• granolamalfunction@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re pretty compatible when you use capitalist principles to allow for a market economy where the corporate machines are owned collectively by their workers, rather than their boards of shareholders like we see today. We need a completely different government structure to properly enact and enforce environmental and safety regulations though, since lobbying, bribery, gerrymandering, and cronyism are entirely too effective in the US

      • granolamalfunction@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree that it isn’t very similar to modern Capitalism at all, but the means of production would still not be state-owned or managed, so the only socialism going on would take the form of unions and government welfare, which is more similar to early 20th century american capitalism than it is to most socialist movements of the past 100 years.

        The definitions of socialism and capitalism are constantly in flux though so assigning a simple name to a nuanced economic framework will always be reductive and confusing.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          but the means of production would still not be state-owned or managed

          All squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares.

          Socialism is when the workers control the means of production: could be through the state, could also be through unions or co-ops or other labor-controlled structures. Might make you uneasy to say so, but I think you’re a socialist, my man.

          • granolamalfunction@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am called a socialist by a lot of people who call themselves socialist, but I am called capitalist to a lot of people who call themselves capitalist. As I said, the word has taken on many different meanings by people who interpret or misinterpret Marx’s ideas differently.

            I don’t align myself with any named doctrine because the names are reductive and often misleading or conflicting. If you consider me socialist because of your definition of socialism I won’t tell you otherwise, but I will push back if someone tells me to call myself socialist because I don’t agree with the more common interpretations of what it means to be socialist.

            All squares are quadrilaterals and all cubes contain squares, but a cube is not a quadrilateral, it merely looks like a quadrilateral in some projections. It may look like a hexagon in others. Projections don’t show the whole shape