What exactly are the 'means of production'?

>who resolves disputes?
We don't know. Most revolutionary workers councils have been absolute permanent sessions with a united executive and parliamentary and an extra-legal revolutionary focus on survival. (Note, I'm not talking about the bolsheviks, but about actual workers councils here). I know of one instance where there was a strong engagement with constitutionalism by a workers council movement led by revolutionary social democrats, Hungary 1956, where they got the council of lawyers in to work on drafts. Similarly in the movement in the Czechoslovak republic towards workers councils in 1968.

Parties and unions have tended to not have strong judicial procedures. Consider, even through the distortions of a bourgeois dilettante run movement, the failures of the UK SWP control commission.

Or you could just watch the German modernist film M and read Brecht's Caucasian Chalk Circle.

can we stop flooding Veeky Forums with /pol/ threads? seriously I'm fucking tired of the "we wuz" memes and the hitler threads and the "what skin color did this historical figure had" please, you have a board already why would you do this to Veeky Forums? it had so much potential :(((

hey man, Veeky Forums is still kinda good. the dude replying to my posts is really informative.

The main concern I have with socialism is the loss of individual rights (the proletariat dictatorship, why would they ever give up power?). I support progressive taxes, welfare, and economic interventionism, but socialism (maybe I should say marxism, I'm still a bit clueless) has so a lot of interpretations and I disagree with most of them, but perhaps they're not truly socialist.

>Implying thought

>moot avoids creating Veeky Forums because he thinks it will just become /pol/ 2: Dates edition
>Hiroshima Nagasaki creates Veeky Forums because people ask him to
>It becomes /pol/, doesn't even have dates

Except his never became pol. Aside from the general ww2 themed threads the mods and anons have been pretty good deleting pol shit whenever it comes up. Leftpol however has managed to get away with posting unlimited threads on Marx Lenin and communism. If anything they should delete int since it's now basically pol with flags.

The trick with Marx is that you can seem to say a lot of valid things but in the end, it's all meaningless and subject to interpretaion.

See
While a lot has been written, it doesn't actually say anything.

Veeky Forums is pretty good still
A lot of bait threads get turned into actual discussion since we know how to deal with it

that's because we're post-meme.

Ok, so what are you going to say instead? My reason for not supporting marx is that a true upheaval of the system requires a proletariat dictatorship, and even if it's benevolent what incentive would they have to give up power. There are too many things like dissent and right to property that have no solutions. Or the dissolution of all states.

All the time I hear socialism either glorified or demonized for moralistic reasons, rather than a common sense debunking. I actually agree with Marx's critique of capitalism, but ultimately it IS the freest economy.

Int and pol have been joined at the hip since forever

>we take hem
>collectively appropriate them

ha because if poor people are good at anything it's uniting and helping one another. I'm sure you'll just blame it on the upper classes poisoning the lower classes minds. Because there's no way the uneducated masses could have prejudices or self interests beyond a massive collective.

>What exactly are the 'means of production'?
Anything that produces wealth.

>proletariat dictatorship, and even if it's benevolent what incentive would they have to give up power.

He didn't mean a Stalinist party-dictatorship, numb nuts.

>but ultimately it IS the freest economy

Any substantial economic freedom can only feasibly exist for the wealthy in the context of an economy with private ownership of production, otherwise the term is just a meme. Capitalism and socialism are really just two different systems for putting goods on shelves and rewarding workers. The issue is fundamentally between wage-labor production for profit or currencyless production for use.

>He didn't mean a Stalinist party-dictatorship, numb nuts.

obviously, but if you overthrow a government, you need to replace it with something or the infrastructure of the state will deteriorate. So there's SOME group acting as the government while the means of production are transferred to the people. And why would they give up power once they've seized?

>Any substantial economic freedom can only feasibly exist for the wealthy in the context of an economy with private ownership of production

Ben Carson. Steve Jobs. JK Rowling. Oprah. Alexander Hamilton. 50 Cent. Eminem.

>or the infrastructure of the state will deteriorate
This is what most workerist communists have sought.

OK, I guess they can enjoy their no roads or education or trains or police

>roads
Built by workers. Since the 1970s designed by workers.

>education
Provided by workers to workers.

>trains
Built by and run by workers. Since the 1990s designed by workers.

>police
>no police
Good.

>Built by workers. Since the 1970s designed by workers.

what if they don't want to build the roads? why should they? they already have food and health provided to them by other workers. if I had those guaranteed, I wouldn't decide to build a road.

>Good.
but what about when my farm is set on fire by an arsonist? didn't my land actually belong to him as well? who tells him he can't do that? who punishes him? on what grounds?

