this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
24 points (85.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

187 readers
67 users here now

Ask Lemmy community on sh.itjust.works. Ask us anything you feel like asking, just make sure it's respectful of others and follows the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Do they need to be public property or do they need to be in the hands of those working there? I’d be more inclined towards the latter as in most cases the public as a whole is not going to have an informed or educated perspective on how specific jobs/roles/companies should behave.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Those are so similar to each other in comparison with capitalism that at this stage, we mostly use the same words to describe both.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

No, they are not. The USSR and China (only in theory) had/has public ownership and it is quite different than the workers comtrooling their business.

When the public owns the means of production you open up the likelihood of the state directly oppressing the workers as happened in the USSR and China.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

Well, in theory is pretty different from in practice

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

All states oppress people, thats the point of a state. The goal of a socialist state is to oppress the bourgeois