• Cowbee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    No, I am advocating for democratic control, not giving all control to one or two dudes. That’s what you’re putting in my mouth. For example, I’m arguing for the factory to be owned by the Workers, and managed by whoever they vote for. You’re the one adding the caveat of an anti-democratic central god-planner, which is nonsense.

    The rest of your comment is you continuing this nonsense, so maybe I’ll break it into something simple and bite-sized for you.

    Factory 1: Capitalist owner, workers have no say except to leave.

    Factory 2: Workers are the Owners, elect a manager, and said manager can be deposed by the Workers at will.

    Why do you think having Factory 1 is better, and why do you think I’m advocating for Factory 2 to have no democracy whatsoever? Why do you think it’s impossible to have a federated network of Factory 2s, that are all democratically accountable, rather than someone at the top of all of Factory 2s and no democracy?

    If you keep avoiding this question and intentionally misrepresenting my point, you just further prove that you don’t actually care to discuss anything.

    • galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      You could even combine the efforts of the individual workers unions (Soviets) and address the production and starvation issues that the union of the soviets have been experiencing… Oh wait, that’s exactly what happened. This is why these arguments get dismissed out of hand. You are rewording very old arguments and claiming they are new ideas. I am not avoiding your question. I am addressing it with history.

      The big difference between workers-led organizations in a consolidated capitalist system and a socialist one is worker choice and consent. In a socialist system, they have none or it fails very quickly.

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago
        1. We’ve already explained that your claim that workers owning tools = nobody works = starvation is pure mysticism. When pressed for why, you said people would work less automatically, which is wrong, especially considering co-operative farming has worked for as long as humanity has existed, and continues to do so. Additionally, you claimed they would be less stable, which was also proven false with my example of Worker co-operatives.

        2. I’m not asking for the Soviet Union, you keep pushing that in there as though it’s the only way, and pretend that every problem the Soviet Union had must be repeated if Workers share tools. Its an utter fallacy.

        3. Workers cannot consent to Capitalism, it exists regardless. That’s like saying peasants consented to Feudalism.

        The very fact that you deliberately refused to answer why Factory 1, with the Capitalist ownership, was better than Factory 2 with democratic ownership, and instead dodged, proves me exactly correct: you have nothing to stand on and merely reflexively reject everything I say. You’re no different from a Monarchist during the French Revolution saying that workers wouldn’t have the ability to choose to be a serf under Capitalism.

        Please, explain exactly why the democratically run factory is worse than the undemocratically run factory. If you’re going to continue to lie about what I’m saying and make absurd mystical claims, then I suppose I expected too much from an internet stranger.