Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mwaaahfunny t1_ityv811 wrote

Reply to comment by _-_Naga-_- in TSMC says efforts to rebuild US semiconductor industry are doomed to fail by 0wed12

Sounds like unions. And that unions should have a say in how a company is run. Which is the path to socialism. Not saying that's bad. But that is how people demand equality in the workplace

2

Original_Chicken_698 t1_ityw034 wrote

Socialism is the means of production being owned by the community as a whole, not the workforce. Workers banding together to ensure full value from their labor through collective bargaining is one of the best examples of capitalism as it pertains to the blue collar worker… Socialism would be elected officials negotiating on behalf of the worker at the behest of the entire populace.

You need to go look up what socialism actually means…

−3

SleazierPolarBear t1_itywxxb wrote

You are conflating the broad definition of socialism with a very specific implementation of socialism.

“Means of production being owned by the community” means many different things in many different models.

The most straight forward (and closest to “default”) method of organizing this is for the specific workers that use a specific means of production to have “ownership” of it. It makes no sense for Baker Becky in Arkansas to have a vote on what Machinist Marty in Florida does throughout the course of their workday.

2

Original_Chicken_698 t1_ityxrcs wrote

Again, I think you need to actually look up what socialism is instead of typing these walls of nonsense. Unionization is literally capitalism for the working class. Workers monopolizing their labor for maximum value. Just because they have perceived similar aims, the betterment of workplaces, doesn’t make them the same or even remotely the same.

−3

SleazierPolarBear t1_itz128y wrote

Again, I think you need to do more than an inch deep look into what socialism actually is instead of typing these walls of nonsense.

I said nothing about unions. I pointed out the problem in your definition of socialism in that you are either mistakenly, or purposefully, conflated a broad category with a specific implementation.

“Owned by the community” means something a bit different in the man iterations of proposed socialism. Unions being a pathway to worker ownership of the means of production is an idea goes back longer than you have been alive.

You sound like you’ve taken the first sentence of the wiki on socialism and make all your conclusions. Do better bro.

1

Original_Chicken_698 t1_itz8i0c wrote

It’s not the first sentence of any wiki, it’s just acknowledging what it is. Socialism isn’t some broad, undefinable word. It has a very tight definition as to what it is… The Marxian command structure literally doesn’t have spot for independent unions and no iteration since snd in between actually includes independent unions. Claiming unions are a socialist concept is and always has been an attempt to court blue collar union workers to accept socialist concepts when in reality the heart of socialism would turn the fruits of union productivity snd labor into community property.

You don’t get to just redefine the word socialism into whatever fits your argument. Socialism is a set of beliefs about governance, workers banding together within one one sector or one workplace is not… Two things aiming for similar results none very specific category of societal good don’t make them the same thing. Which is why every poll shows actual union members vote evenly split across political parties and are over 60% neutral towards socialism.

1

SleazierPolarBear t1_itz90uk wrote

Marxism was communism, and only one specific school of thought amongst many similar philosophies at the time.

Socialists were the reason unions exploded in industrialized societies because they recognized the opportunity to grasp a form of economic power within an existing hierarchical structure. You could never implement worker ownership of means of production without some leverage over the existing hierarchy.

Dude you have NOT done the reading on this shit. Just stop.

1

Original_Chicken_698 t1_itzmid7 wrote

I didn't say Marxism. I said Marxian... But I'm assuming you're actually what you're accusing me of, someone who scans wikipedia to form an argument he has already made and thus you don't know that 19th century Socialist movements, the basis for modern socialist beliefs, literally derive their definition of socialism from Karl Marx's writings...

And no, unions exploded because the industrial revolution and its emphasis on productivity and value. And the pioneers of labor unions were undoubtedly driven by the Ricardian labor theory of value, which is inarguably a capitalist theory. The leaders of both the Knights of Labor and the NLU, which were at the forefront of the labor movement, were driven by this.

You're fucking stupid and have literally no idea what you're talking about. But your argument about unions being an achievement of socialism is a pretty good example of socialism in that it takes the accomplishments of others and attempts to dole them out to those uninvolved.

1

SleazierPolarBear t1_itzno2p wrote

Tldr. You ruined the credibility needed to pay that much attention already.

Have a good one.

1

Original_Chicken_698 t1_itzo7zx wrote

Tldr; Go back to Twitter with your C-average elementary school education where you belong instead of pretending to plug your ears because you know you don't have a retort to the pioneers of labor movements literally preaching capitalistic economic theories.

If you want socialism to succeed, stop trying to champion it because you're an idiot who makes it look bad.

1