>I wouldn't decide to build a road.
What an n=1 observation.

>but what about when my farm is set on fire by an arsonist? didn't my land actually belong to him as well? who tells him he can't do that? who punishes him? on what grounds?

but that's *the* critique of marx. that there's no longer incentive to do anything.

What the fuck are you talking about
Anybody who criticises Marx along those lines clearly hasn't read him

>muh welfare state
>muh leeches on society

>obviously, but if you overthrow a government, you need to replace it with something or the infrastructure of the state will deteriorate.
The infrastructure of the state deteriorating is the POINT.

I don't really want to go in circles but I said earlier I fail to see why laborers would build the roads. one solution is national socialism, where you HAVE to put in to get out, but that's not a free society in my view.

otherwise, what's the incentive to do work? infrastructure crumbling means roads don't get fixed or transportation doesn't work

I would like to be wrong, I want to understand feasible marxism

I'm nothing close to an authoritarian or a communist in nature, but your hypothetical situations are silly. You can do much better to poke holes in their platform.

If a farm is set on fire by an arsonist, the arsonist is properly punished (hanging and gibbetting is a favorite of mine) for maliciously destroying a method of food production.

Roads are a pretty common sort of topic for political discussions I'm involved in since I'm a jackass lolbertarian/individualist.

Since we're not discussing a hypothetical/fictional nation completely bereft of roads, I'll assume that you're talking about road maintenance and new construction.

I reckon it is assumed (remember, I'm not standing with these guys here) that if there is sufficient need for a road (factory needs to take some shit elsewhere), it will be built by those that would directly use it, ie the workers of that factory.

I'd argue that in order to run a proper communist nation, extraordinarily strict measures against refusal to be productive/work would need to be in place to prevent an economically failed state.

Of course, then you get vladimir vladivostok accusing dmitri slavivov of hoarding goods or shirking labour because dmitri fucked vlad's wife.

>Some marxists tell me capital and natural capital are, sometimes they're just factories and resources and shit.
That's capital

>So how do you give that to the working class? What does that mean?
How do shareholders own a company?

>That every person on earth owns the land?
They own it collectively, yes

>Why couldn't someone just knock down your house and build one of their own?
Because it's not their personal property, and one individual doesn't get to deprive another person of his non-capital personal property. If collectively society agrees your illegal settlement on the bank should be demolished, and the other guy should be able to build a house there, then yes, it could happen. The part you don't seem to get is that it is a democratic decision of society, not one individual versus another individual.

>Or if I'm a member of the working class, why can't I decide to do with the resources myself?
You can, if it's not capital

>If I build a factory does everyone else just take it away?
You get fairly compensated by society for your labor, according to what society feels is fair, just as if you had been hired by someone to build a factory. You don't own the factory, society does, and society as a whole gets democratically to decide what to do with it.

If you're able to convince society, they may let you run the factory, but you have no explicit rights due to private ownership, and your position as manager of the factory is at the will of the people.

>Seems like way too big of an oversight. What the fuck was Marx thinking?
The part where rabid individualists don't understand what society or democratic decision making is.

Basically, you should just imagine that every company is a public company, and every adult individual is an equal part shareholder. There's no individual that owns 51% of the shares, and the CEOs and executives and the board are at the mercy of society as a whole, because society as a whole are the shareholders.

>what if they don't want to build the roads? why should they? they already have food and health provided to them by other workers. if I had those guaranteed, I wouldn't decide to build a road.
Not everyone is a neet that is fine with no internet, a cot in a communal dorm, rice and beans 3 times a day, and free trips to the doctor.

>but what about when my farm is set on fire by an arsonist? didn't my land actually belong to him as well? who tells him he can't do that? who punishes him? on what grounds?
It belongs to society as a whole. And that arsonist only makes up one infinitesimally tiny fraction of society. The rest of society can tell him to fuck off and disenfranchise him, whether it be jail or execution or whatnot.

If you own a single share of microsoft, that doesn't give you the right to do what you want with the company and burn down the buildings. The rest of the shareholder owners can tell you to fuck off.

yeah that's a good point. the conflict can be resolved by union leaders or maybe a laborer militia?

as for the roads, I thought about that, but there are highways and other roads that stretch though the middle of nowhere. someone's full time occupation is going to be to build those roads. but in a society where any occupation gets equal benefits, what motive is there to work as the road builder?

and yes, like in nazi germany you could force people to work in order to get anything. I don't believe that that's a free society though.

at some point, you'll need workers to do jobs no one wants to do.

