There is literally nothing wrong with aspiring to a world where the means of production are collectively owned by the workers.
Private enterprise is immoral because it inherently leads to the exploitation of workers. There is nothing natural about modern property - it is a legal construct developed by the elites to justify their exploitation, and you have internalised it because you are their pawn.
Break the conditioning. Recognise that the means of production rightfully belong to all who work them.
>"muh freeloaders and muh welfare" He who does not work, neither shall he eat.
>"muh shared toothbrush!" Only the means of production are collectivised. You can have your toothbrush.
Except its never owned by the workers. That shit is just the hook. It ends up being CONTROLLED by the PARTY who live off the backs of the people.
Benjamin Phillips
>aspiring I too like when people take power through violence.
Charles Garcia
>There is nothing natural about modern property - it is a legal construct developed by the elites Oh, you mean like territorial boundaries?
Angel Taylor
You say it's collectively owned by the workers, but the only one making decisions is the government
Colton Reyes
Then why do you have to enslave the populace every time?
Joshua Davis
there is zero reason to refute communism the burden of proof is on you and you'll never live up to it sage this
Mason Morgan
Communism failed so hard that Russia is now a fascist oligarchy. Feels good man
Jayden Garcia
Nothing wrong with socialism in one country user.
>Except its never owned by the workers. Corruption is a problem in any system. Anyway, it couldn't be less owned by the workers than it is now.
You don't.
Ethan Mitchell
A goal without a path is useless
Jackson Cooper
So wait, isn't that just NATIONAL Socialism?
Isaiah Perry
Never owned by workers. Never by the people. It's always about the dear leader and the party. The people get bumped off, worked to death, worked for food rations and the politburo get better living conditions. It has been tried. Give it up. Give me a good example of it working. There isn't even one. Capitalism isn't perfect, it's actually shite, but that's life and that's reality, reality sucks balls, mother nature don't care
Chase Jones
Only every time.
Jose Harris
Yes.
Julian Fisher
I'm on board, mate.
Jayden Rogers
Meanwhile, Russia is "capitalist" and it's still a corrupt shithole.
Socialist systems are not more prone to corruption. They have simply only occurred in corrupt societies. North Korea would be just as corrupt if it turned capitalist tomorrow, and Russia is just as corrupt today as it was 50 years ago. Meanwhile, glorious anglo countries can have strong and democratic governments no matter the economic system.
Hudson Wright
>collectively owned by the workers Yes, and administered by a central government whom the workers cannot influence or regulate
How will the price of goods and services be determined in the absence of a market? How is it moral to starve people to death? How can any sane person believe that the voluntary exchange of goods and services is immoral? How is it moral to say that people don’t own their lives and the fruits of their labor?
Carter Parker
>How will the price of goods and services be determined in the absence of a market? There is a market.
>How is it moral to starve people to death? If people don't work they deserve to starve.
>How can any sane person believe that the voluntary exchange of goods and services is immoral? It's not. Exploitation is not a voluntary exchange.
>How is it moral to say that people don’t own their lives and the fruits of their labor? GOOD QUESTION.
Isaiah Jenkins
Sage
Carson Foster
So what's the difference between north Koreans and South Koreans then? Are you saying the south is just as corrupt as the North?
Nathan Myers
Who is voluntarily trading with who if we’re living in a one world socialist economy?
Robert Reyes
fpbp
The idea is nice in theory but it almost always results in centralization.
I'd be down for collective ownership via trade unions or co-ops but there's not really any developed ideology around that.
Bentley Anderson
>So what's the difference between north Koreans and South Koreans then? Up until the fall of the Soviet Union, there wasn't one. The North kept pace economically with the South. When the USSR fell the North lost it's economic backer and the South didn't.
Plus, the North labours under a tyrannical system that went completely off the rails soon after the USSR fell and destroyed their competitiveness.
The South is not just as corrupt as the North, obviously. The difference is that the North and the South took completely different historic trajectories, which is far more significant than just economics.
