Current Events > Should workers seize the means of production?

(+) Yeah! (+)

This would entail:

- a ban on any type of profit

- a ban on private property including any real estate you own or want to own

- complete seizure of any retirement accounts, since they grew because of profit and investment and need to be redistributed to the workers

- government is completely replaced by workers who will form what Marx called a dictatorship that will rule until it sees fit to no longer rule

- you must provide to society whatever you can provide, and you will receive whatever you need as determined by rationing systems

- complete surveillance of all communications and information to ensure that anti-worker propaganda never gains traction

- the use of violence or threats of violence to deter people who want to break away from the status quo

- a complete ban on most present-day institutions, like religions and families, that can be construed as having been a class antagonism by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

- a ban on any type of profit

why wouldn't the workers share the profit?

edit: oh wow i just read the rest of the list and i cant even. i dont even support communism but these arguments against just seem like they took some leaps
---

Should private entities own the means of production?

Note that this would entail:

- mass starvation because the elite will hoard the resources
- everyone being miserable because the elite force everyone to work 20 hour days
- literal death
- everything will suck
- nothing will be good
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

- a ban on any type of profit

why wouldn't the workers share the profit?

edit: oh wow i just read the rest of the list and i cant even. i dont even support communism but these arguments against just seem like they took some leaps

It's literally what Marx argued for in The Communist Manifesto and subsequent material.
---

so what happens to the profits? they just dissolve into thin air? or do companies only charge the minimum amount required to cover costs?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

- a ban on any type of profit

why wouldn't the workers share the profit?

edit: oh wow i just read the rest of the list and i cant even. i dont even support communism but these arguments against just seem like they took some leaps

It's literally what Marx argued for in The Communist Manifesto and subsequent material.

Is anyone else arguing for that?
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

so what happens to the profits? they just dissolve into thin air? or do companies only charge the minimum amount required to cover costs?

They wouldn't be any profits. People would provide what they could and then the produced goods would be distributed out.

Anyways, yes, every household should have a universal assembler so that they may produce that which they need for their lives.
---

I don't think economic communism is in our future but social communism.

What does tha mean?

Look at China. China is more and more capitalist economically, but socially is still communist.

Like the social credit program.

But only time will tell. Depends on what the current college students do with their lives.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

so what happens to the profits? they just dissolve into thin air? or do companies only charge the minimum amount required to cover costs?

In the earlier stages where there's still currency, any surplus is redistributed evenly across the entire company. In the later stages where there's no currency, you are just going to consume only what you need. Things won't be produced for exchange anymore, just for consumption.
---

uwnim posted...

Anyways, yes, every household should have a universal assembler so that they may produce that which they need for their lives.

That's not communism though, that's the technological singularity which is beyond any type of economic or social model we've conceived of. Capitalism will be the bootloader for that.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

so what happens to the profits? they just dissolve into thin air? or do companies only charge the minimum amount required to cover costs?

In the earlier stages where there's still currency, any surplus is redistributed evenly across the entire company. In the later stages where there's no currency, you are just going to consume only what you need. Things won't be produced for exchange anymore, just for consumption.

so there is no middle ground between "the workers own the company they work for" and "full blown communism" ?

also note that your topic title asks about owning the means of production, not diving into full-blown Communism. it seems like you've shifted the goal posts mid-discussion.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

so what happens to the profits? they just dissolve into thin air? or do companies only charge the minimum amount required to cover costs?

In the earlier stages where there's still currency, any surplus is redistributed evenly across the entire company. In the later stages where there's no currency, you are just going to consume only what you need. Things won't be produced for exchange anymore, just for consumption.

so there is no middle ground between "the workers own the company they work for" and "full blown communism" ?

also note that your topic title asks about owning the means of production, not diving into full-blown Communism. it seems like you've shifted the goal posts mid-discussion.

To shift gears a bit, workers don't and shouldn't own the company. They're hired to do a specific thing, not hired to run and own someone else's capital investments.