>I'd argue that in order to run a proper communist nation, extraordinarily strict measures against refusal to be productive/work would need to be in place to prevent an economically failed state.
To each according to his need only guarantees meeting the basic needs of people. It says nothing about the distribution of luxury goods or any of the production surplus of an industrial society.

What's guaranteed to you is basically a prison cell. You are fed, clothed, given medical care and housed. The only difference is you can walk out any day you want and decide to be productive.

It prevents any other individual from taking advantage of your need to survive to make you into a wage slave. Any exchange with an employer or other person is not because you need what they offer or their wages to survive, but because you freely and willingly exchange your labor or services for goods or equivalent that you want and are willing to work for. Not because you're forced to do it to make ends meet.

Most people would rather earn money and spend it on things than live in prison. The few that want to stay in prison are deadbeats, but someone could do that today by just committing crimes and ending up in jail.

>obviously, but if you overthrow a government, you need to replace it with something or the infrastructure of the state will deteriorate. So there's SOME group acting as the government while the means of production are transferred to the people. And why would they give up power once they've seized?
It would help if you actually had a democratically elected government which reflected the will of society. How does a democracy work without the president keeping power forever? Checks and balances are usually key, something you don't find in many so called communist states. So the government doesn't reflect the will of the people, and state ownership becomes effectively the ownership of capital by a class of party elites instead of society.

Sounds like a recipe for mass executions and gulag to me. Burke knew the score

thank you for these, they're good answers and what I was looking for.

so competition is there because if you're the head of a company you're basically on the chopping block if you don't work hard? that sounds ok. it's unfortunate, I think that a small upstart company could never overtake some gigantic one. and I dislike that society collectively decides what happens. but there are probably many different responses to that point. maybe lawyers decide.

Good explanation.

Keep in mind I do disagree rather vehemently with your ideals. Assuming that you aren't just trying to play devil's advocate here. But I do respect your reasoning and succinct explanation.

It is highly unfortunate that certain forms of economics/government are absolutely off-limits for discussion aside from HOW INHERENTLY EVIL THEY ARE, especially in the United States.

I'm rather endeared to aspects of fascism (although I'm no natsoc guy), but God help me if I try to explain it to folks.

Shit, I don't imagine you need much in the way of real organization to stop some dumb, vengeful motherfucker from burning shit down. But yeah, that's one way to take care of it.

Who said anything about a free society? In the United States, and likely every other nation on the globe there are plenty of objectively harm-free activities you cannot legally engage in. You could say that communistic ownership of means o' production inherently produces a less free society. I'm not sure if I'd agree with you or not.

But don't think that there is a government in existence that allows for a free society.

I've been thinking about it like this lately. If I could trust the vast majority of other humans in a nation, the best system of government would be a minimalist, highly individualistic form of confederacy. If I could trust a smaller portion of people completely, fascism or other authoritarianism would be the best.

But since I can trust very very few people entirely to make what I find to be proper decisions, capitalist democracy is the best option.

and by that i mean plutocratic oligarchy amirite :^)

>so competition is there because if you're the head of a company you're basically on the chopping block if you don't work hard? that sounds ok.
Yes. Marx was anticapital because he didn't believe the profit system with capital distributed profit according to labor that was used to produce the profit, but instead, labor became a commodity, and capitalists who owned capital pocketed the rest. Not that don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor, or said everyone should be equal.

>I think that a small upstart company could never overtake some gigantic one
That depends on how society sees competition. It's up to society. If society wants competition, society could grant you more of society's capital if you show potential, because society owns capital and decides what to do with it. Society could basically break up a zombiecorp and decided to let you use it.

On the other hand, society could want to absorb your firm into a larger one, if it feels a larger firm could benefit society more with whatever product you developed.

Society would still have to decide on what a suitably fair compensation package would be for your contributions to society. Some societies may promote more lucrative packages to spur innovation. Others may have a greater emphasis on equality.

> I dislike that society collectively decides what happens. but there are probably many different responses to that point.
It's up to society. The difference is society doesn't vote with their dollar, they essentially vote as shareholders.

I think the best way to imagine it is similar to how a current start up works. You find investors, investors get shares, you get working funds. You only get compensated as your role as president, not because of stock options though. If investors get fed up with you, they can change you out, same as any start up where you don't have majority share. Except instead of seeking individual investors, your investor is some sort of central bank owned by society.

this. some elements of fascism are aight

communism at times seems like the two wolves and a lamb, voting on what to eat for dinner. at other times, it just doesn't make sense because without competition large parts of society would placate.

my biggest problem with capitalism is how easily money can be manipulated..... you can make profit or destroy the holdings of others just by manipulating what you already have.

