The average joe pays for it, the big business simply put their stuff in panama

I agree. There is a gap between the small businessman and the big businessman, but the dynamic between what the worker may do and the employer can do in the present and future is still there.

I'm not arguing for a big government.

I don't want the state to nationalize everything, unless they have to when they're under attack.

I want worker's councils, unions, etc so the workers have a direct say in government and the economy. That's what socialism is about.

We can't have that without interfering with the Bourgeois' interest though.

That's an observable fact throughout history.

What happens when a new company comes up, and agrees that he owns the company, he'll run it without the counsels and manages to get big.

What happens to that guy in your society?

He wouldn't be allowed to run it without the council's democratic say in the first place.

It depends on the area, but in socialism

that kind of one man owns everything ownership does not exist.

Why not? It's his idea and he has people who consent to letting him keep it

Because it creates the inequality we talk about it.

You never said anything about people consenting to it.

The inequality now comes from that guy being taxed to high hell by government

It was implied, so they consent, what then?

Who does?

Why would the worker consent to a boss having more control over their lives, if the worker has control?

It's like asking why would the businessman not want workers to own the economy.

Believe me. some people don't want the hassle of counsels and all that, a company is able to find enough people who will do with a higher wage and a stabler job(they have to invest less)

I don't believe you.

What hassle is there?

It's not like it's mandatory.

That's why socialist countries crack down on people who want to do their own thing

This is a whole new government system we're talking about.

>Socialist

State Capitalist.

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

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

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

That doesn't make sense.

How so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not 100% his risk

Ye, and that other country would be successful