Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn't. That's the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
Wtf is an uncorrupt government?
All types of governance and economic systems are susceptible to despotism.
It takes a constantly educated and involved population to fight it.
The bias is justified. The left is correct. Markets don't create wealth without necessarily simultaneously creating poverty
For more information, research "surplus army of labor", "primitive accumulation", and "accumulation by dispossession".
I think you will find any place thats well moderated and cracks down on bigotry and hatespeech will skew left.
Weird how that is, huh?
You'll be happy to know there's a social media site just like lemmy run by capitalists. It has all the benefits that capitalist ownership provides.
Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an "uncorrupt government" is remotely possible.
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it's remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
There, now I've pissed off everyone lol
Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷
It can. In theory.
The theoretical part is the "uncorrupt government" you speak of.
The only way to keep a govt "uncorrupt" as you put it is under pain of literal death. And even then its not foolproof. Some will still be tempted.
If you want a govt that will serve the people while being as incorruptible as possible you have to choose politicians by lottery instead of election. They get called, go serve, then go back to the life they had before. Like 4 years of Jury Duty. Political graspers, climbers, those will always trend towards corruption. Like that old addage, anyone actively seeking political office is unfit to serve in that capacity as their motivations are suspect. Power, authority, etc. All that is only intensified in a system as inconceivably corrupt and broken as ours is.
A bit late to the party
Your point is based on an idealistic and wishful "uncorruot government". You cannot have an uncorrupt government. What's needed is a different form of political decision making, one where the common folk participates in the political questions, not just some answers, where accountability is protected and a priority.
I don't know the exact blueprint for this, maybe it is as unattainable as an "uncorrupted government". What I know is that nobody really tried it yet, while so called "liberal democracy" has proven its failings to all and the fascist have been taking advantage of those failings since the start. The only way yo avoid this is to change our questions, not to all agree on the answers
To paraphrase this cool guy named Ernesto: Its not our fault reality is marxist 
except of course no government can regulate a Freed market.
If we truly Freed the market of government controls the workers could ownership of the fruits of their labor and the laws of supply and demand would regulate the market naturally
Why should some people be allowed to be rich but not most people?
