Who should own and control the means of production?

[shintao]

Actually, Shin's a fascist, if you read carefully

The State (government) should be the Boss who owns the means of production- because some little idiot on the Internet can control it (become the dictator) then

BUT if you asked nicely, your might find out I want a democratic socialist society where government controls the means of production, where the voters decide what is acceptable to their control. I don't subscribe to Marxism or fascism. I want a system that favors the citizens, not the corporate Elite. The Euro state is close to what I wish for America.

I do have a mustache.

Sounds like what George Orwell was for

Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?

 

[Agit8r]

Well imbecile, do you happen to know who owns government? Let me give you a ******* vowel, not U.

yet you can control the government once we give it ownership of the means of production?

Of course, I doubt workers would corrupt themselves in a system they design.

Here is what I see happening, even within capitalism: If British Petroleum negligently destroys the fishing industry in the U.S. Gulf Coast, and most of us are not invested in the fishing industry of the gulf coast, but our 401Ks may be invested in British Petroleum, we perhaps willing to forgive more quickly than we would be if our investments were the other way around, and proper regulation may be neglected more easily. Here the Rule of Law has fallen at least to some degree victim to the conflict of interest of the body politic.

The TVA coal ash slurry spill presents another example of conflict of interest between the federally owned TVA and the federally run EPA that is charged with regulating it. Both these examples pose threats to the process of executing justice for the victims of corporate negligence

 

[Agit8r]

BUT if you asked nicely, your might find out I want a democratic socialist society where government controls the means of production, where the voters decide what is acceptable to their control. I don't subscribe to Marxism or fascism. I want a system that favors the citizens, not the corporate Elite. The Euro state is close to what I wish for America.

I do have a mustache.

Sounds like what George Orwell was for

Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?

No. Nineteen Eighty-Four was a condemnation of totalitarian government

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
-- George Orwell; from Why I Write

Work : Essays : Why I Write // George Orwell // www.k-1.com/Orwell

 

[loosecannon]

Sounds like what George Orwell was for

Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?

No. Nineteen Eighty-Four was a condemnation of totalitarian government

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
-- George Orwell; from Why I Write

Work : Essays : Why I Write // George Orwell // www.k-1.com/Orwell

Orwell was a propaganda agent for M16 dating back to WWII when he actually worked as an active, public propaganda agent in India as an editor of an Indian newspaper.

He wrote Animal Farm explicitly as a propaganda ploy to deplore commynism and he wrote 1984 as a more indepth criticism of the then present communist state of the USSR.

But he was a paid propagandist for the British intelligence aparati for 40+ years. It is impossible for anybody who didn't know him to separate the fiction from the propaganda.

 

[Agit8r]

Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?

No. Nineteen Eighty-Four was a condemnation of totalitarian government

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
-- George Orwell; from Why I Write

Work : Essays : Why I Write // George Orwell // www.k-1.com/Orwell

Orwell was a propaganda agent for M16 dating back to WWII when he actually worked as an active, public propaganda agent in India as an editor of an Indian newspaper.

He wrote 1984 explicitly as a propaganda ploy to deplore commynism and he wrote 1984 as a more indepth criticism of the then present communist state of the USSR.

But he was a paid propagandist for the British intelligence aparati for 40+ years. It is impossible for anybody who didn't know him to separate the fiction from the propaganda.

In any case, he was for at least a mostly planned economy, rather than a mostly "spontaneous" economy

"The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them." -- Orwell
http://georgeorwell.t35.com/Misc/Review-The.Road.to.Serfdom.pdf

 

[shintao]

Sounds like what George Orwell was for

Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?

No. Nineteen Eighty-Four was a condemnation of totalitarian government

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
-- George Orwell; from Why I Write

Work : Essays : Why I Write // George Orwell // www.k-1.com/Orwell

Hmm, interesting. Also you say "he was for at least a mostly planned economy, rather than a mostly "spontaneous" economy"

What do you think is better, to plan out an economy, or just let it go where it wants to? I see pure capitalism close to chaos, so just wondering.

 

[QUENTIN]

The producers, those who work the factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.

 

[editec]

One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.

1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.

2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.

As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com

I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.

Yeah I think that about describes it.

Individuals have (and they ought to have, too) the right to private property.

Society has,(and ought to have, too) the right to regulate when something about that private property ownership TRULY threatens the domestic transquility of that society.

For example...I have the right to own a factory.

I do not have the right to pollute the local river to run it.

I have the right to hire the best people to work with me.

I do not have the right to refuse to hire the best people just because I do not like their race, color, creed or gender.

It's a balancing act trying to keep these competing rights (of the individual and the rights of society) from tearing society apart or tuning it into an authoritarian nightmare.

Naturally, when we have two such diametically opposing POVs, there's going to be a constant battle to decide where we draw the line between those to POVs.

Move too far in the direction of right for individuals and the strong individuals dominate the society to the detriment of society (read most other individuals) overall.

Move too far in the direction of the rights of society to oversee the individuals and the government dominates each individual to excess.

Both extremes, it seems to me, are situations to be avoided, since both extremes lead to society (and the indivoduials within it, too) being less than it/(they) could otherwise be.

