|
| ▲ | Avicebron 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think this is really insightful definition, username aside, I think forcing the conversation to include "oligarchical control" (the part people usually have issue with) prevents the lazy "but muh free market!" arguments when discussing our modern economic system |
|
| ▲ | manoDev 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If the value is staying with local workers (social ownership) instead of being captured by some multinational, that's closer to a textbook definition of socialism than capitalism. How's that double-speak? |
| |
| ▲ | beeflet 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The solar panels are produced by outside of the country with companies applying massive economies of scale. I don't know what about this is socialist. I guess it is vaguely leftist in the sense that poor 3rd worlders are benefiting. But whether a system is capitalist or not does not hinge on this sort of grievance-based thinking. |
|
|
| ▲ | onraglanroad 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You're attempting to be sarcastic but that's actually accurate: > Capitalism is really centralized monopolistic oligarchical control in modern media parlance. Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in. > Distributed empowering democratic grassroots level <word> allocation of resources that don't provide centralized control and administration is "socialism". Yes, it is. When the people who actually do the work own it. |
| |
| ▲ | beeflet 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Of course, because the Capitalists try to control the industry they've invested in. But does the system eventually result in a small number of capitalists taking power or is it distributed over many capitalists? Not all monopolies are natural. What is the "work" being done here? Manufacturing or installation? It's not like all of the solar companies are co-ops and contractors. |
|