And you really should go read the manifesto before you post more. I mean you didn't even know that the points in the OP were lifted right out of the manifesto ffs.
---

Literally a Proudclad topic.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And you really should go read the manifesto before you post more. I mean you didn't even know that the points in the OP were lifted right out of the manifesto ffs.

i was addressing the question presented to me. nothing in the OP talks about going all in with Communism. you moved the goalposts after i responded.

if the topic title was honest and said "Should workers seize the means of production as a step towards full-blown Communism" i would have responded differently.
---

Well since Proudclad is pushing so much for this. Why not?
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if the topic title was honest and said "Should workers seize the means of production as a step towards full-blown Communism i would have responded differently.

There is no context in which "workers must seize the means of production" is anything other than that.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

To shift gears a bit, workers don't and shouldn't own the company.

so you're against the concept of a business being "employee owned and operated"? why?

ps that concept exists, so "workers don't own the company" is incorrect
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

To shift gears a bit, workers don't and shouldn't own the company.

so you're against the concept of a business being "employee owned and operated"? why?

ps that concept exists, so "workers don't own the company" is incorrect

I'm against the concept of every business having to be employee owned and operated. If someone chooses to start and run their own business that way, then that is their choice and they are free to do that.

But mandating that of someone else's business is wrong because it's not your business.
---

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.
---

Hey look at proudclad not knowing the difference between private and personal property when it comes to socialism.

Personal property or possessions includes "items intended for personal use" (e.g., one's toothbrush, clothes, homes, and vehicles, and sometimes money).It must be gained in a socially fair manner, and the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.

Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g., artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas. Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle could result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private property and ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. (Private property and ownership, in this context, means ownership of the means of production, not personal possessions).

To many socialists, the term private property refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

Until someone works harder than someone else yet gets paid the same. So they end up leaving to start their own things where they retain more of their earnings.
---

Does Proudclad = joke account?
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

We should just let the owners of the businesses do everything. Who needs employees anyways. I'm sure one guy could run a business with no help just fine.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

Until someone works harder than someone else yet gets paid the same. So they end up leaving to start their own things where they retain more of their earnings.

competition is good
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

Until someone works harder than someone else yet gets paid the same. So they end up leaving to start their own things where they retain more of their earnings.

What fucking world do you live in where people who work harder than other people make more money?
---

Hey look at proudclad not knowing the difference between private and personal property when it comes to socialism.

Personal property or possessions includes "items intended for personal use" (e.g., one's toothbrush, clothes, homes, and vehicles, and sometimes money).It must be gained in a socially fair manner, and the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.


That specific line in the OP was about investment property, not your own home. But even then, there's not as much distinction between private property and personal property. Much less distinction than Marxists want to admit.

Someone taking their "personal" property and renting it out to someone who wants to use it for a period of time, like renting a car or a home, would not be permitted under communism. And that is why your distinction is at best a nonsense one and at worse an intentionally deceitful one.

Do you believe that someone who has a house or car as "personal" property should be allowed to rent it out to someone else for an agreed-upon price? Say I build my own vacation home on the beach and only use it once in a while but someone else would like to use it once in a while and they offer to pay me for the privilege.

Or say I have a nice car that someone else wants to use for a weekend and we agree on a price.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

Until someone works harder than someone else yet gets paid the same. So they end up leaving to start their own things where they retain more of their earnings.

competition is good

Agreed.

ScazarMeltex posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

Until someone works harder than someone else yet gets paid the same. So they end up leaving to start their own things where they retain more of their earnings.

What fucking world do you live in where people who work harder than other people make more money?

That's usually how it works in skilled trades / labor. If you are better and you work harder/smarter, you can end up earning more money.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's usually how it works in skilled trades / labor. If you are better and you work harder/smarter, you can end up earning more money.

That's pretty naive of you.
---

Sometimes I wonder if Proudclad just gets drunk and makes these stupid topics.
---

Great gif for Proudclod topics


---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

Until someone works harder than someone else yet gets paid the same. So they end up leaving to start their own things where they retain more of their earnings.

competition is good

Agreed.