 

[JBeukema]

You are a communist. Isn't there a communist country you could move to?

Actually, Shin's a fascist, if you read carefully

The State (government) should be the Boss who owns the means of production- because some little idiot on the Internet can control it (become the dictator) then

BUT if you asked nicely, your might find out I want a democratic socialist society where government controls the means of production, where the voters decide what is acceptable to their control. I don't subscribe to Marxism or fascism. I want a system that favors the citizens, not the corporate Elite. The Euro state is close to what I wish for America.

I do have a mustache.

So you claim to be a social democrat in your intro thread, and here you advocate fascism while claiming it's democratic socialism


your story changes a lot

 

[JBeukema]

history has shown a blurring between these forms. For instance, in the Soviet Union the means of production were controlled by a ruling elite (Politburo)

authoritarian bureaucratic collectivism

If social security were to become "privatized," the means of production would be at least partly collectively owned by all the workers.

Clarify

If social security taxes were invested into the joint stock ownership of companies, the workers whose taxes were invested such would each own a part of the means of production

Since I've heard no plan for them to exercise control over those companies in which they invest, they would not own them- they would simply be investors.

 

[JBeukema]

Well imbecile, do you happen to know who owns government? Let me give you a ******* vowel, not U.

yet you can control the government once we give it ownership of the means of production?

Of course, I doubt workers would corrupt themselves in a system they design.

One could argue they have designed the current system

And since when does having authority prevent one from becoming becoming corrupt?

 

[JBeukema]

In a nutshell an anarcho-syndicalist believes that labor should own the means of production via their own capitalist ventures/companies/corporations/coops and that EVERYBODY should be in the labor class.

Wouldn't owning a capitalist venture make you a capitalist?

And is not the syndicate just another cartel?

Anarcho-syndicalists are capitalists. Except everybody is labor and a capitalist at once.

So they expect to run every business as a wobbly shop or what?

 

[JBeukema]

Correct, there are many types of socialism. Not fascism if the people vote their society means, which is democratic socialism.

I know what democratic socialism is. What you've outlined in this thread is fascism:

You want Der Staat to own the means of production

You want to make it clear that The People don't control Der Staat

You think you'll be one of the elites controlling Der Staat

Der Staat is- or should be- the boss, you say

You want to merge State and corporate power into an entity you control

That's authoritarian bureaucratic collectivism at best, and more likely to end in fascism and totalitarianism.


You've been added to the Antifa League's Watch List, as well as to the ATL's Suspected Troll list

I didn't say that.

Well imbecile, do you happen to know who owns government? Let me give you a ******* vowel, not U. Gawd where do they find these stupid ******* people?

The people control the state by their vote

That's not what you were saying two pages ago

You're not very good at this

 

[edthecynic]

One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.

1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.

2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.

As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com

I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.

You forgot number 4.

4. Marxism where the workers control the means of production.

I think because it takes both capital and labor to produce anything, control of the means of production should be shared by both capital and labor.

Capital is a result of labor, and is used by labor to assist it in further production. Labor is the active and initial force, and labor is therefore the employer of capital.
Henry George

 

[daveman]

You are a communist. Isn't there a communist country you could move to?

He's a chickenred.

chickenred

Someone who advocates Communism but is too cowardly to move to a Communist nation; who advocates the destruction of the US Constitution while hiding behind its protections; who condemns the American consumerism lifestyle while living that same lifestyle.
That woman at the protest handing out pro-Castro literature is a chickenred...she'd never move to Cuba.

And your a pedophile. Someone who likes to play sexually with little children, who molests children while he hides behind the laws he wish were not there: He publicly condemns child molestation while fondling children in the parks at the merry go round. That guy beating his pud at the park bench is our pedophile and he would never give up his park by cutting the city's park funds.

You lose. Utterly. Completely.

 

[daveman]

And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??

Capitalism didn't cause the debt. The government did. And your "solution" is MORE government.

Idiot.

Government is an entity, it does nothing, imbecile. It is those that control to do something, and those are corporation dumbass, the ones who control ever fool Representative we have. Got that Davey??

Ahhh, yes, the eeeevil KKKorporations.


You shouldn't let protest signs do your thinking for you. They're not very good at it.

Got that, moron?

 

[daveman]

Capitalism didn't cause the debt. The government did. And your "solution" is MORE government.

Idiot.

Not only that. But the government is in more debt furthering the objectives he wants to create more.

He doesn't understand basic economics. Dont spend money on things you cant afford.

Indeed. But that's the route to a prosperous, dynamic economy.

Can't have that.

 

[edthecynic]

America worked best when there was a blending of capitalism and socialism.

Why would you want to blend two failed systems when there are billions more that you haven't even tried yet?

I assume you are familiar with the definitions of insanity?

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill

 

[daveman]

BUT if you asked nicely, your might find out I want a democratic socialist society where government controls the means of production, where the voters decide what is acceptable to their control.

Yeah. Has that ever worked anywhere?

Hint: No.

 

[daveman]

Well imbecile, do you happen to know who owns government? Let me give you a ******* vowel, not U.

yet you can control the government once we give it ownership of the means of production?

Of course, I doubt workers would corrupt themselves in a system they design.