Thread 17969568

The typical definition of "collective property" is based on the concept of democracy over the use of the object/land/factory (whatever) at hand, however every "worker" voting for how to use every single means of production in a country is evidently absurd, so socialism resorts to elected planners in order to resolve conflicts (i.e one person/group of people wants a factory to produce one thing, another person/group wants it to produce another thing). This in turn can lead to conflicts between different planners (one planners wants buttons for his factory, the button factory planner wants his buttons to go somewhere else) and so a higher level planner is needed and this leads to a hierarchy with an ultimate conflict resolver/central planner (like the central committee of the communist party of the USSR). Socialists can then always claim that this central planner does not "represent the workers" or that it "de facto owns the means of production" and therefore that said state "isn't real socialism".

The causal chain goes like this:
>1: "Collective property" leads to conflicts over the use of the means of production -> 2
>2: A hierarchy (elected or not) is needed to resolve said conflicts and violently suppress those who oppose the current decisions over it's use (like for example those who want to exchange it in a market or those who don't want to work in their government appointed job) -> 3
>3: The people at the top of said hierarchy have an extreme amount of power over all the means of production in a given country -> 4 and 5
>4: Socialists claim this society "is not real socialism" because the people at the top of the hierarchy "don't represent the workers"
>5: Central planners have no means of conducting profit/loss calculations cause there's no market for the means of productions, and so there's no prices reflecting the supply and demand of goods and poverty (people not getting their demands met) ensues

>>17969568 (OP)
I couldn't fit this in the character limit so here's an explanation of why "collective property" is impossible.

Suppose 100 people own any property, say a stick. 51 of them want to make a spear with it and 49 want to throw it in a fire. It's put to a vote and it's made into a spear, than the 49 people didn't use it as they wished therefore they don't own it because having property implies you have a final say over it's use.

Regardless if you accept this or not, the above point still stands that having a global vote on how to use every single means of production in a country is absurd and socialism necessarily resorts to a hierarchy of elected officials to centrally plan the means of production.

>>17969568 (OP)
>The contradiction of "collective property" and the absurdity of socialism
That's supposed to go in the subject field. The name field is for what name you'll be posting with not the title of the thread

Based anti-commie thread

I agree with this, but I suppose the communist counter-argument would be “one day the technology will exist to allow democratic, decentralized (or at least not hierarchal) management of the means of production.” Think some AI.

How many times do people have to jump off a cliff before the rest say, "ok every single one died. Stop doing that."

>>17969568 (OP)
How were they paid? Were button makers paid the same as watch makers? Did they receive money at all or just basic goods?
>>17970989
But they don't all die. The stubborn ones die, the rest live. Then when all those cumbersome old social factions are gone you do something else.
Communism is understandable in the places it took over. For one reason or another, large population areas couldn't satisfy the majority of thier people. Multicultural multi ethnic paradises could not operate cohesively enough.
People fail to understand Communism if they believe it to be purely a rationalist economic theory. Thats the outward justification. Marx is more a how to revolution guide than anything else.

>>17969580
>socialism isn't really collective ownership because the majority vote made by the people reigns supreme over the objectively smaller population
am i in middle school again?

>>17969568 (OP)
COMMUNISM IS THE WORST

>>17969568 (OP)
>The typical definition of "collective property" is based on the concept of democracy over the use of the object/land/factory (whatever) at hand
It's not. Marxism isn't "le hecking neighbors decided to blow up my house for the common good", it's about making a system which produces goods for the benefit of a society, which rewards people adequately for their work and which brings back the worker to the product he creates rather than being a cog in the system because it is more rational to do so.

>"Collective property" leads to conflicts over the use of the means of production
You mean like shareholders determining collectively the direction of an enterprise ? Besides, this isn't an issue in capitalism nor communism because the goals of a company are either to satisfy demand (socialism) or to profit (capitalism).

>4: Socialists claim this society "is not real socialism" because the people at the top of the hierarchy "don't represent the workers"
Anon if the hierarchy doesn't represent the workers, it quite literally isn't a socialist party then but a bastardized form of it.

>5: Central planners have no means of conducting profit/loss calculations cause there's no market for the means of productions, and so there's no prices
Wrong again. Look up Kantorovich, the Lange-Lerner model, the kossyguin reforms etc. There are ways of introducing price & rentability in socialist means of production.

