• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s a matter of scale I think, I don’t think I would consider a blacksmith having a handful of apprentices to be capitalism, especially considering the implication of an apprenticeship meaning that those guys will eventually become blacksmiths themselves. Maybe if he owned a whole bunch of blacksmiths shops and the associated tools and just paid the actual smiths a certain amount to use them, but if a small shop like that is capitalism, then every economic system from the dawn of trade to now is capitalism, and that isn’t how I generally see people use the term.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Well, if we use the term in the way people generally use the term, I don’t think we could go back to non-capitalism.

      I don’t know anyone that could build every component of a computer. I do know people who could from parts, but not make the actual parts.

      So, let’s say all of the employees owned every factory they worked in, that would be socialism, right? I could get on board with that. Has it worked anywhere where one person didn’t take it over like a mob boss after a certain amount of time?

      Edit: On that last question, I’m hoping that’s a yes.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I feel like you might be confusing capitalism for market economies in general. A market economy is when private entities buy and sell things. Capitalism specifically is a market economy where the means of production, the equipment that makes things, are owned by investors who do not themselves participate in production.

        What you describe in that last paragraph is called market socialism. You still have private entities buying and selling things, that’s the market part, but instead of being owned by investors those entities are collectively owned by the employees doing the production, that’s the socialism part.

        This system preserves the strengths of markets, namely efficient specialization and price discovery, while eschewing the liabilities of capitalism, namely the siphoning of value from those who create it to investors.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I have never personally worked in a worker co-op or employee owned corporation to give an anecdote about how they feel day to day, but I do know that they exist.

          • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            ah, well, designing a different system is a whole different problem to gaining the influence and political will to implement it once designed. And probably a harder one, seeing as it requires finding a way to convince a lot of other people to use what levers of power they have to push your idea, and changing peoples minds requires more than just thinking through an idea of what could be. (edit: I mean the latter as the harder one, Im realizing that I didnt exactly write it in a way that implies what I intended to mean)