How do we decide what society wants? Maybe I think society has decided you are a dangerous subversive who needs to be shot, and with my demagogue charisma I persuade a majority I'm right

My real problem actually isn't at all with lack of competition stifling growth and suffocating the state.

Mine is that in order for communism to be realistically implemented, I can see no other alternative to authoritarian measures. I don't find it feasible for humans on this planet to self-organize successful communism.

I simply don't trust others enough for authoritarianism to appeal to me.

That being said, I feel that our very first priority as a nation, and even as a species, should be to research battery/propulsion technologies to facilitate real inter-planetary travel, trade, and colonization. Not for us, surely, but for our progeny and legacy.

Here.

Preemptively, before someone says how do you determine what's fair, I'm not determining what's fair. Society is. You can read up all sorts of philosophies on fairness. I think veil of ignorance works fairly well.

Further, you don't necessarily have to call for a democratic vote on each decision. You can have people vote for an administrative apparatus that is beholden to society, and compensation and staffing and even the structure and nature of check and balances is up to the will of the people.

If you don't like the idea of individual politicians, then you can come up with some apparatus that limits campaigning and politicking. Individual workers don't have to be politicians just live government works aren't all politicians. If you think corruption is an issue you create strong internal affairs and heavy punishments.

The important thing is to prevent individuals for seizing power and keep general policy decisions largely democratic.

probably the best critique in the thread so far. remember that any democracy is potentially susceptible to this though. the only difference is that the mediation by checks and balances has disappeared.

>How do we decide what society wants?
Pick your form of democracy.

>Maybe I think society has decided you are a dangerous subversive who needs to be shot, and with my demagogue charisma I persuade a majority I'm right
That's an issue with democracy, not social ownership of capital. You could have private ownership of capital, and that could make it even worse. And frankly, even if you had a bill of rights, if you were demagogic enough and charismatic enough, you could get it done anyways, even in the modern world.

That being said, a bill of rights is vital to democratic processes. Those rights just don't include the ownership of capital.

If you have an issue with democracy as a whole, well that has nothing to do with the social ownership of capital.

This too lol

no one wealthy or in power would peacefully allow true socialism to exist. I referenced the proletariat dictatorship up above.

I'd say conservation and expansion should be treated as equals

Basically the set of factories and natural resources that determines what commodities appear on the market.

Marxists think as long as a few private hands control such things, they will use them to gain undue power over everyone else. If we collectively own them, we can use them to benefit us all.

Marx never specified exactly how this would work, he's not a theorist in that sense.

>the only difference is that the mediation by checks and balances has disappeared.
Says who? I never said that you don't have checks and balances. I actually explicitly mentioned them here and later . If that's all the critique is based off of I think that's an unfair critique of socially owned capital. It's a critique of democracy, which is necessary for socially owned capital.

Socially owned capital doesn't advocate a specific form of democracy. It advocates a democracy that collectively owns and decides what to do with capital.

As other anons have said, this is the first critique of Marx I've seen on Veeky Forums with any hint if substance.

How the proletariat exactly runs the means of production is a challenge.

At present we have checks and balances preventing this sort of abuse. If you tear up the basic rights of society to substitute new ones you have no guarantee the rights you wanted to keep will still remain.

>As other anons have said, this is the first critique of Marx I've seen on Veeky Forums with any hint if substance.
That's not a critique of Marx. It's a critique of democracy as a whole. Only by extension of socially owned capital needing democracy of some sort, is it a criticism.

>How the proletariat exactly runs the means of production is a challenge.
By appointing or electing people according to their ability, and compensating them for the labor they provide. Just like shareholders of a public company do.

>At present we have checks and balances preventing this sort of abuse.
Yes, and there are other governments that formed with checks and balances as well. What's your point?

> If you tear up the basic rights of society to substitute new ones you have no guarantee the rights you wanted to keep will still remain.
I never said it did, and this is an issue for any transitional government. I answered questions relevant to socially owned capital.

I'm not answering questions about the nature of democracy, or how to successfully have a democratic revolution, which are only indirectly related to socially owned capital.

>That's not a critique of Marx. It's a critique of democracy as a whole. Only by extension of socially owned capital needing democracy of some sort, is it a criticism.
That just shows how bad critiques of Marx here are.

>compensating them for the labor they provide
fuck off with your inequality bullshit

my problem with transferring the means of production is that it cannot be done peacefully

I doubt anyone would say communism and socialism are flat out bad ideas (inb4) but a lot of things have to go right for it to happen

There is nothing wrong with inequality on some level. Socially owned capital reduces inequality, and reduces the nature of inequality worsening simply due to the fact that there is inequality (rich get richer, poor get poorer)

Equality is a favorite strawman of the right, and a favorite platform of the idealistic left.

