• deafboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    I thought owning the means of production was the point, but requiring a consistent argument from a communist is like requiring a consistent argument from a communist.

    • SwampYankee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      “Common ownership” as in the workers collectively own the means of production. You, individually, don’t get to own it, but a union of workers, a local collective, or the state might own it and decisions would be made, ostensibly, by the workers who make up those entities.

      • masquenox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        or the state might own it

        In other words… the workers don’t own squat.

        • Asafum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          There would generally be mandatory meetings for workers to attend that would allow for debates on the trajectory of the company. The state would “own” it but the workers would still direct it.

          In a very very small way, it is like what Germany does with large corporations. They require a percentage of the board of directors be actual workers so it’s not just a bunch of capitalist parasites making decisions that would hurt workers just to boost their own portfolios/profits.

        • SwampYankee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Depends to what extent the state can be said to truly represent the workers.

    • Asafum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      An individual can’t own the means of production, it’s supposed to be “owned” by the people. I’m not a communist, but that argument never changed.