Evan Rodriguez
>Who is voluntarily trading with who The guy who makes shoes for a living is selling shoes to the guy who makes cars for a living, and he's using the money to buy bread from the guy who makes bread for a living.
Do you know how markets work?
Aiden Hall
>actually believing that the rabble will ever end up owning anything
Matthew Lewis
But the shoemaker just turns over all the money he would make to the one world socialist government or it isn’t real socialism. How does he have any money to trade with if his labor is directed and owned by everyone else?
Isaac Reyes
>t.unemployed basedboy faggot Grow up and get a job NEET faggot
Aaron Hall
>t.unemployed basedboy faggot Grow up and get a job NEET faggot.
Robert Powell
isn't that socialism? or anarchism without the crusty cunts fucking it up
Jaxson Gonzalez
>But the shoemaker just turns over all the money he would make to the one world socialist government No he doesn't.
>How does he have any money to trade with if his labor is directed and owned by everyone else? It isn't, unless he's working in a cooperative, in which case his labour is only directed and owned by others to the same extent that he directs and owns their labour also.
I'm a business owner.
Ethan Rogers
>I'd be down for collective ownership via trade unions or co-ops but there's not really any developed ideology around that. That's what I'm advocating for. It's annoying because this should have been the leftist reply to the GFC and neoliberalism, but instead we got progressive politics.
>trade unions or co-ops but there's not really any developed ideology around that.
look into titoism bro
William Hall
I need to read more about it, but I'm aware that it's similar/the best historical example of what future socialism should look like.
Unfortunately it's also a historical dead end, so it's good to avoid parallels or you get hit with the "already been tried" refrain.
Luke Lee
no that faggot is talking about retarded judeo marxist brainfarts, not socialism, these faggots just call it socialism, it has nothing to do with socialism.
judeo marxism is the diet coke of socio economic brainfarts diet coke, diet pepsi, diet pepper or diet contemporarymarxistcultleader42ism, all the same shit
Chase Thompson
the USSR would have worked, but they needed to computerize the economy
if you look into what actually didn't work, it was corrupt managers fucking up production to get bonuses, which is impossible with a computerized system
Matthew Diaz
>not going full nazbol
Evan Richardson
How can everyone be equal if some individual sole proprietors own 100% of what they make while others own a share of a collective?
Alexander Hill
>How can everyone be equal if some individual sole proprietors own 100% of what they make while others own a share of a collective? People will probably never be exactly equal, but they will be more equal this way than they are. And this equality will be achieved without redistribution, which is a good thing too.
Carter Gutierrez
FPBP. Communism is taking property and business away from those who created and giving it to the party which will live on the backs of the people. Nothing changes, only ownership from private individuals, to a group of unelected individuals.
Wouldn’t the collectives that own Amazon be way wealthier than the collectives that own a car wash?
How would this make our society any more equal than it is now?
How would collectives raise capital?
How could our society possibly create wealth as effectiently as it currently does without capital investment?
Benjamin Brooks
>How would this make our society any more equal than it is now? If you take Bezos' fortune and spread it out across Amazon's employees, it amounts to $268,000 each.
Some people having $30,000 and some people having $268,000 is a lot more equal than everyone having $30,000 and one guy having $134,000,000,000.
>How would collectives raise capital? Good question. I'm not sure, but I can think of a few options worth exploring. Investment banks, trade unions, or central government investment (not a fan of this one though). Or workers could just put in their own capital, although I think this would be uncommon.
>How could our society possibly create wealth as effectiently as it currently does without capital investment? It couldn't.
Julian James
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD >Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD >To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people. gommies.gom/fug/ gommies.gom/starve/
----------------------------------------- Da sdages of gommunism.
>Sdage one Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.
>Sdade two Withering All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.
>Sdage three Gommunism. No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.
Everyone would be dramatically poorer without capital investment to fund innovation. No bank is going to lend to someone or some group with an idea unless they want to go out of business.
Evan Nelson
I'd argue this isn't even the problem. You have the right to organize your own companies of workers to create and produce. The issue is with stealing existing owned infrastructure and production capacity. You still don't have that right. Can my workers steal from your workers? No? Ya follow?