The point is to separate capital from the person. Capital is not part of your person. Your labor and compensation from your labor is yours. You don't get income by virtue of owning capital. You get income by contributing to society and providing labor needed by society. If you choose not to provide useful labor for society, you at least get fed and a place to sleep.

>my problem with transferring the means of production is that it cannot be done peacefully
The same often is true of the transfer of enfranchisement to the common citizen for democracy.

The transfer of ownership to society is simply one of enfranchisement. There is in fact already an apparatus on how to run companies owned by many people, and let those people have a say on how those companies are run. The issue is enfranchising everyone in society to be a part of that process instead of just owning shareholders.

>but a lot of things have to go right for it to happen
A lot has to go right for any major political change to happen.

This
What is the Marxist response to Burke?

The same ones offered by American Revolutionaries.

>There is nothing wrong with inequality
Caste system pls go.

>a favorite platform of the idealistic left
Like Marx? He'd be terrified by your technocratic nonsense.

>separate capital from the person
Give the means of production to the workers by taking it away from them.

Lenin pls go.

>let those people have a say on how those companies are run
Which takes us back on demagoguery and majority decisions.

>A lot has to go right for any major political change to happen.
Change also happens when a lot also go wrong, look at Marx, he wants the State to fuck off as much as religion, and now he's basically synonymous with statism.

They go back in time and have a revolution before he wrote 'reflections'?

there could be a socialist republic

>Caste system pls go.
It's explicitly not a caste system. There's no hereditary transfer of capital, and there's no guaranteed right to being a member of a caste.

>Like Marx? He'd be terrified by your technocratic nonsense.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism#Marxism

>Give the means of production to the workers by taking it away from them.
Unless you're part of a co-op or independantly employed, the worker doesn't own the means of production. Either the investors or the executives do.

>Which takes us back on demagoguery and majority decisions.
Not that much worse than money connections currently in place. Difference is dividends won't go to making those even more exclusive. No one says you can't institute checks and balances.

>Change also happens when a lot also go wrong
A lot has to go a certain way, but usually someone thinks it's going right for them. If you're a Nazi you could say a lot went right for Hitler. If you're antifa you would say a lot went wrong.

Yes, in a socialist society we would have all invented a time machine by now to purge evil reactionaries from history.

The reality? The disenfranchised don't give a shit about what Burke said. They want and will fight for enfranchisement.

I'm sure they will any day now. Let us hold our breath. Certainly your views are widely held among the populace and onedaday the people will get the socialist utopia they all secretly crave

...

You do realize I'm not actually a violent revolutionary right? I'm not even a Marxist. I'm just discussing the topic of socially owned capital.

Never said you were. I'm also talking about socially owned capital
>They want and will fight for enfranchisement
And as if you have a clue what people want

I dislike Marxism - these are problems with your reasoning:
1. You assume that people will wreck other people's shit out of spite. That's very Randroid of you. Surprise, most people don't do horrible shit to other people because of social stigma related to it.

2. In Marxist theory of labour, work=wealth. Therefore people who would steal the means of production(means of performing labour) from the working class would rob them from means of acquiring wealth, therefore making them sort of traitors of the people.

3. It's not about literally giving them to working class as much as giving them control over it. This is obviously the social-contract-like view on the state applied to business - the society gave absolutes or elected representatives the right to govern for the common good, the workers gave the managers right to control the workplace for the common good - although just like in case of social contract, there idea that elective/organic leadership is better than hereditary/legalist leadership as the elective/organic leader had to gain the support from the people he's going to lead(the mandate of the masses - sounds familiar?), while the hereditary/legalist leader simply has the holy right to rule(which is something materialistic Marxist couldn't accept).

But who will distribute that collective capital.
Who operates the capital now.

>there idea that elective/organic leadership is better than hereditary/legalist leadership as the elective/organic leader had to gain the support from the people he's going to lead(the mandate of the masses - sounds familiar?), while the hereditary/legalist leader simply has the holy right to rule(which is something materialistic Marxist couldn't accept).
oh also because those organic/elective leaders sort of represent people they lead it's more likely that they will actually pursue the common good rather than their private interests, that's why liberalism is so pro-democratic in the first place.

>And as if you have a clue what people want
In a revolutionary context. You asked for a counter to Burke's arguments against revolutions, not why I think the people will will rise up in revolution, because I don't.

