Communism is a bit more nebulous, so I’ll explain it with socialism if that’s okay. I’m also going to do so from the ground up, because it’s pretty clear if you go step by step, so apologies in advance if it comes off as condescending for that reason.
Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. The means of production refers to whatever creates goods and provides services.
If you think about what falls under the umbrella of goods and services, it’s pretty much everything. Food, water, shelter, health care, all of it should be held in common. You can see totalitarianism emerging already, but I’ll expand a bit further.
What does held in common mean? Well in theory it means that a collective takes ownership and control over something. If a state turns socialist in the purest sense, then that state and the people in it are the collective. The “common” would mean the ruling socialist party, of which everybody is a member.
So how do people get things done? Well, if someone owns a restaurant, they probably hire managers to keep order and give tasks to the workers. If a collective owns a restaurant, someone still has to decide who manages (you find out immediately that you need them if you try without). Since the state is the collective, then the state decides who the managers are. The workers may not like the managers, but instead of having a single owner to deal with, you now have the entire state to deal with.
You might think a union would be the answer to this problem, but unions are both a collective and a service, so if it’s truly socialism it would be of the state as well. The state would have little incentive to act against itself. In socialist countries, it’s common for unions to become agents of the state very quickly, this enacting state level control over how people protest their work conditions
Rinse and repeat with every good and service you can think of, and you have total state control over basically everything.
Couldn’t the workers decide who manages the restaurant? And get rid of them if they don’t like them? I don’t get what you mean by “the state decides who the managers are”.
The ownership of the restaurant is held in common, so if it comes down to a vote everybody in the state would have just as much a right to it as everyone else, so it wouldn’t inherently fall to the workers. If it did, it would be at the behest of the state; that’s true in both cases actually. It just isn’t a natural outcome for the workers to vote for their own manager: if it existed, it would only exist as long as the state allows it or chooses things to work that way.
Also, should workers be choosing their own supervisors? I would argue, regardless of whatever ism you subscribe to, without considering the political climate whatever work is sitting in, I would never see it as a good idea to let workers decide who supervises them. Managers are there to help workers who don’t know what to do, are unwilling to do what they need without supervision, or are just generally unorganized. If someone is in need of a manager, chances are they would also not know the qualities needed for management. In the best case, it’s because there’s some expertise they didn’t know was required for the job that they didn’t know about, in the worst case, I can imagine teenage me voting for the person I liked who didn’t give a fuck
In any case, it wouldn’t take long for some restaurant somewhere to choose a manager that appeases their laziness, stupidity, or whatever out of a desire to escape discipline and/or hard work. People are selfish, it’ll happen. As soon as it does, those in control of the state will decide it’s best to have a process in which they decide who manages their workers on your behalf. You can’t have a full direct democratic vote for every decision, it’s just not feasible, so the alternative is the party that you represent and represents you back and makes decisions on your behalf.
It’s also very easy for those in control of the state to see potential gains in changing the process to give themselves more power, that can and will just happen spontaneously out of a desire to strengthen the party
So your point is people are too selfish and egoistical to have a real saying on how work is organized? Then why are people responsible enough to vote for the right politicians every four or so years? Where is the line?
Following your argumentations it seems best if someone in charge makes all the decisions without the majority having any saying. That cannot be what you want.
Your desire to have a ruling party and then “all the others” is telling. Managers should absolutely be elected by the workers. Not all workers are lazy - in fact 20% of the employees create 80% of the issues. The other majority of folks want to work and want to be a part of a team. It’s how democracy works too - one of the people is voted on by all the others to be in charge for a short time. This arrangement doesn’t seem to have resulted in any democracy being less productive than a more authoritative state. In fact, looking at the least economically productive states, all of them are dictatorships where the people DON’T vote for a leader. They are assigned one and the people have to hope they aren’t lazy, corrupt, or self serving. The people don’t get a voice - just like your ideal work environment.
It’s wild that the parallel of democracy was brought up too and you also then say democracy ain’t feasible. It’s like admitting to being a fascist without saying the words - the belief that people can’t be trusted is there and all that needs to be done to capitalize on that belief is an antagonist culture or people.
