• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Did… did I say they couldn’t? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So ah… What’s the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.

        • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They said it in the first comment

          they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The western left doesn’t agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.

            • hglman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.

    • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM

    • Infynis@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.

      Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal

        • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.

          Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.

            In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.

            This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              All people are essentially born with no assets

              False. The children of rich people are born rich. That’s a major part of the problem. It creates dynasties.

              • DataDecay@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I’m convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.

                • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother’s mementos unless you’re rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.

                  • DataDecay@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’d rather sell off mementos than lose livelihood. We all know the top 1% shelter and live off non income based tax shelters, and then just pass those shelters on through legacies. Given the arbitrary caps on assets your grandmother’s Polaroids would likely be safe. You wont see good faith attempts to fix taxes regardless though, as politicians are in the business of making money, so would never go after their own livelihood.

            • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Inflation’s been happening since currency was created. We don’t notice day to day because the effects are stretched over a long period.

              Try calculating the value of a 2010 dollar against the current 2023 dollar. You’ll find the cumulative effect of ~5% inflation each year is significant.

              In addition, periods exist throughout American history during which inflation has spiked noticably within a year or two - this is nowhere near the first time.

        • Sanctus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren’t there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don’t speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you’re so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you’re trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you’re talking about.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics… right?

              They aren’t growin em in fuckin Seattle.

                • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you’re still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you’re already familiar with this. You’re correct in asserting that you’re stuck just having to “believe” your sources don’t use slave labor, because you’re sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.

                  The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn’t very helpful.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…

                  It’s so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.

            • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?

          • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As someone in the industry, I can say you actually do. It’s scary how easy it is to buy coffee harvested by literal or effectively slaves.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          but the workers could do it if they wanted

          Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it’s so stacked against it occurring, it’s effectively impossible.

          The state of the economy today is what’s stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.

          Edit: I’m really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. “Nothing is stopping you.” Yeah and “nothing” is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of “nothing”. Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it’s possible.

            • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet’s is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.

                • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Peet’s had 4 stores before it started changing hands, Peet’s and Starbucks famously did not compete with each other for years, and Starbucks wasn’t even selling brewed coffee before it was taken over by Shultz and venture capital.

                  But from my experience in the industry, your confident incorrectness is perfectly in character for a coffee shop owner.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You haven’t owned coffee places. You’ve been entirely wrong on how to source coffee plus your description of what even makes coffee. If you used to own them, you probably ran them into the ground. You’re objectively wrong on coffee production.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.

              You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you’re not competing if you aren’t actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you’re saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.