|
Which do you prefer, the private ownership of the means of production, or the collective ownership of the means of production? Anonymous poll
Poll
Private ownership of the means of production
37
4.9%
Collective ownership of the means of production
750 people voted. 713
95.1%
Voting ended 19 February at 20:57. 247 comments
@rsf92 @Radical_EgoCom I disagree somewhat. I guess it depends on how you describe a hierarchy. I'm an anarchist without adjectives because I come at anarchism from a deontological position, not a consequentialist one. I think there might be many possible social orders without hierarchy (institutionalised coercion), although I might prefer a given social order (prob some very decentralised communism), I don't advocate it as a model, just my moral right to willingly implement it with others @rsf92 @Radical_EgoCom I don't think you can have an oppresive structure without coercion. People will just leave. My take is that If communism is the only nonoppresive social form of organisation, people wil organically come to it. Highly debatable, I know. But I still think you can defend anarchy and communism as separate things. @rsf92 @rsf92 @Radical_EgoCom Economic exploitations is unfeasable without coercion, so with social hierarchies. IMO @rsf92 You are right in saying that economic exploitation is impossible without coercion, but there are also other systemic barriers that prevent people from just leaving their exploitation. @Radical_EgoCom poverty is one, prob. But, absent institutionalised coerciΓ³n, I don't think anything can stop the organic development of societal forms Either way, we probabhy agree on many things, let's not Focus on what separates our thougth @Radical_EgoCom How do you account for a tyrannical majority or an unjust society? If society owns the means of production, but 90% of society is (for example) Christian, white, homophobic and whatnot... can this society still be just to the other 10%, which in itself consists of a multitude of minorities? Thanks @MORAL_BASELINE That's already how it works under the current thing And worse. Sometimes the 90% owns 99% of wealth. Sometimes a 20% minority owns 90% of the wealth and oppresses the 80% majority like they're the minority, as in apartheid South Africa There's nothing to lose on that front by transitioning to collective ownership @wakame @Radical_EgoCom Collective ownership is also private, unless you mean government owned. Personally I prefer a combination of all of the above. @mok0 @mok0 @Radical_EgoCom Collective means of productions are privately owned by the community as a whole. That is, nobody outside the community has ownership or is involved in running the enterprise. @mok0 @Radical_EgoCom Because there is a clear difference to government ownership, seen under Communism, where the state is the owner of all enterprises. The state represented by the government inserts the board of directors and runs the enterprise which in practice means that top level party apparatchiks reap the profits and benefits for themselves and workers are exploited with low pay and poor working conditions. @mok0 Ok, well I'm obviously not talking about or advocating for any form of government ownership. I'm clearly advocating for Anarcho-Communism, which lacks any government. @Radical_EgoCom in case of private, owned by who? The worker, the boss, who else? @Radical_EgoCom I mean, you said "private ownership of means of production", but I think it's different if the workers own their means of productions, or if those means are owned buy someone else (as it is today) @sabrinaweb71  @Radical_EgoCom Γa dΓ©pend de quels moyens de production on parle. @Mourioche Je fais rΓ©fΓ©rence Γ tous les moyens de production, c'est-Γ -dire les usines, les outils, les machines, etc. qui sont utilisΓ©s pour fabriquer des produits.  @Radical_EgoCom Depends on what you call βcollectiveβ. If it is just a party secretary who then controls it, nothing changed. The means of production need to be controlled (no need for the term ownership) by those who actually produce. @forthy42  @Radical_EgoCom Ownership is a convenient social construct, or fiction if you prefer.   @dr_jo_mue Depends on what? Private ownership of the means of production is the only option that allows for monopoly. @Radical_EgoCom There is no such thing. If the state runs the companies, you have your monopoly. If you have a problem with the officer of your branch, you're in very bad Karma. There is no difference. What you need is unions and participation. I work for a Hospital that belongs to a local trust. If I have a problem with our management I can look 50 km across the land! Please point me to a country in which you'd say that it worked for the employees. There was Russia, North Korea, China.. chose @dr_jo_mue Russia, China, and North Korea are not examples of Anarcho-Communism. I'm not advocating for the state controlling the means of production, I'm in support of the workers directly owning and managing the means of production without any authoritative structures or hierarchy. @Radical_EgoCom well, and I think unions gave us every benefit we now have. I'd bet on that horse. @dr_jo_mue I also believe unions gave the working class every advantage they have now.  Both are good for different purposes. :D If we have a UBI, then providing the basics should be publicly owned for real resilience, but i own the results of my own creativity, so the tools that i make are mine. Note that this is valid up until we get real AI that qualifies for the rights held by all sapients. :D @BillySmith @BillySmith @BillySmith You clearly do. Also, I want to make it clear that by "private ownership" I'm referring to the private ownership of the means of production, not of things you create. I'm an engineer as well as a musician. Some of the things i create are music and song. Some of the things that i create are tools that i use to make more tools. Do i own the tools that i make? yes or no. @BillySmith If you made those tools then yes you own them. But most of the means of production aren't made by just one person, so this isn't really relevant to this discussion. Note that as i work on #OSHW tools, i am happy to share the designs, and help other people make their own versions, but i want to decide who can use my own tools. @BillySmith If you made the tools on your own then that's your right to allow whomever you want to use them. @Radical_EgoCom How about option c: the *decentralized* ownership of the means of production @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom and so could collective ownership, depending on how it is organized. As a social liberal, I would like to live in a society where everybody has >60% of the median income, and no single individual owns >Value of a Statistical Human Life. Still disparities in ownership and power, but massively reduced. Markets are swarm intelligences. Need to maximize number of independent decision makers for markets to function well. How are econ decisions made in your system? @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Toy example: Econ organized into communes of 200 citizens each. Each commune has democratic mutual aid society. Vs. hierarchical econ where 1% own everything, but evenly distributed within that 1%. Communal system has fewer decisions making entities than the hierarchical econ. (1 per 200 vs. 1 per 100.) More democratic, more compassionate. But perhaps less "efficient." "Travel fast, travel alone. Travel far, travel together." Need both. How much room for individual decisions? @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Indeed. But on commune, workshop system, same problem can emerge. Division of labor is more efficient, but separation implies inequality. If communes, workshops specialize, inequality would re-emerge. Solidarity, mutual aid would help, but "gifts make slaves like whips make dogs." Insurance socializes risk, but less important richer you are. Progressive taxation would help, but is it legitimate, or exploitative? @Radical_EgoCom Hence "toy." Commune is a collective decision making entity, rich dude individual decision making entity. Different methods, different strengths and weaknesses. (I.e., discursive dilemma vs. individual akrasia.) But both single decision making entity, functionally speaking. @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Co-operative ownership of the MOP for me, thanks. At least until our species has evolved quite a bit more. Yes, mixed systems. Also, could like some forms of collective ownership and not others. So, answering that collective is definitely better is hard.  @Radical_EgoCom Market infrastructure, rights of way, education, air, justice: 100% public  @Radical_EgoCom How would you define the collective? Say there's a factory in a small town; who's in the collective that owns it? The people of the town, the people of the county, the country, everyone on the planet?  Collective ownership is good, but "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" more important. The basis of the family, a functional tax system and functional firms etc.  @Radical_EgoCom and the means of everything essential to life.  |
Gregory's Server
@Radical_EgoCom it depends on what you call private.
I don't mind if the workers own a company, but not the whole society.