"The means of production should belong to the workers who use them."

Why is this a bad idea? Not a commie just genuinely curious. Pic semi-related.

Other urls found in this thread:

michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/a-sound-and-effective-financial-system
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

How much are you getting paid for shilling?

>I'm a paid shill
No, communists are scum. I just want a reasonable explanation.

Nobody's stopping you from starting a coop or commune. Knock yourself out you lazy commie faggot.

I'm not a commie you fucking cunt leaf. TELL ME WHERE THE STATEMENT FALLS SHORT.

Fuck off commie.

communism is bad and you should feel bad.

Can't even ask a simple question on here without paranoid retards artistically screeching "Shill!". Give me a reasonable argument you braindead fucking sheep.

Would you really trust every fucking idiot at your job?

because the means of production already belongs to the person who owns it

So your great dynasty of a family opens a factory as to sustain their income and well being. You raise the funds, make the deals, place the brick and mortar. You then hire several unskilled mongrels, train them, give them meaning in their lives and a living to support their own families.

What do you owe them?

Thank you, this simple answer was really all I needed to put things into perspectives. The rest of you idiots can fucking kill yourselves.
This is true also

Do you want to be paid for the output and what it fetches on the market?

Or do you want to get paid for your work that can be negotiated and defined ahead of time?

Either way is fine under capitalism but the former lines more risk on return that most people are not comfortable with or dont know how to mitigate sufficiently with their skills.

Also, stocks and investment are the best method of the means of production being owned by the workers.

perspective*

>Loudly declare that you aren't a commie or a shill
>Get upset when people call you a commie and a shill
>Be surprised that people call you a commie and a shill
Welcome to Sup Forums, now seriously fuck off

Where the fuck are your workers?
Do you intend to seize your cashier's stall and the PC you're doing your shitty technical support job from?

It's vastly more efficient to make everyone partial owners in all the knowledge, methods, infrastructure, installed capacity and established common property. Distributing that wealth as part of the monetary policy.

From this basic idea that everyone in a nation is an inheritor of the progression of humanity you can develop a vastly superior monetary policy of social credit. From a better monetary policy you don't need destructive fiscal policy like socialism to try and raise the standard of living of people.

You are a commie and everyone can smell that, from your little Normeme.
The left can't meme!

It doesn't end up in the hands of the workers it ends up in the hands of the government

>be surprised
Actually not really, shills have made this place shit and turned everyone into paranoid retards. It just takes a while to sift through the shit to get the answers you're looking for
Fuck off you dumb shitskin

>reddit spacing

>What do you owe them?
All of your wealth because you would have none without them. Just as they owe you all of their income because they would have none without you.

So you need to meet in the middle.

Look at what your country has become and then call someone else a shit skin.

Where does the means of production originate from? If the workers are seizing it, that means they are not the origin point.

It's even worse than ours.

retarded

It's simple

I don't have an explanation but the statement is wrong

Yes, there are many in my country but I'm not one of them. The same can't be same for you. Your ancestors were cucked by Ahmeds. Literally the first image of Greeks on Google images

>greece
>talking about other countries
literally neck yourself

Think of how you treat your car
Now think of how you treat a rental car.

Human nature is the reason this, and most socialist ideals, just don't work

So how is it simple then?

abolition of currency would prevent this situation. we live in a world rich of resources, why can't everyone be just as rich?

The reason that people are calling you a commie is because you explicitly said that you weren't a commie. It seems to get on your nerves, so people keep doing it more and more.

Guess what retard; No one cares if you're a communist. In fact, it's more fulfilling to argue with real communists than cowardly deceptive shills. But you aren't making an argument or presenting a case here, you're just asking boring questions that we've already debated a hundred billion times over this week already.

Go shill for your commie shit elsewhere.

This appears to assume that everyone in the community 1) wants to, 2) has the skills or mental capacity to, and 3) actually does help out in every aspect of ownership.
I don't think you need me to tell you that Autistic Annie is a great bookkeeper, but DO NOT send her on the road in front of clients.

Because assuming so is implying that all men are as capable of managing a company, starting it from 0 and getting in debt and working hard to make something out of it...
Equality doesn't exist.
People are trolling because a this is an obvious question, b because you're giving a lot of baits with your raging.
You're on pol learn to use the site fkin normie.

