Message from @Green Syndicalism
Discord ID: 638377954505916437
I have a Communist friend. I understand why he likes it, I just think in practice it does not hold up and there is plenty problems with it.
There would need to be a great shift in culture and why people strive for better, rather than working just to do good work and being content in doing good work.
@Baratel Yang is the dark one but I don't know that it's supposed to represent evil
USSR tried real communism, it can't work
mises was right in 1920. even if you have angels, there is still the calculation problem.
there is also no need for 'full communism' or whatever. Capitalism isn't all bad.it does some things extremely well, such as provide for a robust economy to power a social welfare system
>if you have a stock market or are for them, you're not a socialist
this is false
like, you clearly havent read any serious amount of market socialism
Oh i have, actually arguing about it right now, cockshott and such
yea? ive read more than 10 books on this
and im telling you
*youre wrong*
so i dont give a shit if youre having an argument with someone on it
its uninformed
I wasn't really making a wrong or right statement there, i was more giving my opinion about the 'red line' between one or the other
and its an incorrect redline
ill prove it
suppose there exists 20 different "regions" in a country
it's pretty good. if the means of production(capital) aren't nationalized and if individuals can buy and sell shares in companies, etc, it's not reallya socialist country
there are at least 20 socially owned banks
socially owned can be in a gazillion forms, is a joint stock company considered 'socially owned'?
or a credit union
now in this system, you can have a stock market for the trade of securities between socially owned banks
if individuals can have property rights in stock, i think thats' the dividing line
socially owned as in, the people of that region have equal, or near equal, levels of shares in it
and they cannot sell the shares
it's not a technical argument, it's arbitrary but i think it represents a big difference since having property rights in stock versus not being able to have them is a big deal
but this is literally a socialist system which has a stock market
so....
youre wrong
that's not really a stock market
that's a socialist govenrment pretending to have a stock market
how the fuck isnt a market of securities being openly traded by all banks not a "market of stocks"
its not a socialist govt
holy shit
these banks arent owned by the government
you said "they cannot sell the shares"
yes?
that's a big deal