Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production...

Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. Can you list some places where workers owned the means of production and tell me why it was bad or good.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_People's_Commissars
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Can YOU list one and tell me why it was bad or good. Checkmate nigger

I can list you about 40 but I'll wait to see if you guys can first. By 30 replies I'll post it.

You are lying. Communists are always literally men tally retarded.

You bait too hard my dude.

USSR, Warsaw Treaty countries, some 3rd world commie shitholes.
Bad, highly ineffective, high attrition, permanent problems to supply basic needs, increased production of e.g. war material automatically lead to decrease in consumer goods production.

USSR
WORKER CONTROL
LOL

Communist party = worker's party.
dictatorship of proletariate realized, which means workers controlled the means of production (otherwise private owners/entrepreneurs had owed them).

>...

America because when your the boss you still have too work

>Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production.

No, not necessarily faggot, that might be your definition. Communists think that the state owning the means of production is socialism, but that's only their definition. The term has been around almost as long as Capitalism and is extremely vague and loosely defined. The only common theme of opposing socialist camps is that Socialism is the community-oriented response to the inherently degenerative and exploitative nature of Capitalism.

Don't run around claiming absolutes in an area that is anything but absolute.

NO SOCIALISM IS FIRE TRUCKS AND ROADS
YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT

USSR
It was a shithole famous for bad products and propped up by the capitalist black market

Dictatorship of the proletariat means the entire class a whole not 3 people.

>Can you list some places where workers owned the means of production
Everybody who own stocks and who is also employed, i.e. this is nothing special.
However, the workers should not only own stocks of the company they work for since this is risky since the probability of unemployment correlates with the value of your stock portfolio so if your employer is bust, so are you. Therefore, most people own diversified bond portfolios that diversify risk.

No, USSR was known for peddling shit products at high prices for the west while they kept the good stuff for themselves
Member Yugoslavian cars?

The earliest Yugoslavia car came out when Tito died and things were getting fucked (not due to socialism of course)

>world famous Yugoslavian anything except genocide

hahahahaha

>Communists think that the state owning the means of production is socialism,
Source?

>Don't run around claiming absolutes in an area that is anything but absolute.

When the large majority (and first) of socialist theory and actual socialist societies were about worker ownership of the means of production I think I can make an absolute statement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_People's_Commissars

13 people means the entire class of the proletariat.

I wasn't praising them you dumb fat burger

spain basque country 10% of the economy is from cooperatives
1-much better salaries 40% higher of the equivalent sector
2-stabilitie if one cooperative fall they contrated for other one of the group
3-common goals and not excesive competition between the workers
4-natural growth for area than cooperatives are implanted,not need to import inmigrant

the amazing thing we could if we work together.
pic mondragon cooperativa

Forget to add incase anyone actually reads the thread. Dictatorship of the proletariat in itself is not socialism. Marx himself said this by praising the Paris Commune as dictatorship of the proletariat but saying it was not socialist.

>Source?

Every Communist Party that attempts to introduce Marxist economic systems according to their perspective nationalizes most/all industries. The proof is presented in every Marxist-Leninist single party state in the 20th century.

>When the large majority (and first) of socialist theory and actual socialist societies were about worker ownership of the means of production I think I can make an absolute statement.

Once again, you claim something to be be the case without evidence. Socialism from an 18th century perspective had as many interpretations as adherents. You claiming your particular variation as definition fact is technically incorrect.

Also just because the majority believe something to be true doesn't make it the case. Most people on this earth (~54%) believe in the same Abrahamic God/Deity and yet that doesn't mean that he/it actually exists. Just because one specific perspective of what constitutes "socialism" has the majority of socialist adherents doesn't mean that it is the only one, which when dealing in absolutes is exactly what you are claiming.

>CONNOR MACGREGGOR DOESNT WEAR A KILT SO HES NOT A TRUE SCOTSMAN !

For it to be no true scotsman. It actually has to be a scotsman.

I'm not a rookie.

>Every Communist Party that attempts to introduce Marxist economic systems according to their perspective nationalizes most/all industries. The proof is presented in every Marxist-Leninist single party state in the 20th century.

If I start a movement thats called Capitalism-Anonism which is where me being the leader makes it Capitalism-Anonism. I write a book and some countries make me the leader. Does that now mean that me being a dictator in a country is a defintion of Capitalism?

> technically incorrect.

Technicals are for pussies. If 99 of people say one thing and one guy says another that doesn't mean the 99 are wrong because one faggot thinks his words mean anything.

Yes you retard!
Just after the October revolution the bolshevik led workers gained the control of factories. They fired/killed the directors and specialists and started to "manage" and "produce" the goods by themselves.
You can guess three times if that worked...
After a while the bolsheviks had to "re-hire" all the old staff because...you know...uneducated proles couldn't do jack shit

Wrong.

The bolsheviks actually had a counter revolution and killed off the workers councils and any form of workers control and by 1918 there wasn't a shred of socialism in the soviet union.

(thx chmsky)

>If 99 of people say one thing and one guy says another that doesn't mean the 99 are wrong because one faggot thinks his words mean anything.

It doesn't mean they are right either, just a whole lot of people wrong and such a case isn't without precedence either.

>If I start a movement thats called Capitalism-Anonism which is where me being the leader makes it Capitalism-Anonism. I write a book and some countries make me the leader. Does that now mean that me being a dictator in a country is a defintion of Capitalism?

Communist parties siece control through one measure or another. Communist parties are made up of people that fall into the category of "Communists" virtually all of the time. Every time said group of communists in the 20th century attempted to implement a social/economic order according to their doctrine, they nationalized almost everything. According to their perspective these were "Socialist States" (e.g: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, etc.) that specifically stated in their constitutions(or it's equivalent) that they were Socialist states. Therefore, when I said "Communists think that the state owning the means of production is socialism", I meant exactly what I said word for word, based upon the data.

the workers councils didn't lead the factories. They weren't responsible of running the show

also...what makes you think that workers can lead the factories as good as the owners/directors? Do you really believe that the quality of the goods would be better?

>Entrepreneurs decide to build something, and assign ownership of the production to themselves and work on building their business
>Become wildly successful and still own the means of production they built and procured, but now work on managing the means instead, as well as workers who needed a job.
What exactly is different here?
What stops the later workers from using their new skill to produce a competing product and business they own, repeating the cycle?

"Democratic" Peoples Republic of Korea. They call themselves a Democracy they must be one right? The data is there.