• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Social programs are not Socialism. Every economy is a mix of private and public property, that doesn’t make it mixed Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for economies at large, as you cannot remove entities from the context they are in. A worker cooperative is not a “socialist” part of a Capitalist economy, because it exists in the broader Capitalist machine and must use its tools.

    What determines if a system is Capitalist or Socialist is if private property or public property is the primary aspect of a society, and which class has control. In Norway, Private Property is dominant, so Social Programs are used to support that.

    • yucandu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      But in another comment you referred to the USSR as “the world’s first socialist state”, yet it existed in the broader global capitalist machine. You have contradicted yourself. Which is it? Can socialism exist in a world with capitalism, or not?

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Socialism can, Communism cannot. Socialism is a gradual process towards Communism. A worker cooperative does not endanger the Capitalist system nor move agaInst it, but Socialist countries and economies working towards Communism do.

        Communism, however, must be global.

        • yucandu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Socialism is a gradual process towards Communism.

          This was the lie that Lenin told the Soviet to quell their questions about “why aren’t we doing any of the things Marx said we have to do?”

          Marx used socialism and communism as synonyms.

          A worker cooperative does not endanger the Capitalist system nor move agaInst it,

          You sure about that? A bunch of people choosing to not give money to capitalists “does not endanger the capitalist system”? Think about that.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            56 minutes ago

            Lenin and the Bolsheviks did follow the general process Marx described, though. Can you elaborate on what you mean, here? Further, Marx used Socialism and Communism interchangeably, but referred to Communism in stages, such as Lower-Stage Communism and Upper-Stage Communism. Lenin simplified this to Socialism and Communism, and over time we have come to understand that we can go further and break these up into even more stages.

            Marx wasn’t around for the establishment of Socialism, his analysis was focused on Capitalism and how we may overcome it, not a prophetic view for how society must work. This isn’t a knock on Marx, rather, by contextualizing his ideas we can avoid dogmatism.

            As for cooperatives in a Capitalist system, no, not really. What you are describing is Utopianism, ie the idea that you can think of an ideal society and adopt it directly. The data surrounding cooperatives don’t appear to indicate any danger to large firms and other Capitalist entities dominating markets.

            • yucandu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              45 minutes ago

              The data surrounding cooperatives don’t appear to indicate any danger to large firms and other Capitalist entities dominating markets.

              Can I see that data?

              Since I’m sure you’re arguing in good faith here and have actually looked at some data, and you’re not just making things up.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 minutes ago

                There’s small but sustained growth in small firms, but these are nowhere near scaling to the level of large corporations and firms, indicating an inability to overtake them. Rather, they seem to be “filling in the cracks,” overtaking small sectors while leaving areas dominated by large firms untouched. This is why public ownership actually has a path to control these large firms.