• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    That would be a significant departure from its original meaning. Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working. On the other hand, socialism is ownership or control of the economy by workers. Worker coops definitely could be considered a form of socialism, albeit it is probably the one that is most similar to capitalism since it still involves markets. So if you want to call worker coops capitalist then it would be both capitalist and socialist at the same time which is rather confusing to me.

    But I mean words change, I think it’s a bit confusing to call this capitalism but maybe it would be more politically viable if we called it that. Lots of people are afraid of socialism because of the USSR and their atrocities.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working

      I think that’s only true because in early capitalism, only the existing wealthy were able to participate in the system. That’s still the case to a large degree, but it’s not an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It was just an incidental aspect of capitalism in the world as it existed.

      True capitalists believe that the more competition, the better. Giving ordinary workers a higher stake in their company promotes a much broader level of competition. I think it’s totally fair to describe worker co-ops in terms of capitalism, and as you said it would really help the branding.