• 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean technically, you could have a farm if you worked the entire farm by yourself (personal vs private property).

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or they could share ownership of that farm with others that also work on it AKA a non-profit co-op 🤷

        • coltorl@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry, are you implying that private ownership of a means of production (in this case, farm land) is acceptable in a socialist economy?

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What I never quite understand/know is where internet based services land. If I run a cloud based storage company / web design company or such, the servers are on my personal property and therefore should be considered allowed. Where does that start becoming non “personal.”

            It’s like charging someone to park their ideas/data on my personal property. Which I imagine would be considered private property instead. Where is the nuanced line?

            Anyone care to explain?

            • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We’re communicating using the fediverse. I can use my own private instance to connect, but in my case I am using a “collective” instance. While capitalism sees the Lemmy Blahaj as a “private enterprise”, it is functionally more akin to a free associative collective where members can take their content with them.

              I would say part of the confusion is because our technology has evolved in a capitalist context, collectivism isn’t the default state of being so the solutions made cater towards (corporate) private ownership.

        • coltorl@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh cool, socialism is when you own a means of production but only keep some of the produced goods.

          • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you keep more than you need, yes. Socialism is not about hoarding wealth especially in the form of necessary goods.

          • brainrein@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Socialism is when you don’t have to do alienated work. And when noone else has to. Of course the productivity will be higher if you share the means of production with others. But it’s perfectly fine to work on your own too and harvest the fruit of your work. As you know, nobody gets rich by his own hands work, but you can get along. Capitalist exploitation starts when other people work for you and when you take the added value for your own benefits.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wrong. Personal property is owned by an individual person. Private property is owned by corporations/ capital. It’s impossible for one to magically change into the other.

      • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Under a capitalist legal framework yes, but hear me out, it’s possible to redefine laws and is really what this debate is about.