1218
Yeee yee
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1218 points (91.2% liked)
Memes
45902 readers
1395 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Someone in favor of a market economy run by worker-owned entities.
There's also a middle ground between consumer cooperatives which are more on the communal side and worker cooperatives that are more on the libertarian socialist side with Worker Consumer Cooperatives that align both kinds of stakeholders with ownership and management reducing exploitation on both ends.
Not wholly opposed to that, markets can serve the purpose they're designed for, and I could see an evolution of cybersyn that helps run the economy using simulated markets.
I certainly think it's much better than current Capitalism, that's for sure, though it's not enough to truly reach the finish line.
As a Mutualist, while there are a few things that could be better centralized, I'm in favor of a full worker consumer cooperative economy. Housing, groceries, and, utilities all work better as cooperatives, but capitalist have enough wealth to often push cooperatives out in other markets.
Oh, I wouldn't know anything about that.
That's what I would consider left, but not far-left. I suppose Socialism with Liberal Democracy, as opposed to a more direct or decentralized version of democracy, would be left but not far left as well. Capitalism ends where left begins.
It's not linear. Anarchist or Libertarian Socialist systems like Syndicalism, Mutualism, Georgism, and Distributism are just as Socialist as Marxism in that they prevent the exploitation of capital accumulation, but they favor direct stakeholder ownership of firms in place of a state or other more communal systems that create an inherent hierarchy of power.
I'm aware that it's not linear, but it's also not a 2 axis grid, either. There are generally groups of ideologies based on what class they represent, and the methods they use.
Left and right are more for shorthand.
I'm not sure if you're gatekeeping or just generalizing.
Neither. The left/right divide is Socialism/Capitalism. There are various Overton Windows, ie what is considered left or right when compared to an areas median, like Liberalism being left of the American median despite being a right-wing, Capitalist ideology.
Anarchism, Communism, Marxism, and other forms of Socialism are leftist, while Liberalism, Social Democracy, and fascism are rightist.
Uh. Okay. If you say so. I wasn't going to say anything about the No True Scotsman fallacy, but you really did force my hand with that last one. That's outright silly, and a pretty vile attempt to coerce conformity out of of other progressives who don't align with your perspective on economics by thinking you can label them "right-wing" for it.
How would you propose left/right be divided, if not by the commonly accepted mechanics by which they differ?
I'm so glad you asked.
I'm beginning to feel a little gas-lit.
That refers to the Overton Window, as you can see it's generally just vibes, and not actual measurable mechanics.
Right. I must've missed that because I don't care about this conversation at all. Labels were never my thing to begin with. But you can call me right-wing if it makes you feel better, as long as I get to keep my trans boyfriend.
You asked me, so I answered. Personally, I think left/right is hopelessly reductive, it ties too many unrelated things together, and says nothing of social views, of which you're presumably very progressive despite right wing economic views.
That's why I wouldn't call you "right wing" before I called you a liberal, which I'm sure we are both comfortable with.
Hey, you're the expert.
I personally couldn't care less about economics. There are too many things to be right and passionate about for me to start worrying about all that theoretical insanity.
That's fine, never said you had to.