this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
1463 points (93.3% liked)

Memes

50208 readers
822 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Because in practice the line between capital and personal property is very thin. Can a car or apartment not be used to generate income in a modern economy?

When the soviets were in power they would force multiple families under one roof (kommunalka). Think 4-8 families sharing a kitchen and a bathroom. Each family was given just one room and all housing was considered communal housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment?wprov=sfti1

After Stalin’s death families began receiving single family apartments due to massive housing reform by Kruschev, but were hastily built and called ‘khrushchyoba,’ a cross between Khrushchev's name and the Russian term for slums. That by the way still leaves a multigenerational period from 1917-1954 where the kommunalka would have been the primary unit of housing.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You can generate money with a car or a farm. The whole problem with capitalism is getting money without working because you let people work with your stuff. So owning a car and use ist as a taxi is fine with communism. Having a taxi company is not. But you can form a taxi company with others. The difference is no one has financial power over others. No one just profits because he/she is the owner. There are people in charge but they are in charge because they have the knowledge and ability not just because they own everything and can do what they want.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Listen, I’m a worker who saved money through my labour. Why should I not get to use my saved labour by deploying it into an investment?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

People accuse leftists of idealist thinking but in what fantasy world are you thinking your personal savings from selling your labor is ever going to come close to what would be considered "capital" in the sense being discussed here?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It’s directly deployed in stocks and real estate, what do you mean?

Most capital is “collectively owned” through public corporations, pension funds, etc.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not most, in the US around 400 individuals own over 50% of wealth. Similar situation in Russia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You’re right that wealth is concentrated, but I was saying that the assets are collectively owned. For example I am a shareholder of Amazon, a publicly-traded company that Jeff Bezos owns a large stake in. So Amazon is “collectively owned” but each share gets one vote instead of one person.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Shares only give you voting power if you have a massive amount of them. In the vast majority of cases shares function as either a place to store wealth to protect it from inflation or as speculative gambling, the majority of use cases is not to signify ownership. I would not classify that as collective ownership, maybe only in theory if you don't look into it too much but real world application of shares is definitely not collective ownership.

I'm very much in favour of businesses being actually collectively owned through a coop business model though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Owning public stock is legally indistinguishable from directly owning a joint business venture.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Plenty of things are legally indistinguishable but real world applications are often quite different.

Though I would also challage that claim since owning a joint business gives you legal deciding power while owning 1 stock does not, you get zero votes from that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

It depends on the percent of the company you own.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Gee, who decided what is legally equivalent? Certainly not the people with wealth to buy politicians and judges.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Where do you think the value for your return on investment comes from? It's extracted from the labor of workers.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It’s not extracted it’s combined with labour to produce higher output than labour or capital on their own.

For example a worker with a shovel could only dig a small hole a day, but with the injection of capital (ie a backhoe) they can dig many more holes. The worker can increase their pay compared to what they would’ve made with just a shovel and the person that provided the backhoe can also generate a healthy return for their capital contribution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

healthy return

How is it healthy that some rich investor gets to play golf all day because he can afford to buy backhoes and hire people to use them? How is it healthy that he earns more money if he pays them less, or that he alone is in charge of resources that a whole community worked to produce? What is healthy about any of this?

What you are describing is the entire fucking premise of socialism: workers cannot afford the means of production, so production ends up controlled by a handful of wealthy capitalists with perverse incentives and no loyalty to the rest of the human race. An entire tradition of thought is dedicated to how unhealthy that is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Again, capital is extracted from labor. Who do you think built the back hoe? It didn't fall off the back hoe tree. Workers built it, workers designed it. If some capitalist pig didn't own it, then the laborers could just use it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Even a labourer who has saved up can buy a back-ho. The backho could have been produced by a communist country or work co-op. Who produced the back-ho is not important.

The important thing is that value is stored, invested and combined with labour to make everyone better off. This is why wages are higher in countries with more capital such as the USA.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Hmm, I got a feeling that there is no such thing called "investment" under communism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Invest in what?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Like what else would i do with it? Wreck the environment by spending it on things i don’t need?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That was a really fascinating read, thanks. Checked out a few of the other links from the wiki. Do you happen to have or know where I can see interior pictures and floorplans?

I'll try looking it up myself in the meantime; I love stuff of that nature

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

You should check out "The Cold War Podcast". The housing episode is really good.