• livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    So confused by this because I thought Santa owned that particular means of production by himself.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      They give out the products for free for the good of humanity though. I don’t know if you can call it private ownership if it’s a non-profit.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Now you’ve got me thinking about it, they distribute those products incredibly unevenly, with most presents going to the wealthy and middle class, in wealthy nations.

        It’s definitely not progressive. Also there’s the bullying over (nose) colour that has historically gone on there, with leadership turning a blind eye.

        • lugal@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It tells us alot about the character of poor people. The naughty get less, the nice kids get a lot. Don’t confuse cause and effect, you get born in a poor family because you are evil. Google karma. That’s why poor people have a higher crime rate, it’s not because being poor is criminalized, which is also true but not the reason. /s if not obvious

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Good point, the more presents you get the better you must be. It’s also about choices. Evil children choose to be born to poor parents. /s

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it’s free, you are the product. Isn’t he keeping a list who’s naughty who’s nice? Do you have any idea what amount of data is needed for that and how valuable this data is?

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean the optics of an unpaid staff of non human yet sapient creatures working for a humanoid authoritarian who punishes children with fossil fuels are… Uhh… bad.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism is solved everyone, if you don’t like it just make your own job. Something that is both realistic and feasible for every exploited worker.

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

        Not for everyone, but it’s a little weird that self-proclaimed communists are apparently completely incapable of putting their money where their mouth is.

        Easier to bitch on the internet than work for actual change, isn’t it?

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is sharing ownership weird to you but the fact they’re just taking a lions share of the worker’s wealth indefinitely not weird to you? Why do you believe workers should be sharing their wealth with already rich people?

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

        You clearly have no idea what I believe but are stupid enough to lie to me about it – like I wouldn’t know my own beliefs.

        Why should anyone ever take what you say seriously? Much less even attempt a conversation when you’re not capable of having a real one?

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

              You think you provided a deeper point. Interesting. If I missed it, please correct it. It’s how normal dialogue and debate occurs instead of … whatever your toxicity is.

    • animelivesmatter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even better, start a company with other workers and share ownership because you’re all workers, or join an existing such company. Unfortunately this isn’t a feasible option for most people, and neither is your suggestion

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you dictate you must sell your share when you leave the company? How do you generate more shares when you acquire more employees? Is this a commonly done thing?

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes both things aren’t uncommon features of worker coops though you might also want to look into foundations. Might want to reserve some influence for the Lumpen, for the municipality, suchlike, not strictly workers as otherwise they themselves could become a ruling elite.

        There’s also the issue of “does every worker actually have a share” IIRC Mondragon had a ruffle about that one dunno how it ended never followed up.