ScazarMeltex posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

oh okay. because "employee owned and operated" seems like it's the best of both worlds IMO. employees have a direct incentive to work hard and reap the rewards of said work.

Until someone works harder than someone else yet gets paid the same. So they end up leaving to start their own things where they retain more of their earnings.

What fucking world do you live in where people who work harder than other people make more money?

That's usually how it works in skilled trades / labor. If you are better and you work harder/smarter, you can end up earning more money.

I'm going to ask you these honest questions. What do you do for a living? How much time do you spend with or around tradesmen or factory workers?
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

I'm going to ask you these honest questions. What do you do for a living? How much time do you spend with or around tradesmen or factory workers?

If you agree to answer my previous question, I'll answer these questions. Deal?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

I'm going to ask you these honest questions. What do you do for a living? How much time do you spend with or around tradesmen or factory workers?

If you agree to answer my previous question, I'll answer these questions. Deal?

Usually, people just answer simple questions like this instead of trying to hold their answers hostage
---

As a token of good faith I'll answer those questions first.

My dad is a construction worker. And most of my uncles work in construction too. Plumbing, tile, drywall, brick, concrete, carpentry. You name it. All of the above. My first job was also in construction. I worked construction for a couple of years before deciding to go back to college on my own dime. Now I build software for a living.

So yeah, I've spent quite a bit of time around construction workers and people in the trades and almost went that route myself. And would not consider it a bad route to go at all because you make money. In a union or outside of it.

In a union it's more stable and you get benefits, but on your own or as part of a smaller company you can make a lot more money if you're disciplined to pay for your own benefits/taxes. Working harder/smarter in the trades is DEFINITELY a way to make more money than others in the same field, at least in America where putting in effort and being smart both pay off.
---

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.
---

a-c-a-b posted...

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.

Buddy aren't you a literal Marxist or something? Not sure why you'd throw shade in anyone else's direction.
---

a-c-a-b posted...

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.

I think he used to spend a lot of time talking about how he was going to single handily solve the healthcare crisis with CODING and how he was going to also eliminate the homeless population in LA
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

a-c-a-b posted...

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.

Buddy aren't you a literal Marxist or something? Not sure why you'd throw shade in anyone else's direction.

Look you upset him. He's resorted to calling people communists when he doesn't like their post.
---

I have no problem with people renting out whatever they want to rent out. I'm also not a marxist. The problem is the system doesn't work out like that. Take for example what was going in Vegas a few years back when I was there talking to locals.

The used to be a law limiting the amount of properties an individual or company could own and rent out. It was something like 10 I want to say but don't hold me to that. Through lobbying they got the assembly to change it to where you could own 10,000. What happens? A few companies and individuals buy up all the properties (because they have all the cash) and rent them out at exorbitant rates. So now if you want to live there you have to pay the ridiculous rates and you can't buy a property even if you want to because the landlords are making to much money and they get to write off the properties that don't get rented out as a loss on their taxes.

When the systems is so heavily skewed the way it is in America, things are never going to work the way the capitalist fantasy claims it does, no more so than the marxist fantasy will function. There has to be a middle ground. For the most part Western Europe has found it economically and socially. Their issues with middle eastern migrants notwithstanding.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

a-c-a-b posted...

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.

Buddy aren't you a literal Marxist or something? Not sure why you'd throw shade in anyone else's direction.

You think literally everyone that doesn't agree with you is a marxist. You're like the bastard child of Joseph McCarthy and Ayn Rand.
---

a-c-a-b posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

a-c-a-b posted...

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.

Buddy aren't you a literal Marxist or something? Not sure why you'd throw shade in anyone else's direction.

You think literally everyone that doesn't agree with you is a marxist. You're like the bastard child of Joseph McCarthy and Ayn Rand.

