism.
That entire set of paragraphs was you just vomiting on your keyboard about stuff I already know and made no indication of not knowing, which is honestly goofy.
Believe me, I know what de jure and de facto are. Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you. This does not help your point. Like I said, it would be nice if the Nordic Countries actually became Socialist and the Unions took ownership and control of the Means of Production, instead of leaving them in the hands of Capitalists.
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production. Until you shed that and support worker ownership, at best you will always be a center-right Social Democrat.
No, you didn’t. You wrote a sentence of vague gibberish, without any sources to back it up, despite just a few comments ago criticising Wikipedia as a bad source. Childish and utterly ridiculous.
for sale, ie for profit.
Selling something doesn’t mean you profit. If you buy 10 eggs for 10 dollars and sell those eggs for 10 dollars, how much profit did you make? Was there a trading of commodities? Yes, there was. Was there profit? No, there wasn’t.
It’s things like that which show you’ve not read Marx (or hardly anything, at all, actually), which is why I’m gonna quit this conversation after this comment; you’re a lying, pretentious pseudointellectual who refuses to argue this in good faith and can’t link a single source to back himself up.
You talk of communism as it’s not within socialism. Again. And you don’t understand how ridiculous that is. “For food, we have sandwiches, chips, spaghetti, and pasta.” is equally ridiculous a sentence as “Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism”
Again, repeating the “believe me”. If you look at how often you utilise it in your comments and pay attention to it, you might become a better liar.
Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you.
Again showing your ignorance. The dictionary definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Do you think the trade unions are NOT a part of the “community as a whole”? (That’s a rhetoric question, as I said I’m quitting this, as you are quite funny, but after I’ve had a laugh or two, I start pitying the fact that people like you exist. You clearly aren’t ready to learn anything, keep lying and avoiding addressing your gibberish.)
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production.
Oh I do? Wow, your logic is quite as impeccable as it has been the entire conversation. Please, do provide your reasoning for this. I’ would love to be able to show it to people
What exactly is vague gibberish? Which part didn’t make sense to you?
Yes, you can sell something and not make a profit, but the goal of commodity production is profit, not equal output from input. The Capitalist has no reason to pay people just to break even, the goal is profit, and as economies are measured as aggregates, that is the purpose of commodity production.
Communism is a post-Socialist form of economy. Socialism is defined as Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Trade unions are a good thing, but not Socialism. Socialism requires ownership. Unions help offset some of the issues of Capitalism, yes, but until you get rid of the Capitalists, it’s still Capitalism.
Yes, you’re a right winger, because you are supporting Social Democracy as a framework. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expanded social safety nets, there are still Capitalists, still Capitalism, and very little worker ownership, but it certainly sounds nicer than what the US has!
Your greatest source is misinterpreting a line in Wikipedia? You think that means your Capitalism is actually Socialism despite relying on Capitalism, because the welfare net is larger? Lmao
“I refuse to look or acknowledge any data on the subject, so I’m correct”
Is the little kiddo having to backpedal and ignore the facts because he made a bit of a boo-boo in his rhetoric?
Please do elaborate on how I misunderstood something such as: “Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism” to mean what it says. Im sure you’ve a really good reasoning on how it ACTUALLY means that “social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within capitalism”
Your data is Wikipedia. That’s it. Read perhaps any Socialist literature and you’re immediately debunked.
If Social Democracy was truly under Socialism, then the Workers of your country would own the Means of Production.
A more accurate reading of what you are claiming is that Social Democracy takes influence from Marxism while rejecting the conclusions and thus the necessity for Socialism, instead relying on Capitalism.
Tell me, plainly, how you can have Socialism with Capitalists and Capitalism. Or, does Nestlé not exist in the Nordic Countries?
Here’s my source: Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
Want to go and read those books? No? I’m schocked.
The information from those books is listed on Wikipedia, yes. Are you so childish that you’ll now pretend “you can’t find real information on wikipedia”?
