this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
15 points (69.2% liked)

General Discussion

11974 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse and Feddit Lemmy Community Browser!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/13355449

Capitalism is a game where only a few people get to win.

We have also seen time and time again that it is a game that is able to manipulate and change whatever ideology or behaviour you have to work towards its own benefit.

So the only way to actually "win" is to not play the game.

Right now that seems impossible because it is a massive collective action problem, however this whole platform is a testament to show that it's possible to overcome that kind of problem.

Reddit is a dominant platform that is starting to destroy itself. People are in turn finding alternatives such as Lemmy to satisfy the need that Reddit once did.

I view capitalism in the same way. It will never truly completely cease to exist (the same way Digg never truly died), but it can become irrelevant over time if we collectively decide to just use another system to satisfy the same needs that capitalism is satisfying today.

The one example that I can think of that tries to tackle this problem is the idea of free stores that are based on a gift economy. If more people decided to use this system instead of capitalism then capitalism will have less sway over people's lives.

And in the end it doesn't have to be specifically a free store that needs to be adopted by wider society but whatever it is does need to satisfy the same basic need that capitalism does in our current society.

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] surewhynotlem 26 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So the only way to actually “win” is to not play the game.

Start an employee-owned socialist company and get to it! It's been done before, somewhat successfully. So get on it!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sadly you often need a lot of capital, a resource available largely to the wealthy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Details matter, but there are low capital businesses. Ice cream and pizza shops as examples.

[–] captainlezbian 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Also, this is a website with a lot of tech professionals. You can get together a few fellow professionals and set up a coop. Law offices are kinda like that with partners being owners. You can follow the partner model which is very bougieoise or you can include even your cleaning staff as coowners. It’s not like starting a factory

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I’d probably need at least half a million to start a business in my industry (early childhood education).

[–] captainlezbian 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that’s fair. I work in industrial settings so I’m in a similar boat. Historically when my folks obtain the means of production force is involved. You probably shouldn’t do that one either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A daycare, or something else?

We need more daycares, so I encourage you to challenge the idea of it costing so much up front.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Kinda a disparaging name for the industry, but close enough.

There’s a lot of things you’re required to have in my country to open one, for obvious safety and education reasons. Add to that exorbitant prices on renting a suitable site.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Kinda a disparaging name for the industry

I apologize. It was not my aim to insult.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Nah it’s okay, many people unfortunately still call it that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I have been thinking of doing exactly this. Super intimidating though.

I keep getting hung up on which step to do first. Get customers, contracts for customers, advertising, or processes.

[–] captainlezbian 3 points 8 months ago

Try talking to small business incubators. They don’t need to know you’re planning to create a worker owned coop.

And remember, if you take on business debts in the beginning, so long as they’re well documented it’s ok to charge all that to the company as loans to you. I would gladly join a coop that pays its debts to its members

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the "company" part of what you mentioned still playing the game?

[–] Buddahriffic 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Capitalism isn't "organizations involved in work" or even the idea of trading goods and services for others or currency.

Capitalism is the idea that there's people who own the land, buildings, machines, and materials, hire labour, and pay them as little as they can convince them to work for while taking profit for just being the boss of that stuff.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Ok I agree with that definition, but the suggestion that you were making, at least how I interpreted it, was to start a socialist company to try and be successful within that same exploitative system which I think sort of misses the point of what I was trying to say.

[–] surewhynotlem 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You can't not participate in capitalism from day 1. You start a company (or call it whatever), then someone else does the same. You trade with them. You build.

Unless you have an island with no government where you'd like to start fresh?

[–] captainlezbian 2 points 8 months ago

Exactly. And you can help fund fellow socialist companies. Sure maybe you’re a coop with low startup expenses, but if you put aside cash to help fund a factory that’s either part of your coop or a sibling coop that’s helping spread worker ownership

[–] ElectroVagrant 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You start a company (or call it whatever), then someone else does the same. You trade with them. You build.

Expanded/extended mutual aid networks amidst non-profit/not-for-profit companies and worker coops might be really interesting. This reminds me to dig around some more for any histories on attempts of this nature to identify what issues emerged to try to address them.

[–] surewhynotlem 2 points 8 months ago

One Free Community is full of like minded people doing a bit of this

https://discord.com/invite/wCpKpQjq

[–] Buddahriffic 3 points 8 months ago

It wasn't my suggestion. And personally, I only think it would work at a small scale. If it gains momentum that makes some capitalists nervous, they'll come down hard on it with the power of the state. And even before it gets to that point, other companies won't likely play nice with you. You wouldn't just be a competitor in their market, you'd be a competitor to their way of life.

If you start a company, you don't have to maintain controlling ownership of it. You can also separate the proceeds from the decision making process. You can define a different manager/managee relationship where the managers aren't mini dictators that just tell others what to do and make more money than any of them. You can allow employees to have more (or full!) control over their own schedules. It's a bunch of partnerships working for mutual benefit instead of subordinates working for your benefit for the lowest you think you can pay them.

[–] c0mbatbag3l 1 points 8 months ago

Not all models or definitions of Capitalism even follow that, go read Henry George. You can represent collective ownership of land through taxing the shit out of those that own it, and since it's the one resource you can't make more of its the best way to eliminate the landlord parasite problem because no one will own land they don't intend to use to fulfill a use case. Supply for housing, for example, would even out as landlords start seeing holding unimproved land as a huge red check on their balance sheets. They would be incentivized to sell or build something that people need on said land.

Trickle down economics was a joke because the more wealthy people become, the more they want with that wealth, and the more they're desires influence what the market creates. So we spend resources making diamond studded hand bags and mega yachts when the market wouldn't even create those things if the richest among us (always land owners in the end) actually got taxed on the one thing they can't tax dodge, land holdings.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (6 children)

The only way to move beyond capitalism is to find the source of free energy that will enable post-scarcity. Until then humans will continue to compete for resources.

[–] ABCDE 6 points 8 months ago

Or move to circular economy and accept that GDP doesn't measure prosperity. We already have free energy from the Sun.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

This is a commonly held belief and one that I had for most of my life. I don't know what finally did it for me, but the book Trekonomics definitely gave me a push.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

We are already post scarcity. Most energy use is just a complete waste.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Most of our energy is used wastefully in the pursuit of infinite growth on a finite planet. We have enough energy to provide for every person. We do not have enough energy to provide for capital

[–] taanegl 1 points 8 months ago

This.

This is why investment in fusion is so important. For one thing all energy markets will become null and void. But secondly, the point where we have no more energy scarcity is a point when we finally have replicators.

I can taste the raktakino now.

[–] FlyingSquid 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

free stores that are based on a gift economy.

How do those who gift the stores the free goods get those goods to gift?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah it is through capitalism at the moment. My point is that it doesn't have to be.

I was pointing out free stores as a model.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Free stores? Gift economy? I think you're giving people too much credit and are waaaayyyy too optimistic.

I already lived under socialism, and it's much worse than anything capitalism has to offer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

if I can't win I'll get a printer and ruin every economy possible