I wish hnnnnnnnng. But no, I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is a Marxist. That's pretty fucking silly. I vaguely recall you posting shit about seizing the means of production and violent revolution and shit. I'll have to double check though. May have mistaken you with someone else.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

I have no problem with people renting out whatever they want to rent out. I'm also not a marxist. The problem is the system doesn't work out like that. Take for example what was going in Vegas a few years back when I was there talking to locals.

The used to be a law limiting the amount of properties an individual or company could own and rent out. It was something like 10 I want to say but don't hold me to that. Through lobbying they got the assembly to change it to where you could own 10,000. What happens? A few companies and individuals buy up all the properties (because they have all the cash) and rent them out at exorbitant rates. So now if you want to live there you have to pay the ridiculous rates and you can't buy a property even if you want to because the landlords are making to much money and they get to write off the properties that don't get rented out as a loss on their taxes.

When the systems is so heavily skewed the way it is in America, things are never going to work the way the capitalist fantasy claims it does, no more so than the marxist fantasy will function. There has to be a middle ground. For the most part Western Europe has found it economically and socially. Their issues with middle eastern migrants notwithstanding.

Except for a handful of extreme markets like NYC and San Francisco, that's not how broader America is at all. I live in Chicago and I can still find plenty of real estate I could buy if I wanted to rent it out at or below market rates in order to take market share from the big corporations that are in the area.

Being big has its disadvantages. That's why start-ups can end up disrupting entire industries of big players.

In any case, if you're not a Marxist then you don't need to defend the cheap Marxist deflection to "personal" property vs private property. Ultimately there's very little meaningful difference, and most Marxists would argue that renting out your "personal" property is wrong and violent exploitation.
---

If posting about seizing production is all it takes to be a Marxist. Then Proudclad has just admitted he's a Marxist.
---

a-c-a-b posted...

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.

Same.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

a-c-a-b posted...

I still refuse to believe that Proudclad actually has a job.

Same.

I work a lot. Sometimes weird hours, but I do have a career and I do invest a lot of time and effort into it.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

I have no problem with people renting out whatever they want to rent out. I'm also not a marxist. The problem is the system doesn't work out like that. Take for example what was going in Vegas a few years back when I was there talking to locals.

The used to be a law limiting the amount of properties an individual or company could own and rent out. It was something like 10 I want to say but don't hold me to that. Through lobbying they got the assembly to change it to where you could own 10,000. What happens? A few companies and individuals buy up all the properties (because they have all the cash) and rent them out at exorbitant rates. So now if you want to live there you have to pay the ridiculous rates and you can't buy a property even if you want to because the landlords are making to much money and they get to write off the properties that don't get rented out as a loss on their taxes.

When the systems is so heavily skewed the way it is in America, things are never going to work the way the capitalist fantasy claims it does, no more so than the marxist fantasy will function. There has to be a middle ground. For the most part Western Europe has found it economically and socially. Their issues with middle eastern migrants notwithstanding.

Except for a handful of extreme markets like NYC and San Francisco, that's not how broader America is at all. I live in Chicago and I can still find plenty of real estate I could buy if I wanted to rent it out at or below market rates in order to take market share from the big corporations that are in the area.

Being big has its disadvantages. That's why start-ups can end up disrupting entire industries of big players.

In any case, if you're not a Marxist then you don't need to defend the cheap Marxist deflection to "personal" property vs private property. Ultimately there's very little meaningful difference, and most Marxists would argue that renting out your "personal" property is wrong and violent exploitation.

I do need to defend it because it's intellectually dishonestly to pretend that there is no difference.
---

Shitposting on the internet isn't a career. No matter how hard you try.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

I do need to defend it because it's intellectually dishonestly to pretend that there is no difference.

My argument is that the difference is not actually meaningful.

a-c-a-b posted...

Shitposting on the internet isn't a career. No matter how hard you try.

I get paid a salary to solve problems with code. And sometimes these solutions take hours to build or to run in the cloud and therefore I browse the web.

You mad buddy?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

a ban on any type of profit

Wait where did the money go?
---