That is, you posted the question as "Given revolutions are bad how do you justify revolutions?" which is a question about revolutions, not socially owned capital, which as an abstract concept can exist independently of revolution. Now you're posing the question as "Why would they revolt in the first place?"

Neither is directly related to socially owned capital, they're general questions about the nature of revolutions.

You create a caste system by means of making sure the supposed biggest contributors to society (according to whom? themselves, of course) have superior living standards and reproduce with other supposed biggest contributors to society, thus the master race of technocracts is born.

They don't have to transfer the ownership of capital, only make the decisions that actually matter, for example who is allowed in the caste of people that make the decisions that actually matter.

On the subject of "To each according to his contribution" and "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need", let's see what an encyclopedia that isn't about anime has to say:
>Marx would resist the description of this norm as a principle of justice or moral rights. One consideration in his mind may be that moral rights ought to be enforced, but when it is feasible and desirable to implement higher-phase communist distribution, the implementation can be carried out successfully without any legal or informal coercion, and hence should not occur through any process of social enforcement.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/#KarMarEquRig

I don't see where the endgame for Marx would be your technocratic dystopia.

>We don't know
That doesn't sound like a very confident argument.

damn, I'm pretty sure I've been everything on here at some point, should I just kill myself

where are you now?

>actually pursue the common good rather than their private interests
That's why you put mechanisms and checks and balances so that those interests are aligned. Seeking to benefit the self benefits society.

That's one of the nice things about a perfectly competitive commodity market. Interestingly a perfectly competitive market implies there aren't barriers to entry, like capital.

toward the bottom, fluctuating between left and right

But socially owned capital necessitates some sort of social change to accomplish. Pretending its all just airy theory is disingenuous.

I want a pure aryan society. Why do you think I want to get rid of jews? All I'm talking about is a pure aryan society which as an abstract concept can exist independently of genocide

>You create a caste system by means of making sure the supposed biggest contributors to society (according to whom? themselves, of course)
According to society. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that a working democratic process is necessary.

>reproduce with other supposed biggest contributors to society, thus the master race of technocracts is born.
Okay? I guess if you want to consider genetics capital. But anyone that happens to be born a retard gets thrown out of this caste, and anyone born smart suddenly rises to this caste. I don't really see this as a problem, and it's not really any worse than any other system. At least it's a meritocracy, which most people would not consider a caste, especially if achieving personal capital through education is provided to everyone.

>They don't have to transfer the ownership of capital, only make the decisions that actually matter, for example who is allowed in the caste of people that make the decisions that actually matter.
But they're not society as a whole, unless they can disenfranchise most of society, in which case it stops being socially owned capital. For some reason you get to assume there's no democratic apparatus in place.

>Marx would resist the description of this norm as a principle of justice or moral rights. One consideration in his mind may be that moral rights ought to be enforced, but when it is feasible and desirable to implement higher-phase communist distribution, the implementation can be carried out successfully without any legal or informal coercion, and hence should not occur through any process of social enforcement.
To be honest, I have a hard time believing in completely stateless socially owned capital considering the nature of ownership is in the law. I'm not sure where you got coercive from anywhere. I said people are free not to work, or people are free to contribute to society and be compensated in kind.

Honestly that quote is inarticulate.

>But socially owned capital necessitates some sort of social change to accomplish.
Any alternative system requires social change. It's not a question aimed directly at socially owned capital. It's a question aimed at anything that isn't the status quo. And the reason why people go against the status quo is because they think the status quo is worse.

>Pretending its all just airy theory is disingenuous.
But it is airy theory. Are you seriously advocating socially owned capital is a likely and realistic expectation any time in the near future?

>I want a pure aryan society. Why do you think I want to get rid of jews? All I'm talking about is a pure aryan society which as an abstract concept can exist independently of genocide
Okay, and just like you don't like people talking about socially owned capital, people don't like you being a Nazi. No one is arresting you or anything for posting on stormfront when you haven't actually commit a crime besides discussing it.

Are you assuming anyone who will talk about this stuff is a super PC SJW male-to-otherkin transsexual negroid Juden that hates freedom wand wants to censor everything and thinks you should die or something?

>anyone born smart suddenly rises to this caste
Only if the caste allows it. Why would they let a new competitor threaten their oligarchy?

>At least it's a meritocracy
Meritocracy is competition, Marx wanted competition to GTFO.

>I said people are free not to work, or people are free to contribute to society and be compensated in kind.
Marx wants to get people to pursue their interests, not start over with aristocrats of a different kind.

>I have a hard time believing in completely stateless socially owned capital
Marx wanted to get rid of religion AND the State.

