Comment on The FTC isn’t too happy with Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard layoffs

• yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yes, the only options are crony capitalism and communism. Nailed it.

  source

  • MxM111@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Did not say crony. And yes, there are alternatives like feudalism, you think they worth mentioning? And I specifically mentioned state ownership too, so, you can count socialism (as economic system there too).

    source

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Did not say crony

      It’s silent, but it’s always there. It’s like the silent q in ‘cat’.

      source

      • MxM111@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Cqat?

        source
• bartolomeo@suppo.fi ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Doesn’t it seem like communism and capitalism have the same end game? Company towns and one company that produces everything and you have no options. The only difference I guess is that under capitalism, the owners of the means of production are not accountable to anyone and can not be removed whereas under communism the owners of the means of production are democratically elected members of the workforce that are accountable to the people and can be removed if need be.

  Are you sure you’re not confusing communism with authoritarianism or fascism? Capitalism is more closely associated with the latter than communism.

  source

  • MxM111@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In any place where state ownership of means of manufacturing was implemented it lead to dictatorship or dictatorship like state. So, one can see how one can confuse them. But no, I do not confuse them, for one is economic system, and another is political.

    So, let me ask, in that model that you describe, who owns the means of manufacturing?

    source

    • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Why must the state own anything, for it to be a more equitable situation? The people who do the work should own the work, all getting a say in what happens, in terms of what they’re doing, where they’re going, and who’s getting fired. The closest thing to “owning” an individual would have is a person, or likely a team, functioning as spokespersons for negotiating with the state or other companies, but only to communicate how the workers have chosen to conduct business, the only real power they have being communication.

      source

      • MxM111@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So Unions under capitalism?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Why must the state own anything

        Healthcare.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • bartolomeo@suppo.fi ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You mean in communism? I’m no expert but I believe it’s the workers, even though “owning” doesn’t mean quite the same as we use it now.

      source

      • MxM111@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        “Workers” is too abstract. Which workers? How is it handled? How do you start new business? Who/how it is paid? Who gets the profit? In what proportions? The natural solution is to have state ownership and saying “the state is the people”, but this is exactly what was done in, say USSR. And it does not work well.

        source