8 ms·

This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production. Whether it be the Chinese Government or Amazon, concentrated po

This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production. Whether it be the Chinese Government or Amazon, concentrated power leads that power to make anti social decisions. Harm to the environment, harm to individuals, and harm to society can be incentivized by concentration of power. I believe a vitally important way to fight those powers is to build independent people-first power. We can do it. Our earth is so productive now that it’s possible to live like a king without hurting others. But we must abstain from buying this cheap plastic garbage like the product the woman found the note in. Buying products we know will become waste, or whose workers we can’t account for, means we are directly supporting the destruction of the earth and of society. We have to stand up. We must. There is no other way to change. Not voting, not blogging. We must stop being consumers of harmful products and use our money to support organizations that truly represent change.

Pristina 8y ago
>This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production The irony of this is palpable. The communist government, who got there trumpeting this exact ideology, would be stopped by the exact same thing? Is this the case of those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it?
- xg15 8y ago
  "the people controlling the means of production" seems to be a much more basic demand than full-blown socialism or communism or a one-party state. I could also imply worker-owned factories or unions. If that is already problematic, then this would imply to me that the means of production should never be controlled by the people who do the actual work, otherwise we'd get an authoritarian outcome - which seems a pretty authoritarian statement in itself.
  - xg15 8y ago
    * It could also imply
- ardy42 8y ago
  >> This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production > The communist government, who got there trumpeting this exact ideology, would be stopped by the exact same thing? Is this the case of those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it? To be fair to the GP, that's not the "exact [same] ideology" it's more like the "exact same goal." There are different ways of achieving the same goal, and obviously the methods touted by the CCP in this respect are completely bankrupt (i.e. control by the people == control by a revolutionary one-party state that does not tolerate dissent).
nemo846 8y ago
> people control the means of production Technically speaking, Amazon’s shareholders are people too - they aren’t part of the government. Should we mandate that workers own 50% of every corporation? Decision making is going to be much harder as you have to poll the workers to get a majority vote. What happens if the corporation gets super powerful? It’s still a concentration of power - the executive and the workers of the company.
- arethuza 8y ago
  Institutional Ownership in Amazon is 58% - so arguably most of Amazon's shares aren't owned by people. Of course, eventually all this bottoms out in people....
- ardy42 8y ago
  >> it is so important that the people control the means of production > Technically speaking, Amazon’s shareholders are people too - they aren’t part of the government. You left out a very important word from your quote of the GP that's critical to the GP's meaning. I quoted him more fully and emphasized the unquoted word, the, above. The people != some random group of people who aren't part of the government. The people should be understood as all the people of the nation. "People," by itself, could be a small (or large) group of oligarchs. Those are very different things. > Should we mandate that workers own 50% of every corporation? > Decision making is going to be much harder as you have to poll the workers to get a majority vote. Democracies have a lot of experience with representative bodies that can support faster decision-making while still having some accountability to the people. It's a straw-man to to present worker representation as being direct democracy for every decision.
  - nemo846 8y ago
    > The people != some random group of people who aren't part of the government. The people should be understood as all the people of the nation. "People," by itself, could be a small (or large) group of oligarchs. Those are very different things. That’s the thing. Anyone can be a shareholder of a corporation. There is nothing preventing anyone from buying shares. You just have to be willing to risk your money to buy said shares that may or may not yield any returns - i.e. risk throwing away your money. > Democracies have a lot of experience with representative bodies that can support faster decision-making while still having some accountability to the people. It's a straw-man to to present worker representation as being direct democracy for every decision. On a separate note, THE people already have democratic control over the most powerful organization in the land, their government. The government can unilaterally (corporations have no real say) set laws and even break up corporations or even just outright seize them (i.e. nationalization).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
andrepd 8y ago
>This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production. Absolutely. The reasons for social control/ownership of the means of production are more than economic, it is a question of democracy. Voting isn't good enough, it helps people control the part of the power that is in the hands of the government, but not the rest. The more power is in the hands of corporations, the less power is in the hands of people. Eventually, even in "western democracies" (let alone authoritarian nations), much of the power answers to an elite few and not to the people. One even reconsiders whether to truly call them "democracies" when this is the case. Social ownership / common control of the means of production lets the people democratically decide how to best use those resources and those means to the best ends, rather than to the benefit of a select elite, whose interests may or may not, by pure coincidence, align with those of the general public. The latter system is broken by design.

Pristina 8y ago

>This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production The irony of this is palpable. The communist government, who got there trumpeting this exact ideology, would be stopped by the exact same thing? Is this the case of those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it?

xg15 8y ago
"the people controlling the means of production" seems to be a much more basic demand than full-blown socialism or communism or a one-party state. I could also imply worker-owned factories or unions. If that is already problematic, then this would imply to me that the means of production should never be controlled by the people who do the actual work, otherwise we'd get an authoritarian outcome - which seems a pretty authoritarian statement in itself.
- xg15 8y ago
  * It could also imply
ardy42 8y ago
>> This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production > The communist government, who got there trumpeting this exact ideology, would be stopped by the exact same thing? Is this the case of those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it? To be fair to the GP, that's not the "exact [same] ideology" it's more like the "exact same goal." There are different ways of achieving the same goal, and obviously the methods touted by the CCP in this respect are completely bankrupt (i.e. control by the people == control by a revolutionary one-party state that does not tolerate dissent).

nemo846 8y ago

> people control the means of production Technically speaking, Amazon’s shareholders are people too - they aren’t part of the government. Should we mandate that workers own 50% of every corporation? Decision making is going to be much harder as you have to poll the workers to get a majority vote. What happens if the corporation gets super powerful? It’s still a concentration of power - the executive and the workers of the company.

arethuza 8y ago
Institutional Ownership in Amazon is 58% - so arguably most of Amazon's shares aren't owned by people. Of course, eventually all this bottoms out in people....
ardy42 8y ago
>> it is so important that the people control the means of production > Technically speaking, Amazon’s shareholders are people too - they aren’t part of the government. You left out a very important word from your quote of the GP that's critical to the GP's meaning. I quoted him more fully and emphasized the unquoted word, the, above. The people != some random group of people who aren't part of the government. The people should be understood as all the people of the nation. "People," by itself, could be a small (or large) group of oligarchs. Those are very different things. > Should we mandate that workers own 50% of every corporation? > Decision making is going to be much harder as you have to poll the workers to get a majority vote. Democracies have a lot of experience with representative bodies that can support faster decision-making while still having some accountability to the people. It's a straw-man to to present worker representation as being direct democracy for every decision.
- nemo846 8y ago
  > The people != some random group of people who aren't part of the government. The people should be understood as all the people of the nation. "People," by itself, could be a small (or large) group of oligarchs. Those are very different things. That’s the thing. Anyone can be a shareholder of a corporation. There is nothing preventing anyone from buying shares. You just have to be willing to risk your money to buy said shares that may or may not yield any returns - i.e. risk throwing away your money. > Democracies have a lot of experience with representative bodies that can support faster decision-making while still having some accountability to the people. It's a straw-man to to present worker representation as being direct democracy for every decision. On a separate note, THE people already have democratic control over the most powerful organization in the land, their government. The government can unilaterally (corporations have no real say) set laws and even break up corporations or even just outright seize them (i.e. nationalization).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

andrepd 8y ago

>This to me is a reminder why it is so important that the people control the means of production. Absolutely. The reasons for social control/ownership of the means of production are more than economic, it is a question of democracy. Voting isn't good enough, it helps people control the part of the power that is in the hands of the government, but not the rest. The more power is in the hands of corporations, the less power is in the hands of people. Eventually, even in "western democracies" (let alone authoritarian nations), much of the power answers to an elite few and not to the people. One even reconsiders whether to truly call them "democracies" when this is the case. Social ownership / common control of the means of production lets the people democratically decide how to best use those resources and those means to the best ends, rather than to the benefit of a select elite, whose interests may or may not, by pure coincidence, align with those of the general public. The latter system is broken by design.