Do you think countries that currently run services like trains or healthcare or utilities in the ownership of collective trend towards totalitarianism?
Because while I don’t have any imperial data, it seems to me that corruption and totalitarianism is much more common in capitalist ventures where a small group of people with questionable ethics ha e full control over it and almost always abuse the position for their own benefit.
Because while I don’t have any imperial data, it seems to me that corruption and totalitarianism is much more common in capitalist ventures where a small group of people with questionable ethics ha e full control over it and almost always abuse the position for their own benefit.
I hadn’t read this point when I replied before. This doesn’t sound right to me, could you give me some examples of capitalist ventures that you’re talking about?
I think everything is corruptible, so I think it’s best for the people to be ready to start their own private businesses to open up the market. Don’t like Pet Smart ethics? Well I live in a corporate society in which private business owners tried opening up more ethical pet stores, but pet stores aren’t wildly profitable. It’s a business of passion. They went out of business because only massive corporations can afford business and property taxes.
Pretty much any major company has had a corruption scandal at some point. But to give you some examples. Goldmine sachs, Wells forgot, fifa, Siemens, amazon, Microsoft etc. Etc.
Each of those are publicly traded corporations. Meaning they’re not privately owned. I know it’s confusing, because people call them capitalist all the time, but they’re wrong. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and those businesses are not privately owned. Capitalism cannot take responsibility for their corruption any more than socialism. Corporatism is the problem there
I’ve heard A LOT of BS defenses for capitalism over the years but “publicly traded companies are not capitalist” really taked the cake.
At risk of taking the bait: those companies are still privately owned by their shareholders, just that ownership is traded freely among the capitalist class.
Like just think for a second. Most property is traded publicly on the market, but does that mean you don’t privately own your own home? Of course not, it’s still your private property regardless if everyone had the same chance to buy it.
Houses don’t have shares though, those companies have shares. A share to a company is a piece of ownership. Microsoft for example, is not owned by one private individual. It’s collectively owned by Vanguard, BlackRock, Steve Ballmer, and Bill Gates. And those 4 together only own 20%, the rest are apportioned to the general public. Only 2 have more than 5%. 80% of their shareholders hold less than a fraction of ownership.
Put all those together, can you honestly say Microsoft is privately owned by a private unit? It would be mental gymnastics not to say this is public ownership.
Now, you might have the urge to insist that someone’s share is privately owned, but that doesn’t dispute the company itself. The companies ownership is split into a collective.
I just went to google, and I typed “is Microsoft a private company” and the response was “Microsoft moved its headquarters from Bellevue to Redmond, Washington, on February 26, 1986, and went public on March 13”. In fact, it’s hard to find a source claiming it’s private, I’ve yet to.
can you honestly say Microsoft is privately owned by a private unit?
Yes. Because it is. There is no grey area here, no “but akshually”, no little technicality. It is a privately owned company. End of story, no exception. The fact that many people own a part of it doesn’t make a difference
You are mixing up publically OWNED companies and publically TRADED companies. I’m guessing because publically traded companies are usually just called public companies. Microsoft is privately ownership that is publically traded.
Like you HAVE to understand that your are legitimately and unironically saying that every major publically traded company is collectively owned and therefore socialist, right? And you know how just utterly insane that argument is, right?
Or how about you define where the line is for collective ownership? Is 2 people owning a 50% stake in a company make it publicly owned? No? How about 5? Or 10? 100? Where is the line?
Or how about the fact that this logic would reduce the definition of the “the collective” to the capitalist class and completely ignores the proletariat, because they typically don’t own shares of companies. Like if everyone owned a share of Microsoft, you would have a point. But most people don’t, typically because they are not part of the capitalist class and/or don’t have savings in a managed investment fund.
Yes they do, though just answering the question at face value would give you an incorrect impression of the merit of publicly held utilities. Having the government run health care gives the government control over health care. As a Canadian, I have been both grateful for the care I’ve been given and frustrated by the control they have over how I take care of myself.
But as a member if the collective you have power to change that. Whereas in a orivste system you have no say over it and the people running it have more incentive to screw you over.
