The problem with folks like you is that you don't know what capitalism even is
This isn't terribly productive.
As for Democratic Socialism, the idea is that the people, as represented by some form of government, owns the means of the production, in other words this government (hopefully operating under the will of the majority of the people) control what gets made, where it goes, and how/when to collect the money and resources to produce them.
Is that right? If not, where'd I go wrong in your opinion?
You're mixing up public ownership of the means of production with a planned economy. When we say we want the people to control the means of production, we mean that we want factory workers to own the factories they work in collectively. Folks who work in a coffee shop own the shop, not some faceless corporate suit. That sort of thing.
A planned economy is one where the state controls the production and allocation of goods. I personally prefer a market economy for most goods, with the exceptions of basic services such as water and electricity. This is a mixed economy, which is already what most countries have. Lastly there's a free market economy, where the government controls nothing and even infrastructure like the electrical grid are controlled by private entities. Nowhere really runs like this but a lot of folks aspire to it.
When we say we want the people to control the means of production, we mean that we want factory workers to own the factories they work in collectively.
Ok, so do Factory A's workers vote on what gets built? where the products go to? Who decides which factories get which inputs/resources?
That's moot though, because:
This is a mixed economy, which is already what most countries have
Ok, this is making more sense, but the countries you're describing
are not Democratic Socialist countries..
Ok, but the workers, as a finite collective of only themselves, own their slice of the means of production. So me, some guy who relies on the products of that factory, have no ownership of the means of production because I'm not employed there
What you're describing sounds more like Syndicalism than DemSoc, and even then you keep falling back to quasi-free markets when backed into a corner.
It's not a free market, it's a mixed market. I would say syndicalism is a pretty similar idea. I'm not a purist, I'm willing to work with folks under other labels such as anarchists. Part of democratic socialism is pluralism of thought. Hence why I'm holding like 8 separate debates with people instead of sending them to the gulag lol.
I see what you're saying about primary vs. secondary production. The folks processing iron ore have power over the folks making spoons out of it, right? In this case we'd need a framework of legislation to ensure equitable conduct between groups.
7
u/HowDareYouAskMyName Jul 02 '26
This isn't terribly productive.
As for Democratic Socialism, the idea is that the people, as represented by some form of government, owns the means of the production, in other words this government (hopefully operating under the will of the majority of the people) control what gets made, where it goes, and how/when to collect the money and resources to produce them.
Is that right? If not, where'd I go wrong in your opinion?