• lingh0e@lemmy.film
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Which is why I’m suggesting that, perhaps, we would make better decisions if the means of production were controlled by the workers.

    • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the example given it came down to the supposed needs of the larger society. The fishers owning the means of production ≠ as owning the Sea.

      If the workers controlled the means of production at a coal mine are they going to stop mining coal because it is horrifically bad for everyone else or are they going to see to their needs first by selling coal?

      The solution to these problems is not going to be fixed by changing economic ideologies to one proven to not be any better.

      • lingh0e@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Funny you use that example. There have been concerted efforts to train coal miners in other fields in an effort to curb coal consumption. Regions that embraced changing to new sources of income in other industries tended to fair much better than the regions that refused such programs.

        We have progressed enough as a civilization that we can absolutely change our destructive ways. “My great grand pappy mined these hills, why shouldn’t I” isn’t a viable excuse these days.

        • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But for those that own the mine there is no compelling reason to do so if they risk starvation. Workers owning the means of production would not solve environmental problems.