Canada may not have a perfect healthcsre system but its miles better than the US system.
deleted by creator
Communism is a bit more nebulous, so I’ll explain it with socialism if that’s okay. I’m also going to do so from the ground up, because it’s pretty clear if you go step by step, so apologies in advance if it comes off as condescending for that reason.
Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. The means of production refers to whatever creates goods and provides services.
If you think about what falls under the umbrella of goods and services, it’s pretty much everything. Food, water, shelter, health care, all of it should be held in common. You can see totalitarianism emerging already, but I’ll expand a bit further.
What does held in common mean? Well in theory it means that a collective takes ownership and control over something. If a state turns socialist in the purest sense, then that state and the people in it are the collective. The “common” would mean the ruling socialist party, of which everybody is a member.
So how do people get things done? Well, if someone owns a restaurant, they probably hire managers to keep order and give tasks to the workers. If a collective owns a restaurant, someone still has to decide who manages (you find out immediately that you need them if you try without). Since the state is the collective, then the state decides who the managers are. The workers may not like the managers, but instead of having a single owner to deal with, you now have the entire state to deal with.
You might think a union would be the answer to this problem, but unions are both a collective and a service, so if it’s truly socialism it would be of the state as well. The state would have little incentive to act against itself. In socialist countries, it’s common for unions to become agents of the state very quickly, this enacting state level control over how people protest their work conditions
Rinse and repeat with every good and service you can think of, and you have total state control over basically everything.
Couldn’t the workers decide who manages the restaurant? And get rid of them if they don’t like them? I don’t get what you mean by “the state decides who the managers are”.
The ownership of the restaurant is held in common, so if it comes down to a vote everybody in the state would have just as much a right to it as everyone else, so it wouldn’t inherently fall to the workers. If it did, it would be at the behest of the state; that’s true in both cases actually. It just isn’t a natural outcome for the workers to vote for their own manager: if it existed, it would only exist as long as the state allows it or chooses things to work that way.
Also, should workers be choosing their own supervisors? I would argue, regardless of whatever ism you subscribe to, without considering the political climate whatever work is sitting in, I would never see it as a good idea to let workers decide who supervises them. Managers are there to help workers who don’t know what to do, are unwilling to do what they need without supervision, or are just generally unorganized. If someone is in need of a manager, chances are they would also not know the qualities needed for management. In the best case, it’s because there’s some expertise they didn’t know was required for the job that they didn’t know about, in the worst case, I can imagine teenage me voting for the person I liked who didn’t give a fuck
In any case, it wouldn’t take long for some restaurant somewhere to choose a manager that appeases their laziness, stupidity, or whatever out of a desire to escape discipline and/or hard work. People are selfish, it’ll happen. As soon as it does, those in control of the state will decide it’s best to have a process in which they decide who manages their workers on your behalf. You can’t have a full direct democratic vote for every decision, it’s just not feasible, so the alternative is the party that you represent and represents you back and makes decisions on your behalf.
It’s also very easy for those in control of the state to see potential gains in changing the process to give themselves more power, that can and will just happen spontaneously out of a desire to strengthen the party
So your point is people are too selfish and egoistical to have a real saying on how work is organized? Then why are people responsible enough to vote for the right politicians every four or so years? Where is the line? Following your argumentations it seems best if someone in charge makes all the decisions without the majority having any saying. That cannot be what you want.
Your desire to have a ruling party and then “all the others” is telling. Managers should absolutely be elected by the workers. Not all workers are lazy - in fact 20% of the employees create 80% of the issues. The other majority of folks want to work and want to be a part of a team. It’s how democracy works too - one of the people is voted on by all the others to be in charge for a short time. This arrangement doesn’t seem to have resulted in any democracy being less productive than a more authoritative state. In fact, looking at the least economically productive states, all of them are dictatorships where the people DON’T vote for a leader. They are assigned one and the people have to hope they aren’t lazy, corrupt, or self serving. The people don’t get a voice - just like your ideal work environment.
