>>> In communism the beginning state is slave labor. (your work is owned by the state, not yourself)
> That is Literally the definition: society based on common ownership of the means of production
So, you're saying in communism, the state is owned by you, and your work is owned by the state. And that somehow is more slave-like than when your work is owned by an employer-organization that's owned by some boss?
> They try to hide that away by flowering you with "everything is free" and "communal this and that" but when it comes down to it, the very exact definition is you don't own your labor.
It's not any worse than a capitalist company town.
And honestly: a nation than banned private business and mandated that all workplaces be worker-owned cooperatives sounds both pretty communist to me and in no way worse to labor than our current system.
> If you own 1/1000000000 of the state and put in 100% of your labor power,
FFS dude. How much of my employer do I own now? It's probably less than 1/1000000000 of it.
> how much of that labor power output is now yours after you perform it?
More than now. Your "argument" seems to be: owning 0 is better than owning 1/1000000000.
Like, are you even thinking about what you're saying? Or are you playing LLM and just mindlessly regurgitating slop?
> And your reward? If you're lucky and things are not mismanaged, you get to eat and you might have a place to lay your hat.
You totally ignored my idea of just wiping out the shareholders and turning everything into worker-owned cooperatives, I, and every worker, would own a helluva lot more in that case (even though I own a fair amount of shares overall), and the economy would keep chugging along, more or less as-is.
A nation banning privately owned business and made everything worker owned is not how communism works. And even if it did - it drives 0 innovation, nothing you do as an entrepreneur is yours (except like you said, 1/num-employees). But like I said that's not how communism works- you as a worker get moved around where you are needed. You're not allowed to leave the company or the country, and you have no freedoms to say - this isn't fair.
It's mind-bogglingly evil and I can't believe people like you defend it on Hacker News of all places.
This is not the same as a company like Bob's Red Mill worker owned because Bob (who I actually met before he died) was a very benevolent person. Those people ARE lucky, but it's because they live in a capitalist society where they have rights to make choices.
The reality of communistic societies however is that it gets mismanaged by people in power due to fraud, power and control. The people in government also often decide to shut you up. If you speak up they WILL shoot you with a 15 50 caliber weapons for 1 minute.
Communism works great in small very focused communities of fewer than 30 people where you can - more or less- make sure everyone is doing the same amount of work, and you have the right to leave it if you want.
In capitalist societies you can own property, so you don't own 0, you don't own 1/100000000. Instead you have the option to buy 30 acres of land and build a house on it and have your own farm and do whatever the fuck you want on it - and ignore the state when you can - like I did.
> A nation banning privately owned business and made everything worker owned is not how communism works.
No, it sounds like "workers owning the means of production, which is communist enough for me!
> And even if it did - it drives 0 innovation, nothing you do as an entrepreneur is yours (except like you said, 1/num-employees).
Be more open minded. You're making some weird assumptions.
> But like I said that's not how communism works- you as a worker get moved around where you are needed.
Ah, I see what you're doing: you're "reasoning" by cherry-picking a particular historical example of a larger category (probably the centrally-planned Soviet economy, which is not even a good example of communism), then insisting that category can't be anything but.
> The reality of communistic societies however is that it gets mismanaged by people in power due to fraud, power and control.
Sounds like capitalism.
> In capitalist societies you can own property, so you don't own 0, you don't own 1/100000000.
I was being a bit hyperbolic in my comment. It's not actually 0, but you're trying to argue a smaller number is bigger than a larger number.
Instead you have the option to buy 30 acres of land and build a house on it and have your own farm and do whatever the fuck you want on it - and ignore the state when you can - like I did.
Only if you've got the money. Capitalism is great for the people who have the money.
I have basically no money, doing this paycheck to paycheck and some debt. But this is only possible in a capitalist country with property rights.
> Ah, I see what you're doing: you're "reasoning" by cherry-picking a particular historical example of a larger category (probably the centrally-planned Soviet economy, which is not even a good example of communism), then insisting that category can't be anything but.
The larger and larger a communist society becomes, the more it will devolve into soviet style central planning because of emergencies. The country will get its first food shortage and BAM everyone will be directed to do something different. And the reason food shortages happen is because the price of food and the prices of things end up being centrally controlled because revolt over prices. Because the government is required to stop price hikes, it ends up forcing a company to changes prices, possibly causing it to go out of business. It's a non-stop whack a mole with communism and ALWAYS will end up self sabotaging and turning into soviet style crapville. That's why I mentioned communism can be great with 30 people, but never great when a large 100m+ population is under communism rules. Market pricing works by self governing the prices and also allows for smart entrepreneurs to do something new and innovating.
> > The reality of communistic societies however is that it gets mismanaged by people in power due to fraud, power and control.
> Sounds like capitalism.
That is exactly communism. Pure Capitalism does not have fraud because the checks and balances are competition trying to wipe your company out - everyone has to work hard and fraud doesn't exist because there's no well of free money. I'm not arguing for pure capitalism because I like regulation for clean air and water, but when we go too far in the direction of free money wells, you can get MN Daycares - where there is no checks and balances. The government has little to no reason to check on said fraud because the government itself wants the fraud (for votes to keep itself in power, for example).
Thankfully because we found out about the MN fraud (and CA and WA and other states) the American people will not stand for it and crush these communistic policies - you watch it will happen. If it doesn't happen it's because the people that would have cared enough have fled those states in enough numbers and the rest in a fen slump while the treasury gets raided. This is why better states don't allow such government ruining policies.
> That is Literally the definition: society based on common ownership of the means of production
So, you're saying in communism, the state is owned by you, and your work is owned by the state. And that somehow is more slave-like than when your work is owned by an employer-organization that's owned by some boss?
> They try to hide that away by flowering you with "everything is free" and "communal this and that" but when it comes down to it, the very exact definition is you don't own your labor.
It's not any worse than a capitalist company town.
And honestly: a nation than banned private business and mandated that all workplaces be worker-owned cooperatives sounds both pretty communist to me and in no way worse to labor than our current system.