Weirdly enough, you don’t have ANY sources for the things you pull out of your arse. Almost as if you didn’t know what you were talking about and didn’t HAVE any sources for your faulty claims, because like I said, you’ve conflated market economies and capitalism and think socialism equals communism, because you don’t understand communism is just one form of socialism.
“How can you have socialism with capitalism”
Since I’ve already explained you keep conflating “capitalism” with “market economies”, the question is then translated into “tell me, plainly, how can you have socialism and market economies”, for which the answer is really quite simple for anyone literate. However, since you also conflate “socialism” with “communism”, then the question becomes “how can you have communism with market economies”, to which the answer is “you can’t, since communism relies on planned economies instead of market economies”.
That’s where your confusion comes from.
Due to our good regulations because of our social demoractic, well governed economies, capitalist companies can participate, but they can’t do the shenanigans they can do in less regulated markets. The degree of regulation is the question. Even the US doesn’t have “pure” capitalism. Things like the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies, but this doesn’t mean the US is socialist in any way. It just means even they understand the necessity of regulation over “pure” capitalism, because “pure” capitalism is unsustainable as it leads to monopolies which then kill the economy.
This is why for example I can actually drink my tapwater and eat raw eggs that don’t even have to be refrigerated. This is why the quality of all products here is higher, and why it’s more expensive for companies like Nestle to try their bullshit here, which is why they mostly aim for developing countries. To avoid the regulation that comes with properly functioning social democracy.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too? It has plenty of regulations, more than Social Democracies do in many areas, in fact. Are you going to tell me that every country is actually Socialist if it doesn’t have a laissez Faire Capitalist economy, even if it uses Capitalism as the primary mode of production?
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Social Democracy absolutely takes influence from Marxism, that’s perhaps what the source you list may be referring to, however the place where Social Democrats fight with Socialists on is Social Democrats believe Capitalism can be harnessed and benefited from, instead of needing to transition to a worker owned economy.
I am not confusing Capitalism with markets, again, Wikipedia defines Market Socialism as a market based economy of competing worker-owned entities. Your own source, against you! Ha.
Similarly, I am not confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism is a Post-Socialist society, one that is Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless. Communism is indeed one form of Socialism, as is Syndicalism, as is Anarchism, as is Council Communism, as is Market Socialism.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too?
Not a bad question, if you’re honestly looking for conversation, but I get a feeling you’re trying a “gotcha” more than asking in good faith.
It’s more or less like sexuality; a spectrum more than anything black-and-white, even when people usually speak of it as either or (or “a mix of” = bi).
“Pure” capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere. It’s never even been tried as much as communism. Well, not in a developed, civilized world. What I mean by that is by the time that any sort of currency has become a thing, there’s also been regulation, even if not written. “Pure” capitalism would mean large, completely unregulated markets. There’s just no such thing, nor ever has been. Because capitalism is by it’s nature self-defeating. The competition which puts profit over anything means that the one who profits most, by any means necessary, will win and get to establish a monopoly that will then dry the market completely out.
Which is why the US, despite being so obviously politically and economically (having such few regulations and worker protections for a supposedly developed nation) capitalist, has things like a minimum wage (more or less) and antritrust laws. Because they help keep the capitalism from eating itself to death.
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Nice try, but you haven’t, that’s quite obvious.
Also, laissez-faire is essentially “without intervention”, when we all know that companies wield just a megaton of political power in the US and interfere in politics constantly, in order to keep free of regulation.
“Takes influence from Marxism”
And which economic school of thought hasn’t been influenced by Marx in some way or another? Since you say you’ve read “Das Kapital”, you obviously didn’t forget who came up with the term “capitalism”? Wouldn’t — arguably — taking a name for your school of thought be counted as “being influenced by”? (No, I’m not being serious, I’m doing the same sort of gotcha-shit you did in to showcase you how silly it is.)
I’m still waiting on you to elaborate on how I “misunderstood” this sentence:
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism" (sourced from Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.)