Why did you skip over ?

what if I treat both equally?

The part of the equation that is the workers is replaceable, the brains whom pull the strings aren't.

>I am whiter than the rest of my bong country I swear.
What stops me from using the same excuse against you?
Well I can do that too.

>need to meet in the middle.
Where does this 'need' come from exactly you entitled cunt

Because the people that "use it" never risked anything to actually procure that means to begin with, the one who owns it did. That person also ensures it's maintained and gets what it needs to actually produce, those workers don't have to worry about any of that.

>abolition of currency would prevent this situation. we live in a world rich of resources, why can't everyone be just as rich?
Currency is very useful in the bookkeeping required to distribute, price, and acquire goods/services.

the workers could just as easily pull the strings. all men are "disposable", even you.

Because it assumes complete uniformity of

>IQ
>Work Ethic
>Disposition
>beliefs

Of all people indiscriminately. It never once factors in the good and bad of human nature; the complexities of man.

I'm sure it has been debated a billion times. But guess what, I haven't been privy to these debates.

you will get pissed when your car co-owner is doing doughnuts on the parking lot.

My shitposting schedule doesn't revolve around you. I have other threads to ruin. Goodbye.

No, you can't. The browns you would post wouldn't be ethnically British like the Greeks I post.

bookkeeping is lame. the only bookkeeping we need is to determine the exact amount of resources here on earth and to figure out a way to allocate them evenly in order to provide every human the best life they could possible live.

The phrasing making the statement entirely different.

Does this include women? Government issued babymakers?

Bye faggot

it isn't an intrinsically bad idea you dumbass, it's not like capitalist countries ban co-ops. the reality is hierarchies tend to form in business just like everywhere else if you let them.

don't come back

It's not inherently a bad idea, in fact as a self employed artist this is what I try to do. A friend gave me a deer carcass today. From that I'll make drum heads, bone flutes, leather bits and I'll get a skull also. Sure I wish it was me taking the doe, but I haven't quite seized that means yet. It doesn't scale though, for instance I can't own a waterjet cutter. Nor could someone who owns 5 waterjet cutters operate them all at peak production.

Because what they mean is capitalism, except commies are too incompetent and braindead to figure that out. They fear success and blame the evil "capitalists" for all their misfortunes when it's really because they're pathetic losers that can't help themselves. They think that somehow giving the government who seeks to make them miserable more power gives them the upper hand somehow. Communists are all borderline retarded

>This appears to assume that everyone in the community 1) wants to, 2) has the skills or mental capacity to, and 3) actually does help out in every aspect of ownership.
No. It simply assumes that any person today, is standing on all of human progression and that progression is a collective property which entitles everyone to some share of the output.
And in social credit rather than taking that output from the producer, you instead supply purchasing power to the people so they can buy goods from producers, who can profit and spend their money on what they want.

By not making money as bank debt (ie the current system) you can reach levels of production that are only limited by the physical, and avoid deflation or inflation outside of market factors.

>I don't think you need me to tell you that Autistic Annie is a great bookkeeper, but DO NOT send her on the road in front of clients.
I'm not sure what your point is.

>means of production should belong to the workers who use them
why?
you're the one making a claim, give us one reason why the means of production should belong to the workers who use them
how the fuck does that work in an economy that's millions of intervowen supply chains?
what's the advantage, if there are any?

how would you go about the transforming current society? kill every shareholder on the world and then give an equal share to every person left alive? or would you literally give office slaves the cubicle they used to work from and then let them fend for themselves?

Up the person supervising the workers is more valuable than the worker. Workers are replaceable, they aren't a necessity to business. If you can be replaced by a Chinese child in a sweat shop you aren't as important to the business as you think y9u are.

A million people aren't necessarily smarter than one. What happens when the workers can't decide which direction to take the company? What happens when two paths are equally dangerous or rewarding, and a decision can't be made? Are the workers supposed to fight it out on the workroom floor? Perhaps fight each other while destroying everything they've worked for?

A single person in charge may make arbitrary decisions, but at least they make these decisions and there's little or no fighting over anything. The workers just go along for the ride. I agree that they should be paid a fair wage, and that the business owner shouldn't be a greedy cunt.