>Everyone would be dramatically poorer without capital investment to fund innovation. There would be capital investment.
>No bank is going to lend to someone or some group with an idea unless they want to go out of business. Banks often do this.
I don't know a huge amount about venture capital, but I know that it does exist. Obviously you couldn't do loans-for-equity, but you could do high interest loans or some other type of financial product.
James Reyes
>The issue is with stealing existing owned infrastructure and production capacity. Property laws written by capitalists and elites to justify their exploitation will be the first thing to go.
Samuel Davis
Siberia is rich miners teritory...when will send?
Jackson Hill
Banks DO NOT loan to people who just have an idea, they loan based on collateral, period.
Adam Gonzalez
They follow the west an look at teh disgrace of the west. All material in world an evil as fuck... Fake christ.
Ian Howard
Then how do all the small business owners who started their business by getting a loan to start their business get their business loan?
Colton Turner
>There is literally nothing wrong with aspiring to a world where the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. That's called theft if you take it from someone who organized the business, Nice try commie faggot.
Connor Smith
Then I legally write new laws to steal your shit back. See the issue yet?
Hudson Hughes
An individual or group of investors invest in their company. That’s not possible in your system.
Adam Morgan
>See the issue yet? No.
Bad people will do wrong things because it personally advantages them, and they must be fought. It's always been that way.
Carter Miller
>unironically Marxist Its called being a shareholder. Capitalism beat him to that theory by 200 years when Parliaments in the rest of Europe were legislating trading corporations.
Jesus I’m going to start murdering u niggers soon if u don’t stfu
Charles Hall
I want to make a lot of money so I can give my money to friends and family and hire them all. Can I still do that in communism? Can I own a business if my workers don’t want to or know how to manage the business?
Matthew Taylor
>An individual or group of investors invest in their company. No they don't. They get a literal loan from a bank.
As a small business owner myself, I know how it works.
>That’s not possible in your system. It's not possible in a money-for-equity sense, but there could be other ways that capital financiers could get returns other than just equity. High interest loans, for example. In fact there are companies out there right now that provide start-up finance. You can find them on Google if you don't believe me.
I'm not saying I have the perfect and complete model to answer this question with. I'm just saying that there are alternatives that can be explored. If they don't pan out then that's fine, and you were right. But they haven't even been explored.
But I'm not going to explore them with you, because you obviously have no interest in genuine discussion. I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'm not interested in doing anything more than that.
Henry Torres
>Some people having $30,000 and some people having $268,000 is a lot more equal than everyone having $30,000 and one guy having $134,000,000,000.
Demonstrably false, both situations are equally equal, but the later leaves a larger number of people equal whereas the other creates distinct and unequal castes.
Eat shit brainlet commie.
Evan Sullivan
>I want to make a lot of money so I can give my money to friends and family and hire them all. Can I still do that in communism? Sure, I guess.
>Can I own a business if my workers don’t want to or know how to manage the business? No. You can manage the business, if you can convince the workers to hire you as the CEO, but you can't own it.
Jace Harris
So set up a fucking commune, stop bothering other people with your bullshit. Fuck.
Parker Hall
>Demonstrably false, both situations are equally equal, but the later leaves a larger number of people equal whereas the other creates distinct and unequal castes. Good point, but use your brain.
David Rodriguez
>I have no argument Hoisted by your own petard, retard.
It’s a tale as old as time, give a communist enough time and he will inevitably crush himself.
Dylan Thomas
nobody stopping you brainlets from going to china or Venezuela
Jonathan Carter
What are communist’s opinions on art and craftwork? Is there no problem charging a lot of a piece of work if the person who made the supplies isn’t paid as much? I know in the USSR they were really pissed with a lot of artists and art that wasn’t for society’s benefit, so I’m not expecting a consensus on opinion, just asking your thoughts on it.
James Rogers
You're correct that materially speaking the latter scenario is actually more equal mathematically, but obviously the former scenario begets more of the type of equality that is actually being sought.
Ergo, use your brain.
