>>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