A technocracy of those who contribute to society according to their ability:
- in war, it is called aristocracy, at least in its origins;
- in science or engineering, it is usually called technocracy;
- in demagoguery, it is called democracy.

Pick your poison.

>Only if the caste allows it. Why would they let a new competitor threaten their oligarchy?
Society as a whole, I don't get why you think this caste gets to disenfranchise people.

>Meritocracy is competition, Marx wanted competition to GTFO.
Citation. If you mean he wanted cooperation instead of competition, then the simple thing is that getting the guy capable of shit is useful and cooperation and unicorns.

>Marx wants to get people to pursue their interests, not start over with aristocrats of a different kind.
Society is deciding these things, not aristocrats. There's only this pretend aristocracy is society thinks that there should be one, and they're at the mercy of society, not that they control society.

>Marx wanted to get rid of religion AND the State.
Yes, well I'm not a Marxist, so I'm not going to defend industro-anarchism. Just because I can talk about socially owned capital doesn't mean I have to be a card carrying member of the Party.

>A technocracy of those who contribute to society according to their ability
Yes, and currently instead of people getting positions due to ability, they get positions through a mix of ability and capital.

>Pick your poison.
Honestly, you completely disregard my what-ifs, and strawman and substitute them with your what-ifs, and claim that's what I'm saying.

>- in divine right, it is called monarchism
Yeah, okay, whatever. I really don't see what your point is.

Even then, I'm not really seeing how this is any worse than the status quo.

>Pick your poison.

So your argument is it isn't perfect and therefore bad?

what was marx right about:
-in his time?
-in 2016?

- Having a beard
- Having a beard

>Society as a whole
But how? By voting? Why should determining the hardest worker be degraded into a popularity contest?

>Citation.
>The labourers compete not only by selling themselves one cheaper than the other, but also by one doing the work of five, 10, or 20
>the more he works, the more he competes against his fellow workmen, the more he compels them to compete against him

>Society is deciding these things
No, the individual decides his pursuits, Lenin pls go.

>I'm not a Marxist
Figured as much, as no Marxist would put merit and social climbing above all things, and all these social liberalism types are more liberalists than social. And in denial.

>Yes, and currently instead of people getting positions due to ability, they get positions through a mix of ability and capital.
Genetic capital. Political capital.

People with ability concentrate where other people with ability are, and this happens in your system BY DESIGN, as they would be working together for their personal enrich- for the Greater Good, and not in isolation.

Ability is capital too.

>I really don't see what your point is.
That your technocracies and democracies are just each a particular case of aristocracy.

Marx's point is: "How about we transcend all of this bullshit by means of revolution and historical transitions, and liberate the alienate worker by making him the messiah of himself?"

>But how? By voting? Why should determining the hardest worker be degraded into a popularity contest?
It already is a popularity contest, just with a very select few capitalists, deciding executives deserve hundreds, or even thousands as much as a rank and file worker. That's not degrading, that's an improvement.

>The labourers compete not only by selling themselves one cheaper than the other, but also by one doing the work of five, 10, or 20
>the more he works, the more he competes against his fellow workmen, the more he compels them to compete against him
That's descriptive. And the issue Marx points out is that work devolves into a simple wage-labor commodity, which later creates contradictions due to capital.

>No, the individual decides his pursuits
Where did I say society was determining the job? I said society was determining the compensation.

>Figured as much, as no Marxist would put merit and social climbing above all things, and all these social liberalism types are more liberalists than social. And in denial.
I never claimed to be a Marxist. Honestly, I can't tell what you're trying to say. Are you saying I'm really a anti-Marxist Marxist in denial?

>Genetic capital.
Very few fucks given if capital is reduced only to genetic capital.

>Political capital.
That's what the checks and balances and not putting everything to a direct vote is for.

>People with ability concentrate where other people with ability are, and this happens in your system BY DESIGN, as they would be working together for their personal enrich- for the Greater Good, and not in isolation.
It happens by design everywhere else, and you're the one saying they all cuddle together in a caste. I never said that. If you can align the interests of personal gain with greater good, there's no inherent contradictions. Reward people for contributing to the greater good, what is so awful about that?

>Ability is capital too.
If you consider a person capital because they can produce labor

>That your technocracies and democracies are just each a particular case of aristocracy.
No, it's a meritocracy, you're inserting your own for of non-merit based exclusivity to make it sound worse. Or if you aren't, no fucks given then. And there's worse things than rewarding people based on merit, like rewarding people based on how much stuff they have when property is just a social construct anyways, or hereditary titles, also a social construct, and so on.