Joseph Smith
Or literally just behaving communistically within a capitalist society, the only situation in which it has ever seen any success.
No, let’s force everyone to do you precious baby snowflake wants to do even though one system easily accomadatesbthe other and the other easily starves you to death.
Ayden Price
>a world where the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. Correct, but the problem is when people think "owned by the workers" and "owned by the government" are the same thing.
Except it doesn’t you fucking retard, it creates distinct class and wealth differences between the Amazon collective and the otherpoorfags.
And classes are a big inevitable no-no in communism.
Michael Perry
How has no one decked these chigits yet
Adam James
>>What are communist’s opinions on art and craftwork? Is there no problem charging a lot of a piece of work if the person who made the supplies isn’t paid as much? That's a good question. After some thought I think that there is no problem, no, and that the supply-maker's right to remuneration ends when he sells the supplies to the artist, but at the same time I can see a (very thin) argument that he should get something from the artist's success. However, I think that argument falls down because it's impractical to implement and also because not every artist will produce a masterpiece worth a bucket of money, and the supply-makers sell to artists pretty much randomly, so it would be basically a lottery for the supply-makers.
>I know in the USSR they were really pissed with a lot of artists and art that wasn’t for society’s benefit, so I’m not expecting a consensus on opinion, just asking your thoughts on it. For a little while the USSR was all about progressive artistic expression and free art, but that went away pretty quick when the totalitarianism set in.
Ayden Roberts
fpbp
Easton Thomas
Thanks for answering and for the good thread user. Wish it was easier and more commonplace for workers to own ther own companies!
Austin Ross
There are no banks that offer high interest loans or any loans to people who have nothing but a new business idea. You’re just wrong.
Jordan Bennett
>>Except it doesn’t you fucking retard, it creates distinct class and wealth differences between the Amazon collective and the otherpoorfags. $280,000 is their wealth, not their income, user. Furthermore, that wealth is equity in the company, not cash. Because they can't sell their equity, it basically doesn't even exist. It'd be more accurate to talk about distributing profit among Amazon's workers, not distributing equity - but that would assume Amazon's workers don't retain some earnings to keep investing in the company.
Even if it was actual cash wealth, it still isn't that much. Not to downplay the value of $280,000, but it's not the kind of nest egg that elite dynasties are made of. It's the difference between a professional and a labourer, not between a hedge fund manager and a labourer.
I'm not going to further discuss this hypothetical in these terms because it's a tangent brought about by your choice to malicious and deliberately take it out of context.
Ian Perez
Prvi post, najbolji post First post, best post The "common ownership" is the greatest scam in history and completely illogical.
Austin Brooks
You realise you sound just like a Christian. Right?
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat." "Only the means of production are collectivised." Sounds like something out of a bible.
Ryan Martinez
>You’re just wrong. I literally spoke to my bank about getting a small business loan late last year. All you needed was 12 months of trading history and you could get up to $1,000,000 unsecured.
A different bank offered me a secured business loan up to $500,000, no trading history required.
>"but those are baby numbers" Yeah, because it's small business. But big businesses grow from small businesses, so that's one way that capital investment can happen. Another way is if, for example, the bank secured the loan against the assets of the workers involved - if you need to raise $150,000,000 to start a new plant, secure that loan against the assets of all the workers who are going to work in it. Or so on. There are many theoretical solutions to this problem.
Isaac Sanders
You slimy faggots are insufferable.
Tyler Rivera
What does “trading history” mean?
What’s your existing relationship with the bank?
What’s the purpose that the bank thinks you’re using the capital for?
>What does “trading history” mean? 12 months trading history means your cash flow for 12 months - sales, expenses, etc. Basically they want to make sure your business is profitable and that you can pay back the loan.
>What’s your existing relationship with the bank? None to speak of.
>What’s the purpose that the bank thinks you’re using the capital for? It's a business loan, so presumably the business.
Isaiah Thomas
So you already have a business up and running which means they intend to use that as collateral. You would crush innovation if this were the only way to raise money to create innovative new businesses. Humanity would enter a new dark age because of your delusions.
