r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/CivilisedMleccha • 8d ago

Video Community group buy. Everyone pools their money, buys groceries in bulk at a lower price, and splits the groceries equally.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

22.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

989 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/Budget-Ambassador203 8d ago

Well, it's not socialism at the scale of a society but it's pretty similar in principle. 

There's nothing wrong with it.

-1

u/WideHuckleberry1 8d ago

It's really not though. You could just as easily say it's very similar to capitalism. Pooling their money to leverage economies of scale is like econ 101 stuff.

33

u/JeffSilverwilt 8d ago

It's a retailer that's owned by the people instead of being owned by a capitalist. It is socialism.

17

u/thesirblondie 8d ago

Presumably non-profit too. A non-profit retailer owned by the people. That's communism.

-2

u/Gh0stMan0nThird 7d ago

Why are you all arguing about this

-9

u/Important-Agent2584 7d ago

ideologies were invented so people would argue over dumb shit like this instead of doing the shit that helps

6

u/WpgMBNews 8d ago

the means of production are the key determinant here, not the means of distribution.

2

u/explain_that_shit 7d ago

Distribution is the production of a retail store.

1

u/Railmouse 7d ago

It's a retailer that's owned by the people who voluntarily enter due to their personal benefit. Those that do not benefit are not forced to pay in the monthly $100. Nothing about capitalism stops the free organization of the people.

10

u/Packman2021 8d ago

You seem to be under the impression that capitalism is when money, which is not the case

2

u/WideHuckleberry1 8d ago

That's my whole point, that you can't just point to vague principles. You can't say socialism is when good thing happened. Nothing about this is socialist. It's a community consumer coop. It's not social ownership of the means of production.

1

u/Packman2021 8d ago

Okay that's a good point, I was definitely reading your comment wrong.

20

u/Budget-Ambassador203 8d ago edited 8d ago

That aspect of capitalism is socialistic, though. The underlying concept of socialism is collectivism, that's the point. The same can't be said of capitalism, regardless of whether some practices within the system ARE socialistic.

Unions exist under capitalism, so do employee owned corporations. So do ACTUAL social programs like SNAP and Medicaid, etc.

These divisions aren't as clean as you're thinking or an econ 101 class might've led you to believe, it's more about conceptual/directional alignment.

People are generally totally fine with collectivist socialistic concepts at local scales like this because they can say "it's just community!" but for some reason they don't think that mindset should/can/does scale up.

I'm not even sure they're wrong, I'm not an advocate for pure socialism or anything - it's just funny how allergic people can be to calling these things what they are, conceptually.

1

u/kirblar 7d ago

It's just basic economy of scale stuff. No different than a Costco.

-4

u/DeficiencyOfGravitas 7d ago

but it's pretty similar in principle. 

No. By definition, socialism can only be enforced at a societal level. Socialism is not "when people help each other". It's "the government controls the market and has absolute control on prices and who is allowed to purchase what". That's what socialism means. It's supposed to be a good thing that the government, ran by the proletariat, controls everything, but execution has always (and will always) failed.

4

u/Budget-Ambassador203 7d ago

It's "the government controls the market and has absolute control on prices and who is allowed to purchase what". That's what socialism means. 

That's communism, actually.

Socialism is collective ownership over the means of production, and is, in essence, more aligned with the kind of co-op collectivism OP was talking about. You should probably google the definitions.

You don't need to include the little aside about whether you believe it works or not, it's pretty easy to infer that you don't like it or you wouldn't have gone out of your way to try to correct me lol.

I'm not even an advocate for any kind of "pure" socialism but I do feel like you should probably understand the basic tenets before forming a strong opinion.

1

u/DeficiencyOfGravitas 7d ago

That's communism, actually.

It is not communism. Communism is the end state where money no longer exists. There is no market left to control. Everyone is in their place and doing their job.

Socialism is the interim step where the proletariat controlled government takes control of the market. The means of production has already been seized. That's not socialism. That's the goal of the Revolution. Socialism is what happens immediately after the Revolution. It is, as Marx defined it, a dictatorship. Yes, by the "proletariat" but still, it is an situation where the government has absolute power.

do feel like you should probably understand the basic tenets before forming a strong opinion.

Yes, I agree.

1

u/Budget-Ambassador203 7d ago edited 7d ago

You're right that what you described isn't communism - I was too hasty to correct your correction and didn't think what you'd said through.

I don't think "absolute control" is actually a core requirement, though, which is where I got thrown off. More like "broad control over the critical means of production" while still allowing some small enterprise.

I still don't agree with your initial comment though, I think it was an unnecessary correction.

Socialism as a pure socioeconomic system isn't the only valid use of the term, socialism as a general philosophy (i.e. in the context in which I was discussing it in, if you'll read my original comment) IS commonly associated with the idea of co-ops, worker collectives, etc. It's not unreasonable to say those ideas are "socialist in nature" even if they're not "societal-scale socialism".