It’s wild that the parallel of democracy was brought up too and you also then say democracy ain’t feasible. It’s like admitting to being a fascist without saying the words - the belief that people can’t be trusted is there and all that needs to be done to capitalize on that belief is an antagonist culture or people.
deleted by creator
I don’t even know what part of my comment you think you’re refuting
deleted by creator
Do you think countries that currently run services like trains or healthcare or utilities in the ownership of collective trend towards totalitarianism?
Because while I don’t have any imperial data, it seems to me that corruption and totalitarianism is much more common in capitalist ventures where a small group of people with questionable ethics ha e full control over it and almost always abuse the position for their own benefit.
I hadn’t read this point when I replied before. This doesn’t sound right to me, could you give me some examples of capitalist ventures that you’re talking about?
I think everything is corruptible, so I think it’s best for the people to be ready to start their own private businesses to open up the market. Don’t like Pet Smart ethics? Well I live in a corporate society in which private business owners tried opening up more ethical pet stores, but pet stores aren’t wildly profitable. It’s a business of passion. They went out of business because only massive corporations can afford business and property taxes.
Pretty much any major company has had a corruption scandal at some point. But to give you some examples. Goldmine sachs, Wells forgot, fifa, Siemens, amazon, Microsoft etc. Etc.
Each of those are publicly traded corporations. Meaning they’re not privately owned. I know it’s confusing, because people call them capitalist all the time, but they’re wrong. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and those businesses are not privately owned. Capitalism cannot take responsibility for their corruption any more than socialism. Corporatism is the problem there
Lmao wtf, that’s some Olympic level mental gymnastics you’re doing here.
I’ve heard A LOT of BS defenses for capitalism over the years but “publicly traded companies are not capitalist” really taked the cake.
At risk of taking the bait: those companies are still privately owned by their shareholders, just that ownership is traded freely among the capitalist class.
Like just think for a second. Most property is traded publicly on the market, but does that mean you don’t privately own your own home? Of course not, it’s still your private property regardless if everyone had the same chance to buy it.
Houses don’t have shares though, those companies have shares. A share to a company is a piece of ownership. Microsoft for example, is not owned by one private individual. It’s collectively owned by Vanguard, BlackRock, Steve Ballmer, and Bill Gates. And those 4 together only own 20%, the rest are apportioned to the general public. Only 2 have more than 5%. 80% of their shareholders hold less than a fraction of ownership.
Put all those together, can you honestly say Microsoft is privately owned by a private unit? It would be mental gymnastics not to say this is public ownership.
Now, you might have the urge to insist that someone’s share is privately owned, but that doesn’t dispute the company itself. The companies ownership is split into a collective.
I just went to google, and I typed “is Microsoft a private company” and the response was “Microsoft moved its headquarters from Bellevue to Redmond, Washington, on February 26, 1986, and went public on March 13”. In fact, it’s hard to find a source claiming it’s private, I’ve yet to.
Yes. Because it is. There is no grey area here, no “but akshually”, no little technicality. It is a privately owned company. End of story, no exception. The fact that many people own a part of it doesn’t make a difference
You are mixing up publically OWNED companies and publically TRADED companies. I’m guessing because publically traded companies are usually just called public companies. Microsoft is privately ownership that is publically traded.
Like you HAVE to understand that your are legitimately and unironically saying that every major publically traded company is collectively owned and therefore socialist, right? And you know how just utterly insane that argument is, right?
Or how about you define where the line is for collective ownership? Is 2 people owning a 50% stake in a company make it publicly owned? No? How about 5? Or 10? 100? Where is the line?
Or how about the fact that this logic would reduce the definition of the “the collective” to the capitalist class and completely ignores the proletariat, because they typically don’t own shares of companies. Like if everyone owned a share of Microsoft, you would have a point. But most people don’t, typically because they are not part of the capitalist class and/or don’t have savings in a managed investment fund.
Yes they do, though just answering the question at face value would give you an incorrect impression of the merit of publicly held utilities. Having the government run health care gives the government control over health care. As a Canadian, I have been both grateful for the care I’ve been given and frustrated by the control they have over how I take care of myself.
But as a member if the collective you have power to change that. Whereas in a orivste system you have no say over it and the people running it have more incentive to screw you over.
Canada may not have a perfect healthcsre system but its miles better than the US system.