• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m not, and I understand. I think you’re confusing my point, I think having unequal ownership among a collective of people is less efficient for Socialism.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why? How could letting someone half way across the world that has nothing to do with a given workplace or enterprise vote on an issue they know nothing about possibly be more efficient? Surely having the people who are actual stakeholders in a co-operative make decisions about that co-operative would be more fair and more efficient than having a central bureaucratic organization, or worse individual voters across the world make decisions for them.

      Also I hate to tell you this but markets are generally pretty efficient. Command economies much less so.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You can have equal ownership without requiring everyone to give input, and this prevents someone from gaining more ownership and thus more power.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          How is someone going to gain more ownership? We are talking about worker co-ops probably enforced by law. You can add rules about how much of a business who can own of those who work there.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Then you keep enshittification as coops monopolize, which you said you’d allow the government and customers to also have ownership, by which point I’d say it would be more efficient to just share equal ownership to begin with.