• @HardNut
    link
    11 year ago

    It can simply mean the workers of a company are the shareholders of a company.

    But this doesn’t just happen right? Consider the game of soccer, there are rules in place that say we have nets, and the nets sit opposite side of the fields, and we have a ball, and we kick the ball, and we don’t use our hands, etc… those are the rules of soccer. Get rid of the rules, we get rid of soccer. The same is true for any system that requires cooperation. Rules are required or it doesn’t exist. So yes, people have to follow rules for socialism to exist, and rules have to be enforced or they aren’t rules. People have to enforce the rules, or the rules don’t exist. You may not call it a state, but the more we go through the process of describing how to achieve socialism, the more we’re simply describing statehood with socialist rules.

    One of the ways capitalists try to scare people away from socialism is by making seem like it would change every aspect of society and make everything different (which works because people are scared of change) but it would actually be a pretty small change.

    Well, this certainly isn’t what I’m doing. I think we’re already more socialist than capitalist where I live, and it’s already damn near impossible for an individual to start a small business. Private businesses are disappearing and being replaced by cut-and-paste corporate stores given tax breaks by our shady government for political support

    • @gmtom
      link
      11 year ago

      That whole first paragraph makes 0 sense to me?

      Yes it does happen. Wtf does “soccer” have to do with anything. The only “rule” in socialism is that the workers own the means of production, and as I said before that doesn’t not requite a state. You could make the same argument that a capitalist company is actually a kingdom and it would be just as valid as what you’re saying.

      And then the second paragraph, I really don’t think you live anywhere that is actually that socialist and the grievances you’re describing are regulation, not anything to do with socialism.

      • @HardNut
        link
        11 year ago

        The only “rule” in socialism is that the workers own the means of production, and as I said before that doesn’t not requite a state

        This is an incredibly general idea and makes no suggestion as to how this is achieved. You’ve made no effort to show me how to achieve this without rule of law, you just keep saying it’ll work. Come on, think it through. Engage your brain. I’m sure the answer is there, I’m sure you know tons that I don’t about how to structure socialism without rule of law, but you’re just not saying any of it. Help me out here, give me some of your sacred knowledge please.

        And then the second paragraph, I really don’t think you live anywhere that is actually that socialist and the grievances you’re describing are regulation

        This is a great way to develop tunnel vision. Your only reason to suggest that what I said isn’t true is that it contradicts your perception of the world. I don’t care how smart you are, this mentality will completely break your ability to evaluate what’s going on in the world.

        • @gmtom
          link
          01 year ago

          I’ve already fucking told you how this is achieved. That was the whole point of my first comment. Its as simple as having the workers be the shareholders instead of a capitalist class. Why do you think this is unachievable without laws? And have you never heard of a co-op? As that is a very similar concept too.

          So you’re not going to mention where this mythical socialist land is? I’m guessing because you know its not actually more socialist than capitalist, and if you mention where it is, then that fact will become obvious.

          At this point I’m starting to be convinced you’re just a troll.