Ultimately I believe in a monarchy, dictatorship or whatever system of governance which has a single person at the highest point, observing all that is below them, and ruling benevolently. If they abuse their power then they should be replaced, violently so if they refuse to step down.

Democracies are susceptible to being undermined by division. Logical thinkers are capable of being lost in the arguments of mathematics, economics and statistics, while emotional thinkers are capable of being swept away by emotional appeals like the refugee crisis in Europe. In any given nation that has free speech then the people will naturally drift apart due to their differing opinions, and if these differences affect the landscape of their civilization then there's bound to be bloodshed.

My country might be a bit black because of our Turkish neighbors, but I am not one of them.
Here. I just did use the same excuse

>Where does this 'need' come from exactly you entitled cunt
Well if you had no workers you would earn no money outside of your own activity. In which case your workers (you) gets all the profit.

If you have no workers then you have no people with money so you have no customers.
If workers have no employer they have no job, no productivity and nothing to consume.

Production exists to be consumed. If you are not in a system that enables consumption then you are failing at the most basic of levels and your economy/society/nation will suffer.

>the means of production belong to the workers who use it
Well truthfully most workers/laborers have no idea how to run a business (hence the reason for their placement in that job) and giving them a factory or a farm field to run would most likely be disastrous.

No such thing as having no workers when you have immigrants, illegals and the ability to manufacture out of country.

Because the means of production include supplying the capital, ideas, leadership and organization to produce and sell goods.

The people who provide those things hold high level positions within a given business and are making most of the money.

If everyone wants to make a lot of money they would naturally want to be in those positions.

Unfortunately for lazy millenials, reading countless books to learn these skills and then start a business and work 80+ hours a weak doesn't not sound very appealing.

This is how communism is born, because people are lazy, know nothing of economics, and are in denial of the work it takes to make it to the top 20% even.

So you can see, the means of production do already in fact belong to the people who put the most work towards producing them. But people see workers as only the basic/manual work.

You pointed out that there are muslims in my country. Fuck, I had no idea.

Bosses had to be workers at one point

Yeah and currency is very useful in that abstraction.

You might do a study to calculate the exact amount of raw materials needed to build and operate a power plant to supply someone electricity. But those sorts of studies take months, make lots of assumptions and have so many rules of what is counted or not as to be useless.

Meanwhile I can look at my electric bill and tell you what the cost of a delivered kilowatt hour of electricity is to me in about 10s.

Because workers are dumb niggers who don't save and invest. There would be no factories. There used to just be craftsmen. Factories are more efficient but they require pooled capital. The reason the capitalists pool their capital is so they can make more $$$. If you stole their factory and gave it to the nigger workers they would run it into the ground because they're morons. The rich would then hide what $ they had left and never invest it. Then we'd all be poor. That's all Communism is. Everyone is equally miserable and starving to death and willing to have sex with their direct relatives for a loaf of bread from the kikes who have hid their wealth successfully.

we aren't a bunch of monkeys who dance when you tell us to, fuck off you entitled cunt.

>No such thing as having no workers when you have immigrants, illegals and the ability to manufacture out of country.
You still have workers.
Nothing you said does away with the laborer.

One day we will have laborer free labor with sufficiently advanced machines but that day is not today or tomorrow.

I did say that too.
but I also said this

that wasnt real communism

this is sometimes good eg tradies have thier own tools

Its fucking retarded for industry production.

I already got my answer, and funnily enough it was the simplest one.

>PROFITS ARE THE UNPAID WAGES OF THE WORKING CLASS.

lets translate this
>the mcdonalds workers should own the cash register, the brand name, the signature burgers, the goodwill, the building, the machines
why? being a worker doesnt mean anything really, youre not entilted to anything beside the salary and whatever benefits youve gotten.
If you want to own "the memes", you buy your own means of production and create value that way, if you can ofcourse.

>equality meme

I now know you have very little experience in the real world. The common man is a scared stupid animal who only desires for a brief respite from the reality of being. It takes psychopaths to run businesses and goverments. The vast majority of people simply do not have the temperament nor the mental pathology to handle the immense responsibility of actually being in charge of anything.

buy stock in your own company, or start your own company

fuck off and die first you multi perspective requiring faggot.

