Message from @Seedle

Discord ID: 332572860352823299


2017-07-06 17:20:00 UTC  

State Capitalist.

2017-07-06 17:20:10 UTC  

if there were no people who would want the new guy on block then it simply doesn't need to be banned

2017-07-06 17:20:47 UTC  

@Timo))) There would be no one who would want someone having a private means of production, because the workers are meant to own it.

2017-07-06 17:21:06 UTC  

It's the way the economy and government is structured in a true socialist economy.

2017-07-06 17:21:15 UTC  

That doesn't make sense.

2017-07-06 17:21:21 UTC  

How so?

2017-07-06 17:21:28 UTC  

So there would be no reason to ban it because they wouldn't exist anyway right?

2017-07-06 17:22:16 UTC  

There would be no point or need for them, unless someone was trying to subvert the nation.

2017-07-06 17:22:46 UTC  

The rejection of private control of means of production would be like the garaunteed right to freedom of speech or assembly my friend.

2017-07-06 17:23:26 UTC  

There'd be a point for the capitalist, he'll make more money and gets to do something he wants without the annoying counsel. and he'll always find workers because people will simply go work there, every society had that

2017-07-06 17:24:10 UTC  

Your second point, that simply means you'll ban people from owning their own business, that's something a business man would object to because it's his idea and 100% his risk if he fucks up

2017-07-06 17:24:15 UTC  

So you're saying he'll go to a different country?]

2017-07-06 17:24:26 UTC  

It's not 100% his risk

2017-07-06 17:24:30 UTC  

Ye, and that other country would be successful

2017-07-06 17:24:35 UTC  

The people he employs also suffer from it.

2017-07-06 17:24:44 UTC  

It's basic self-determination lol.

2017-07-06 17:25:00 UTC  

less than if they were in the counsel and had their own stake in the company (what you want)

2017-07-06 17:25:10 UTC  

Timo, you realize worker's cooperatives are, by statistics, more productive than capitalist companies right?

2017-07-06 17:25:15 UTC  

If it's a better system, then you don't need the state to force it

2017-07-06 17:25:48 UTC  

That's the point, capitalism won't force communist like companies to be banned today

2017-07-06 17:25:48 UTC  

That's like saying we don't need a state to enforce laws on not murdering people lol

2017-07-06 17:25:54 UTC  

because they simply don't work as well

2017-07-06 17:25:57 UTC  

you need some regulatory means to abide by the law

2017-07-06 17:26:02 UTC  

in our current condition

2017-07-06 17:26:22 UTC  

Not murdering someone is vital to a stable state

2017-07-06 17:26:34 UTC  

means of production for every single person is not

2017-07-06 17:26:56 UTC  

Okay, what about assault? Or someone putting lead in food to make it last longer, but potentially lethal to humans like in some countries?

2017-07-06 17:27:13 UTC  

If the last thing happens the business would go out of business

2017-07-06 17:27:20 UTC  

He'll lose all his money

2017-07-06 17:27:32 UTC  

The fact that there will be a codified "Worker's have the right to the means of production" does not mean a socialist country can't be sustained.

2017-07-06 17:27:37 UTC  

sorry for just leaving before

2017-07-06 17:27:57 UTC  

can sustain but not thrive like a capitalism system

2017-07-06 17:28:04 UTC  

Alright.

2017-07-06 17:28:10 UTC  

So you're saying the capitalist won't like that?

2017-07-06 17:28:24 UTC  

won't like what?

2017-07-06 17:28:26 UTC  

the reason the lead-in-food company will go out of buisness is not a market mechanism, but because they'll be fined or worse

2017-07-06 17:28:41 UTC  

a socialist economy, and a socialist country?

2017-07-06 17:28:46 UTC  

Because I agree.

2017-07-06 17:28:47 UTC  

fined and sued by the people they harm

2017-07-06 17:28:56 UTC  

I consider that in my views.

2017-07-06 17:29:08 UTC  

yes, but that doesn't have much to do with capitalism