How would wealth creation work without private property and capitalism...

How would wealth creation work without private property and capitalism? In capitalism capital owners or groups of them put forth capital to start a business venture, and risk failure and losing what they have with something like collateral.
How at all would this work in a collective ownership/property system? Would people have to mortgage their houses out or something?

Work vouchers

Same way it works now. Use resources valued at $1 to produce something valued at $2. Not complicated.

The only real problem with USA is that you have a middleman in the process. Banker loans you $1 (which was printed for free) that you turn into $2, but banker charges $0.50 for his "service." So you have two people sharing the production of one person instead of two people producing.

Any explanation significantly more complicated than this is nothing more than propagandistic distraction. There is good reason billions of people subscribe to religions that consider usury a mortal sin.

Labor vouchers don't do anything to solve what I was talking about, they're basically nothing but an alternative currency system that's extremely limited, and economists have done work on them and have a lot of problems with them and things like parecon.
> How does risk work
> How do new businesses form
Interest is extremely important to developing new businesses, getting them to market, etc. and actually improving peoples' lives in the marketplace.
> Use resources valued at $1 to produce something valued at $2
And who exactly does that and how? Capitalists or independent producers who come up with new methods and techniques to do that. How do they do that? They need heavy investment often in the form of investments or loans to be able to develop their own capital to do those things. Who will give them the resources and interest necessary to develop those things? Banks, lenders, or something similar.

Do you support property tax? How about income tax and sales tax?

You're asking a fundamentally incomprehensible question, because in a system where there's no such thing as private property there can be no such thing as wealth generation.

Wealth by definition is owned by someone.

Fine then, what would generate further advances, accumulate non-wealth capital in the form of knowledge, resources, etc. and integrate it to advance technology, and do other things without the profit incentive and correct market signals directing capital (or insert analogue depending on the particular system here) allocation?
What does that have to do with the question? Anyway I'm not a big fan of income or sales taxes but am not completely militantly opposed to them or anything, a small level of either or both is fine. I'm more okay with property taxes and believe either property, but preferably Land Value, should be taxed as much as possible so that other taxes don't have to be levied as much.

The government would be risking capital because it is only thing that can "own" capital if there is no private property. They could get that capital a number of ways: taxes, seizing property, or even just printing more money in the short term. And interest is set by a central bank.

>How at all would this work in a collective ownership/property system? Would people have to mortgage their houses out or something?
It wouldn't
Source: last 100 years of human history

>Fine then, what would generate further advances, accumulate non-wealth capital in the form of knowledge, resources, etc. and integrate it to advance technology, and do other things without the profit incentive and correct market signals directing capital (or insert analogue depending on the particular system here) allocation?
Outside of some kind of central body with power or authority to create incentives, there would be no advancement. Just look at the USSR in the early 1900s, there was massive economic collapse because the moment anyone had any success the proletariat were encouraged to cease the means of production for themselves, so as not to be "enslaved" by it.

So you end up with the opposite you end up with disincentives to produce and innovate because it just makes you a target.

That's why the USA was exploding in wealth, innovation and resources, where as the USSR collapsed, because economics tell us that people respond to incentives and capitalism offers those incentives.

>what would generate further advances, accumulate non-wealth capital in the form of knowledge, resources, etc. and integrate it to advance technology
The government would do it. Imagine all the companies in the US being owned and controlled by the government. All the capital owned by these companies is property of the government. Products, services, etc created by all these companies would be property of the government and distributed out to the people as needed. This can be done in a number of ways.

This type of system will probably never work so long as people are people. Maybe in thousands of years, we'll have created a world where competition and biodiversity is no longer beneficial and we'll all breed into a uniform species of effective clones. And we'll be like ants controlled by some advanced technology. Then finally we'll have "real socialism".

Why would anybody form those companies in the first place if the government were to own them and what they produced?

>The government would do it. Imagine all the companies in the US being owned and controlled by the government. All the capital owned by these companies is property of the government. Products, services, etc created by all these companies would be property of the government and distributed out to the people as needed.

The problem with this line of thinking is that currently businesses operate in a mostly free market and operate using capitalism.

You're talking about hijacking the benefits of a capitalistic system and re-branding it. Sure you can steal that stuff with force but it won't continue to run as it did before, you corrupt it. And you don't continue to gain the advancement post-theft you're left in the state it was when you stole it.

Asserting the government would do it ignores the fact that in a completely authoritarian system like that, all the power hungry people rush into power and corrupt the state and there's no known mechanism to stop this.

They wouldn't, and can't. The government would. If you want to simplify the scenario, you can say it's all one "company" called the government, but bureaucracy would be needed for everything to run and dividing the government up into companies makes it easier to comprehend.

Every person is a government employee. There is no other kind.

Instead of owners of a company being motivated by profit to make decisions that create value, the government would make those decisions.

>>How at all would this work in a collective ownership/property system?
What's the major difference between one guy owning a factory, and 100 guys co-owning it?

I did not mean the government should seize all the companies in the US and take control. Obviously that would be catastrophic. It's just an easy way to imagine how a socialist fantasy world works compared to the current system.

Established ownership is one thing, the largest problem comes in when they have to create the factory and establish initial ownership, would they each take out equal risk in acquiring the necessary capital? What would their decision making model be? It would require a lot of bureaucracy and inefficiency not inherent to the decision processes of a single person or capital owner. This makes it a potentially much riskier and harder to judge venture, and thus banks and other sources of credit would be less likely to loan to them to establish the factory.
Assuming ownership and the factory are already established, the primary difference, as laid out before, lies primarily in the necessary bureaucracy of a multiply-owned factory/system.

It wouldn't work though. That's what I'm saying.

This is predicated on being in a capitalistic system and taking the benefits of capitalism, which is very efficient and profitable businesses and then ceasing them and claiming that benefit.

Stealing that benefit from another economic system masks the problem with what you're suggesting, and those problems creep back. What happens when those businesses go bust (they cost more to run than they produce) who is going to start new businesses that the government will own a run? No one will.

So you get this short period where you can redistribtute the fruits of another system (captialism) to the people who are poor in that system, but then it all collapses and everyone is poor.

Try imagining communism from the ground up where there is no previous businesses, that's what such a state would eventually become once all the previous benefits of capitalism were squandered.

It simply doesn't work, in fact not only doesn't it work but it creates massive catastrophe, 100's of millions of people died under communism in the USSR and China, read the Gulag Archipelago, I'm reading that after being educated on the USSR by Peterson. The west is so poorly educated on just how bad it got over there.

A scenario where workers own their companies (instead of the government) requires private property.

In that case, it would be like instead of finding investors, you find employees who want to take part in your venture. Everyone pitches in some capital and you start a company. Any profit made is distributed to all the employees (they're investors). The decision making model can vary, but even the typical one would work.
There are companies in the US that are "employee owned" where employees get stock and have a say in broad decision making based on votes. They are still run by a CEO and there's still a hierarchy of people getting paid just like a normal company, but instead of profits going to investors, they go to the employees. They can work.

Right, that's what is happening in Venezuela. Certain industries were taken over by the government and it worked okay for some time, but now it's crashing down. I am not advocating any of these ideas, just trying to explain to OP how socialists think socialism is supposed to work.

Right. But you can already do this in a capitalistic market, there's literally nothing stopping a group of communist wannabes all investing and co-owning some means of production.

The reality is that it fails almost immediately to capitalistic businesses with owners who are financially invested in them.

And thus the goal of communism is revealed, it's not about freedom to joint own the means of production, it's about about making peaceful and voluntary trade among other people impossible in order to drag them down to your level so everyone is equally as poor.