>>17969580
>itt : anon learns that not everyone can be happy with democracy

>>17970930
> “one day the technology allow central planning
This is confusing engineering and material planning with economic calculation. Economic calculations is profit-loss calculation. That requires prices and prices require markets. There is no way for any computer, no matter how powerful to determine a-priori the consumer demand for anything.

>>17971029
What does it matter how they were paid?
>>17971049
Of course aggression is unjustified even if it's agreed upon by a majority.

>>17971851
>It's not.
Okay, so give me the Marxist definition of "property" and "collective property" and explain what distinguishes it from mere ownership. For example explain why you own your shirt but I don't own it if I take it from you by force.
>adequate reward for work
How do you determine the "adequate reward" for any given work?

>the worker is a cog in the system
Right so how does giving a group a people the power to use force to prohibit other people from buying and selling goods and services as they please achieve this, exactly?

>>17971851
>shareholders determining collectively the direction of an enterprise ?
Yes, that's a similar issue however there's a big difference: the shareholders in that case voluntarily signed contracts that delineate very specifically the terms of the system. And there is always someone with final say in case a conflict arises outside the terms of the contract.

>satisfy demand (socialism)
How do you determine the demand for goods and service in socialism, if there is no market and therefore prices for the means of production?

>Anon if the hierarchy doesn't represent the workers
Yes, and how, exactly, do you determine if "the hierarchy represents the workers"?
And who are the "non-workers", by the way? They have no rights at all, I presume?

>anon learns that not everyone can be happy with democracy
The point is that "collective property" is impossible and therefore you can't make any theory out of it.

>>17970930
More on this "technology will solve central planning" argument: https://youtu.be/KzHA3KLL7Ho
You can come up with a plan to build a bridge and then build it. That's not economic calculation. Economic calculation is determining if in doing so you generated profit or not.

>>17972112
>There is no way for any computer, no matter how powerful to determine a-priori the consumer demand for anything.
Then how do you think stores sell anything ? You can never know the "a priori" demand for a good (barring essential ones), so all you can do is provide a supply and see if people buy it.

>Of course aggression is unjustified even if it's agreed upon by a majority.
So then... why would it be justified for the minority to have it ?

>How do you determine the "adequate reward" for any given work?
By doing negotiations with workers' council, by voting with the general population, through supply and demand etc. You're coming close to realizing why marxism is more rational for the average worker.

>Right so how does giving a group a people the power to [...]
Because this group of people represents the common interest

>the shareholders in that case voluntarily signed contracts
So common property can exist in capitalism but not in socialism ? Seems odd...

>How do you determine the demand for goods and service in socialism, if there is no market and therefore prices for the means of production?
By doing like capitalists nowadays. The gov witnesses a demand for a good or tries predicting the demand for something based on empirical data. They then create a certain number of goods and see if, based on store inputs, need to create more or less. This is the same thing that amazon does, or any big retail store.

>Yes, and how, exactly, do you determine if "the hierarchy represents the workers"?
By popular vote

>And who are the "non-workers", by the way? They have no rights at all, I presume?
The worker is used interchangeably with the "people" here

>The point is that "collective property" is impossible and therefore you can't make any theory out of it.
We literally have collective property of the army, of roads (in most country), of energy (in some countries), of the government, of parks etc. You can literally go outside and witness collective property

>>17972112
>What does it matter how they were paid?
>Let's have a thread all about communism!
>What? How did these people run thier economy and provide food, services and goods to thier people? What does that have to do with anything?
>did these altruistic communist finally do away with the need for corrupting money? How should I know!
I have read that higher level communists could employ labor under the table and pay them more in a few days than they received in a month performing thier job for the state. Curiosity intensifies.

>>17972112
>Of course aggression is unjustified even if it's agreed upon by a majority.
this is fundamentally an argument against democracy. you do realize that right? what you are criticizing has nothing to do with socialism or collective ownership. you're twisting a well observed problem with democracy (tyranny of the majority) and pinning the blame onto socialist thought.
it's really stupid but im gonna make this really simple
the majority (the people) made their voice heard. it's not called the "dictatorship" of the proletariat for nothing. what do you even mean with "aggression is unjustified"?

>>17972244
>submitting to a committee that has full control over basically all material aspects of your life is actually super rational
lmao

>>17972354
not that guy but its not fundamentally an argument against democracy at all, its an argument against big government democracy