Or you know, for you to source any of your hilarious bullshit
Oh, believe me, it’s a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.
I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.
Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.
Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What part of my analysis makes it so “obvious” to you that I haven’t read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you’ve stated being firmly against it?
Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I’m specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.
I have already explained how you’ve misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
You’re extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.
You keep repeating “oh believe me”. You know why people like you say that? Do you know how liers also stress “I’m telling the truth”? Yeah, so… :)
No-one was talking about “mixed economies”. Learn to read.
that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections,
None of that is remotely true. The laws keep improving all the time. I honestly don’t understand the need of people like you to literally make up things to pretend like you understand a thing? Just don’t reply. If you write less, people won’t be able to see what a moron you are.
these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What the fuck are you smoking? “Yeah capitalist companies actually enjoy good regulations”
Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Call an ambulance, you’re having a stroke. That is meaningless drivel that in no way argues against the fact that social democracy is SOCIALIST as established by Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
no matter how much you cry and stomp your foot, you’re just a teenager equivocating, without any understanding of this. This shctick is getting old. It was entertaining for a while.
You’ve not provided a single source. Because there aren’t any, becuse you’re a teenager who keeps pretending he undestands something
you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
TLDR “if private property exists it’s not communism”
Stomp your foot all you want kid. The truth doesn’t care.
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
I have been saying “oh believe me” because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.
Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
It’s also really funny that you say I’m having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.
So you criticise Wikipedia as a source, and then when I keep asking you for sources for your arguments, you link three different articles about how income inequality is slightly higher in the recent years, and think it proves…? What? That your gibberish about political philosophy makes sense?
I’m having a hard time breathing, my eyes are watering. I really suggest you learn to check a thing or two on Google before opening your mouth :DDDDD
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power.
“Companies like regulations”
No, companies like laws which favour them. They don’t like “regulations”, they like PROFIT. ANYTHING that increases their profit is something they like. That’s the base of CAPITALISM, dipshit.
Pease, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source
It’s right there in the pages, you’re welcome to check it out yourself. Or, if you don’t feel like it, make an argument against it?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
Because you say so. When no-one agrees with your inane 70’s red scare logic.
“wyaa wyaa if it’s not full blown communism it’s not socialism but if even one thing is traded between two people it’s capitalism”
It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.
Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.
I’m not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.
Why is it “red-scare” logic when it’s written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That’s just Marxist logic!
2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it’s Market Socialism. Simple.
No need to throw slurs at me, but it’s fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.
Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you’ve got that going for you.
You are amazing. I wouln’t have had the patience to have that conversation.
Thank you for explaining people… well… Reality.
Just a bit of an off topic point:
I belive the use of “socialism” that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.
Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.
Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.
You’re correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as “socialism,” Socialism becomes defanged. “We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?” Can become a cry against the Proletariat.
There are specific definitions and I'm sticking to them. If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don't know the common typical structure for a nordic company.
You haven’t even read a single “basic definition” my man.
Here’s one :
Socialism
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
socialism
noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.
If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Youre refusing (or unable, lol) to understand that “capitalism” does not equal market economies.
Selling things doesn’t mean capitalism. Trading goods doesn’t mean capitalism. Owning a company doesn’t mean capitalism. Having companies with workers doesn’t mean capitalism.
Jesus fucking God I’m tired of explaining concepts that my 8 year old niece could google and learn by her self in five minutes
“unless you have a planned economy you’re not socialist”
Yeah, exactly the point I’m making. Brainwashed morons think socialism means full planked economy, when it’s no such thing.
Fucking spend 2 min on Google, is it so much to ask?
You literally said “Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something [it’s not socialist]”.
You’re referring to the collectives of the Soviet union. A distinct feature of PLANNED ECONOMIES.
“I never anything about a planned economy.”
Yes, you did. And now you’re pretending you didn’t. Like pretending reality isn’t what it actually is. Trying to convince me something that happened didn’t happen. Is there a word for behaving like that…?
lemmy.ml
Active