That point included you, I hope you swallow your tongue you useless waste of oxygen.

Does that restaurant not use public road to have deliveries made? Do they not employ workers trained and educated by the state? Are they not using technology developed by someone in the past? Is the building not in fact the peak of all of human development?

Seems like they owe the existence of their potential business to all of humanity to some degree.

Sure, workers should pool their money, and use it to buy machinery and equipment and lease a building, and pay the utilities and property tax, and spit the profits (or losses) among themselves in a contractually agreed upon ratio.

They won't organize it to prioritize productivity at all. They will just start paying themselves and their buddies until the money runs out.

You can buy tools at home depot. Make shit to sell with them you lazy fucking commie

The worker wouldn't have access to the tool if the owner didn't invest the capital to purchase it. A lot of times these tools are expensive as fuck. The worker can quit whenever he wants and is not liable to make payments on the tool, it's a clean break. The capitalist doesn't have that luxury, he's liable to make payments on it regardless of who actually uses it.

Commies just assume everyone who owns a business is scrooge mcduck swimming in a pool of gold coins and not doing anything all day. If they'd get a real job instead of being a perennial student, academic or bureaucrat they'd figure this out. But that'd require becoming an actual proletariat, and why would they ever consider doing that?

So how does it work? How do you distribute the means of production to the workers?

The statement falls short because "should" has no bearing in the world of business and economics. If the workers owned the means of the production than they would likely not be workers by choice. There are some workers that do end up owning their means of production more or less. They are people who own their own shops and businesses. Who the commies unironically see as part of the 1% who don't deserve it. With this, you should be satisfied if you were honest about your intentions and not a shill.

>"The means of production should belong to the workers who use them."
>what do you mean machines have to be maintained and I gotta pay for that???


For all their intellectualism lefties are surprisingly idiotic people.
Why is that?

Fuck all leftist parasites.

Who's gonna pay for the overhead costs

>what is property

>So how does it work? How do you distribute the means of production to the workers?
Nope.
Purchasing power. So people can buy the goods offered for sale. Closing the gap between the cost of production and the wages paid to people.

Think of it like this. Every business pays it's workers (owners and investors) less than it earns in income. Yet if every business did that, you would have a deficit of money to buy the production. No matter how much you deflated the currency and raised it's value or offered time displacement between buying and paying you have a system that is chronically short on money to buy things.

Currently we solve that problem by borrowing money. Time displacing between when we have money and when we need to pay it back to someone. This however only makes the problem worse due to interest.

Social credit creates new money in line with new production so that we always have enough money to buy what is currently for sale. Effectively giving people a portion of the production but leaving the production owners with all the profits.

michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/category/a-sound-and-effective-financial-system
A link that goes into depth about social credit. A bit of a read, but you can start at 'How to Finance Production' and go from that.

What you owe them for their work is exactly what you and them agree to be the salary/wage. End of story.

...

>What you owe them for their work is exactly what you and them agree to be the salary/wage. End of story.
Then we (collectively) will enter an agreement that says they owe everyone a small portion for use of our collective knowledge, the established machinery used to make the goods they used in their business, all of the tech people discovered that they use and so on.

We are not going to take anything from them directly but we will perform a calculation that extracts some of their production to be abstracted into purchasing power that people will then use in part to buy their goods for sale.

Because the workers generally don't like working

that stupid manic faggot loves israel. was a banker. wanted his EU pension. and fucked off and quit when he failed like a quitter because he said he wanted to. india has overtaken your economy. the right is all jews. and all vaginas. let alone bollocks

Basic marxist ideas aren't exclusive to Marx. Abraham Lincoln said the following:

Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861

"And, inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."

Because it goes against the core tenets of private property. You (the worker) almost certainly did not create that means of production. You did almost certainly not pay for it yourself. You agree to voluntarily use the means of production with your labor in exchange for monetary compensation. You did not create the the means of production, you didn't fund it, and therefore you have no claim to it. Just because you use it doesn't mean that you have a right to it. You have a right to a salary to compensate you for your work (or whatever you have agreed to in the contract with your employer), but not to the production means themselves.