>Marx's point is: "How about we transcend all of this bullshit by means of revolution and historical transitions, and liberate the alienate worker by making him the messiah of himself?"
You do realize socially owned capital can exist outside of the context of Marx right? For example I can take Smith's idea of markets, and not accept LTV if I so choose to. One does not have to subscribe to everything someone says wholesale.

If you aren't a true Marxist he can't use his Marxist straw man arguments against you, and has to resort to attacking you for not being a Marxist instead of being a Marxist, necause his attacks only work against pure Marxists

Stuff you use to make shit. You really can't figure this out on your own?

>deciding executives deserve hundreds, or even thousands as much as a rank and file worker
This is precisely what Marx warned us against, with the mechanization making the execs even more powerful and the wokers more disposable and alienated.

>Where did I say society was determining the job? I said society was determining the compensation.
Don't act like in your technocracy they are separable.

>Reward people for contributing to the greater good, what is so awful about that?
That the people receiving the reward determine what this greater good is.

Stop pretending you don't create yet another upper class that ultimately determines which members are allowed in it, the society's values, what the poorfags must do, and everything else.

Or at least tell how it is made impossible.

>And there's worse things than rewarding people based on merit, like rewarding people based on how much stuff they have when property is just a social construct anyways, or hereditary titles, also a social construct, and so on.
And so is this merit of yours.

I mean does it even matter that the bureaucrats ordering us what we're supposed to do with the capital don't have their names written on it?

They don't nominally own it, but determine every single thing surrounding it. A bureaucrat and his buddies choose when it is upgraded, replaced, destroyed, how it is used, when and what we produce, in what amounts, and so on. Great. Revolutionary.

How is that change? How is that progress?

Not only it's the same shit, it's the same asshole, too.

>This is precisely what Marx warned us against, with the mechanization making the execs even more powerful and the wokers more disposable and alienated.
This is the status quo.

>Don't act like in your technocracy they are separable.
They are. You're completely strawmanning at this point.

>That the people receiving the reward determine what this greater good is.
No, the people receiving the greater good decide what the reward is. It's the same way your capitalist boss profits off of your labor, and decides how much to compensate you for your labor, based on your performance and how much you benefited him. Even though your capitalist boss pockets the majority of the profit derived from your labor. You don't get to decide when to give yourself a raise.

>Stop pretending you don't create yet another upper class that ultimately determines which members are allowed in it, the society's values, what the poorfags must do, and everything else.
It's not unless they can disenfranchise everyone else. Capital is used to disenfranchise people as it is. Before then it was class, race, gender whatever.

In your awful dystopia, oh no people who don't have equal thinking genes don't get rewarded equally even though the results of their labor is different. Oh no. Lets bring back capital, so all those retarded rich kids can get by by just being rich capitalists.

>Or at least tell how it is made impossible.
Only that it's not as bad as that upper class being based on heredity and capital.

>And so is this merit of yours.
Yes, and? The point is, these things are social constructs in nature, not natural rights. One social construct can be substituted for another. To say a capitalist is entitled to the profit of the capital he owns is merely because of the social construct of private ownership. You can replace it with a different social construct, like a worker is entitled to a proportional portion of the profit derived from his labor based on merit.

>I mean does it even matter that the bureaucrats ordering us what we're supposed to do with the capital don't have their names written on it?
Yes, it gets rid of the capitalist class you don't interact with, that get rich by accumulating capital. If you work in a industry that requires multiple people, you're still going to have to interact with a manager of some sort.

In the current system, that boss is beholden to a smaller elite class of bosses of bosses, and so on and so on, until you reach the capitalist owners.

With socially owned capital, at some point those bosses are beholden to the will of society, and due to the bottom heavy distribution of common laborers verses managers, the majority decision making goes with the laborers, and the dividends that would otherwise line the pockets of some capitalist pig go back into society one way or another.

There's also the issue that privately owned businesses may act against the common good. If capital is socially owned, there's a mechanism to keep that in check. Those high up in the totem pole only stay there because they produce results good for society.

Are you really trying to argue
>i hate my boss and thats why im a marxist

>They don't nominally own it, but determine every single thing surrounding it. A bureaucrat and his buddies choose when it is upgraded, replaced, destroyed, how it is used, when and what we produce, in what amounts, and so on.
Yes, except majority worker voters can decide if they don't like how that works, they can come up with another system or get problem bosses replaced. As it is, your boss is not beholden to you in any way. With socially owned capital, he is at least nominally beholden to you and other workers. It at least improves balance of power between both parties, like unions try to get companies beholden to them.

>How is that change? How is that progress?
It puts greater good society at the top instead of extremely rich capitalists.