4 ms·

Communism pretty explicitly involves the proletariat seizing the means of production, but go on. Cartels and anticompetitive agreements are part and parcel of

Communism pretty explicitly involves the proletariat seizing the means of production, but go on. Cartels and anticompetitive agreements are part and parcel of a devolved capitalism where the government provides no rules (or provides rules but no enforcement) to restrain capital.

Georgelemental 3y ago
Communism is when one entity controls both the means of production and the monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter a whit whether the head honcho calls himself CEO or Comrade, or whatever lies he tells about "the proletariat" or "corporate values."
- malermeister 3y ago
  That's just silly. By this definition, absolute monarchies, for example, would be communist as well. You know, Louis XIV, that famous commie!
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    In France under the Sun King, there was independent industry. The King set laws that corporations had to follow, but he didn't directly manage all production.
    - malermeister 3y ago
      Stalin didn't directly manage all production either.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        The Party sure did.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  It's actually not, words have meaning. Communism involves a class-less society, by definition a CEO can not be part of a class-less society; and public (read: State) ownership of industry, which private companies are obviously not. There are also plenty of examples class-heavy societies where the central authority effectively controls the means of production. Nazi Germany, Jacobean England and wartime America (Civil War or WW2) all had state command economies where the central authority controlled both the means of production (either de jure in the former case or de facto in the latter cases) and the monopoly on violence. Authoritarianism has similar traits across ideologies, but Communism is a different thing than Monarchy, Fascism or the many other ideologies that fit your definition.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    In anything related to Communism there is a huge difference between what various things are claimed to be and what they really are. A very large number of words used by Communists have other true meanings than their traditional meanings. A Communist society is not a class-less society, but is a society where there is a class of privileged people, who have functions in the hierarchy of the Communist party and who exploit the remainder of the population, who are reduced to a state extremely similar to the serfdom of the peasants in feudalism, i.e. it is forbidden for them to own many kinds of things and they frequently are forced to live wherever the privileged communists decide for them and not in the places they would like, and also frequently they may be forced to have jobs decided for them by the privileged class, instead of having the jobs they would like. This is how Communism has been implemented in Russia, and then in all countries influenced by Russia. Any other kind of Communism is just a fantasy.
    - Gud 3y ago
      No, this is the socialist state you are describing, not communist. The socialist state is the precursor to the communist utopia. You might think it's impossible to implement communism(like I do), but get your basic facts right.
      - adrian_b 3y ago
- idontpost 3y ago
  [dead]
Detrytus 3y ago
>> Communism pretty explicitly involves the proletariat seizing the means of production, but go on. So, by that definition, all publicly traded corporations are communist :) I mean, significant part of their shares is traded on stock exchanges and owned by anonymous members of proletariat :) EDIT: Also, think about all those Silicon Valley companies that pay their employees in stock options. Marx would be proud :)
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Show me the distribution, if it's fairly even across the population I might agree. Aside, I would hardly call Vanguard or Blackrock "the proletariat" - they are clearly entities that represent and profit off of the bourgeoise.
- derelicta 3y ago
  Publicly traded companies are more like oligarchies. The real wealth creators have no control over the said companies, only the oligarchs we love to call "shareholders".
adrian_b 3y ago
Communism pretty explicitly involves a small gang of people, typically installed in power by a foreign invading army, who seize all the means of production, and then they forbid to all the rest of the population to ever own any kind of means of production, reducing them to serfdom. Obviously, the gang that has seized all the means of production claims that in fact those means of production now belong to the entire population, but nevertheless the members of the gang are the only ones who manage all those means of production, supposedly because they are the most competent of all people and not because they are the servants or relatives of those who have seized the power by force, with foreign support.

Georgelemental 3y ago

Communism is when one entity controls both the means of production and the monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter a whit whether the head honcho calls himself CEO or Comrade, or whatever lies he tells about "the proletariat" or "corporate values."

malermeister 3y ago
That's just silly. By this definition, absolute monarchies, for example, would be communist as well. You know, Louis XIV, that famous commie!
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  In France under the Sun King, there was independent industry. The King set laws that corporations had to follow, but he didn't directly manage all production.
  - malermeister 3y ago
    Stalin didn't directly manage all production either.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      The Party sure did.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
arrosenberg 3y ago
It's actually not, words have meaning. Communism involves a class-less society, by definition a CEO can not be part of a class-less society; and public (read: State) ownership of industry, which private companies are obviously not. There are also plenty of examples class-heavy societies where the central authority effectively controls the means of production. Nazi Germany, Jacobean England and wartime America (Civil War or WW2) all had state command economies where the central authority controlled both the means of production (either de jure in the former case or de facto in the latter cases) and the monopoly on violence. Authoritarianism has similar traits across ideologies, but Communism is a different thing than Monarchy, Fascism or the many other ideologies that fit your definition.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  In anything related to Communism there is a huge difference between what various things are claimed to be and what they really are. A very large number of words used by Communists have other true meanings than their traditional meanings. A Communist society is not a class-less society, but is a society where there is a class of privileged people, who have functions in the hierarchy of the Communist party and who exploit the remainder of the population, who are reduced to a state extremely similar to the serfdom of the peasants in feudalism, i.e. it is forbidden for them to own many kinds of things and they frequently are forced to live wherever the privileged communists decide for them and not in the places they would like, and also frequently they may be forced to have jobs decided for them by the privileged class, instead of having the jobs they would like. This is how Communism has been implemented in Russia, and then in all countries influenced by Russia. Any other kind of Communism is just a fantasy.
  - Gud 3y ago
    No, this is the socialist state you are describing, not communist. The socialist state is the precursor to the communist utopia. You might think it's impossible to implement communism(like I do), but get your basic facts right.
    - adrian_b 3y ago
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]

Detrytus 3y ago

>> Communism pretty explicitly involves the proletariat seizing the means of production, but go on. So, by that definition, all publicly traded corporations are communist :) I mean, significant part of their shares is traded on stock exchanges and owned by anonymous members of proletariat :) EDIT: Also, think about all those Silicon Valley companies that pay their employees in stock options. Marx would be proud :)

arrosenberg 3y ago
Show me the distribution, if it's fairly even across the population I might agree. Aside, I would hardly call Vanguard or Blackrock "the proletariat" - they are clearly entities that represent and profit off of the bourgeoise.
derelicta 3y ago
Publicly traded companies are more like oligarchies. The real wealth creators have no control over the said companies, only the oligarchs we love to call "shareholders".

adrian_b 3y ago

Communism pretty explicitly involves a small gang of people, typically installed in power by a foreign invading army, who seize all the means of production, and then they forbid to all the rest of the population to ever own any kind of means of production, reducing them to serfdom. Obviously, the gang that has seized all the means of production claims that in fact those means of production now belong to the entire population, but nevertheless the members of the gang are the only ones who manage all those means of production, supposedly because they are the most competent of all people and not because they are the servants or relatives of those who have seized the power by force, with foreign support.