4 ms·
Relatedly, imagine the Soviet Union still existed and continued to own all productive property within it. Would the people who give absolute value to the right
by scarmig 8y ago
Relatedly, imagine the Soviet Union still existed and continued to own all productive property within it.
Would the people who give absolute value to the right of property holders to do what they choose with it support the Soviet Union's right to organize its economy however it so choose, along with controlling the media it owns and the workforce it contracts with? After all, it owns the property, and anyone with credible contrary claims to it would be long dead.
- orblivion 8y agoI heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs) I think the question here is legitimate ownership of property. If you think the Soviet Union stole the property (I do), then it should be assumed that it's homesteaded to those using it. Even Murray Rothbard suggested giving ownership of U.S. universities to students and professors, if I recall correctly. (I think it was in "All Power to the Soviets") I suppose you believe the capitalists stole the property, which allows for the same appropriation by the workers. But here's the thing: what then? Could the workers sell their shares? If they can, another capitalist class can emerge just as well, purely by preference of people wanting an earlier payout selling the shares + steady paychecks vs risking being responsible for the enterprise. And if the workers can't make such a choice, in what sense do they really own the share? (EDIT: I think Proudhon actually had a counter argument to this, I forgot what it was)
- mises 8y agoThe Soviet Union stole its original resources, but more importantly continued to steal all resources produced. See Dekulakization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization