Why shouldn't workers own the means of production...

Why shouldn't workers own the means of production? Why should shareholders who don't contribute anything to the production process be entitled to the profits?

That would be antisemitic.

If you hire me to work with your tools, I own your tools.

How does that work again?

Honestly I can’t explain it but i instinctively think it won’t work

Explain to me how you would do it

Because a loooong time ago a business wanted a large influx of capital for (((reasons))) and now they are indebted to the (((shareholders))) ever since.

That makes more sense than "I own the most shares of funny money in this company so now I own it and everything in it".

who don't contribute anything

They contribute financing, you fucking moron. Without that there would be no production.

jews

the public will need to seize rights, its always been that way. the robust middle class of the 1950s and 60s was a result of both economic growth (post ww2. thats a key factor. opened up lots of business for USA) and intelligent workers who saw their value and capitalized on it. For 20+ years USA has subverted its middle class through off-shoring and mass immigration. Walmart for instance fires people who try to organize labor at a store

You don't have any right to other people's property. What are you, some kind of fucking Communist?

There's nothing wrong with that if it's part of the contract agreed to between the two parties when an employee goes to work for an employer.

Because the workers didn't pay for the means of production. If the workers want to own a factory, they just need to go out and pay for the construction of one.

If you don't think they do then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Shareholders give a company money. They do the exact opposite of putting a company in debt.

no employer would agree to that. Would you give your house away to some contractors if they came and did work on it?

ironically with all the "judeo bolshevism" stuff, communism is the ultimate solution to jews. they will not be able to manipulate the economy, where all of their power lies.

The issue is never that the workers cant own the means of production, its that certain groups decide to create laws that prevent others from creating competing means of production.

Which is what you get under communism.
They claim that free markets are bad and that greed is the cause of all our problems therefore we are going to deny you from setting up a business to compete.

The capitalism is therefore denied and they claim that the declining quality of the service these inorganic monopolies have under state capitalism would you believe it is actually the result of capitalism in this share holder economy, where the shareholders are the wider society.

So collectively the society owns the means of production under this communism system that we yave to say in the western world.

Workers CAN own the means of of production
Go set up your own company

no! I want to steal someone else's company!!!

some private equity firms will do leveraged buy-outs where they take out company debt to buy a company thus giving it massive debts, but that becomes the bank's problem if they agree to that.

By the same token, if someone wants to own the means of production, they shouldn't engage in a contract to work thinking that by doing so they will get the means of production if that's nowhere in the contract.

embarrassingly stupid or just a lying kike playing dumb

You are the one that is lying. Read your idiotic quote again and then try to prove it.

Shortly after the workers themselves acquire ownership of the means of production these start to wear down, break, stop functioning and no spare parts for repairs or new means of production are being purchased because workers don't know how to deal with money, how to find investors, how to negotiate with banks. If they even try to maintain their means of production instead of ouright selling them and spending all the money on liquor and hookers.

nobody expects that because they aren't 12 years old.

Most companies offer stock options you retarded commie

you are free to buy a business or any equipment and hand ownership of it to the workers, literally no one will stop you

What reason would there to be to invent or invest if any possible profit is taken from you by the workers you employed?

The worker does not take on any risk or delay of income. The investor risks all his capital and has no guarantee of any return. Typically investors make losses for years as the workers make gains until the business becomes consistently profitable.

Then I don't know why anyone would expect that they should get the means of production if the conveyance of such is not included in the contract agreed to between an employee and employer.

That would be like an employee agreeing to a contract to work for $12 per hour and then later asking why they didn't get $12 per hour, plus another $12 per hour that was never agreed to.

We are way beyond fundamentals to have a marxist economy. Manufacturing is peanuts, Marketing adds ~90% of the value of any item.

Because without the training, tools, production materials and the very factory provided by the owner, the working produces nothing. Their entitlement begins and ends with whatever the owner pays for their time. If they want a bigger piece, they can always invest back into the company through employee stock purchase plans, again, at the discretion of the owner.

Where did pepe's blue shirt go?

Because production involves an element of risk. By working for wages instead of for profit, the laborer gives the risk to the investor.

If you don't like it, nothing is stopping you from starting a workers' cooperative. But you won't do that because what you actually mean when you say the workers should own the means of production is that the state should own the means of production and regulate the economy.

Roughly five percent of federal spending goes to corporate handouts. Most countries give way more to corporations than America does.
You are the one who isn't paying attention.

Incel:

I can't find a woman who will have sex with me in exchange for what I have to offer.

Propertycel:

I can't find an employer who will give me the means of production in exchange for what I have to offer.

start your own company anon, then you will own the means of production

Because the "workers" no more rightly own the factory than the machinery does.

The factory is the property of the man who buys or rents the land and builds it.

The workers are engaged in a contract with the factory owner, which is negotiable and voluntary.

You neither have the intrinsic right to work at the factory, nor the intrinsic right to benefit from the factory's products, nor does the factory owner have any responsibility towards you, especially if you are a communist, who would likely enjoy murdering him out of envy.

in the contract agreed to between an employee and employer.

I don't understand what you're saying. Such a contract would never exist because no buisness owner would agree to that unless you are some unbelievable employee where the owner would give you an ownership stake to entice you to work for him.

no buisness owner would agree to that unless

It's really not that uncommon. Many small companies offer profit sharing and stock options. Almost every big corporation does the same.

I think the difference between what the worker gets and what the shareholder gets is due to the difference in the contracts they agree to.

The worker agrees to exchange control over hours of his time for a certain amount of currency per hour. The worker didn't agree to get the means of production, so he doesn't do so.

The shareholder agrees to exchange control over a certain amount of his currency for a certain percentage of profits. The shareholder didn't agree to work, so he doesn't have to.

Much of the confusion in Marxism arises from not going to the contract between the two parties and looking at what it says. Doing that could clear up a lot of questions.

No private equity should own everything and be allowed to dictate economic and social control over any country they see fit.

profit sharing is not the same as giving the means of production and no small company gives stock options because they aren't publicly traded companies. Only large corporation have those and you still need to pay your own money for the stocks. They aren't giving them away for free.

I think that's the answer to the OP's question. The reason workers don't get ownership of the means of production is because it's not in the contract.

Then the question is, why isn't it in the contract? The answer to that is that the owner wouldn't agree to such a contract.

Then the question is, why wouldn't the owner agree to such a contract? And then you could say that about any contract a person won't agreed to but that you would like them to agree to: they just don't want to.

I think that's where Marxism meets and impasse and crosses the line between freely agreed to contracts and contracts where one party is forced to agree, and if we are talking about being forced to agree to hand over property, then what we are talking about is a robbery, not a contract. That's a whole different system.

So perhaps the whole confusion here that Marxists run into is that they don't want to operate in a system based on contracts freely agreed to by free parties, but instead one based on sheer robbery by force.

Why shouldn't workers own the means of production?

because the people who own the means of production right now dont like to work.

Employees can take the money they earn and buy shares in the companies they work for.

Nobody likes to work. But for some people, that's all they have to offer in a contract to get something they want, like money. Another person might have something more valuable to offer, like money already, and so that's what they offer.

money is only valuable because of work others create , the person with money has no value if others are not working , the workers are creating the value that mans money has he contributes nothing if he doesnt work.

Because you have literally zero skin in the game. You can get a new job tomorrow with no issues.

give me all the reward with none of the risk

Average moron.

the confusion is that marxists don't understand how motivation and human behavior works. People start businesses hoping they can get rich and most fail in trying so. If you have a business get successful then you are forced to give your ownership away to the workers for nothing, then nobody will start businesses then since there'e 0 upside and lots of risk.

Low IQ. The person CAN'T WORK if there is no business investment. You moron. If the worker was the only source of money then why can't they make money independently? Idiot.

no because most companies are private and workers aren't going to have enough money to buy a stake otherwise they'd just retire.

then why can't they make money independently?

you don't make money independently , that doesn't make sense to me , if its a solo operation why involve money at all? if your working for yourself you dont need to pay yourself , you just work

The value of the man's money is up to anyone to decide. Some may think it has no value, so they would not agree to a contract to exchange something of value for his money. But others may think his money does have value, so they might agree to exchange something for his money, if they can get him agree to the exchange.

So whats stopping the workers from buying shares? They can all chip in and buy the company out or at least get majority shares and demand the changes they want.

Get all loans to buy shares, throw out CEO´s that are assholes and go over absolute profit on coast of the work force and so forth.

The value of the man's money is up to anyone to decide. Some may think it has no value, so they would not agree to a contract to exchange something of value for his money

yes exactly and the men will attribute more value to the money if more people are willing to provide work (often in the form of goods) in exchange . if there is no work the money is worthless

It's like Katy Perry thinking she's a fucking astronaut. You just work there and have no original thought.or innovation or you wouldn't just be a worker.

This is the level of intellect the average marxist is operating with.

That would mean everyone has to do work.

Why should both communists AND capitalists promote central banking?
Is there any group of people who might want to push central banking on the entire world?
Are you a Jew?

I see what you're getting at. You mean the means of production are worthless if there is no one to operate the means through work.

But by the same token, isn't work worthless without the means of production? A man could stand in an empty field all day doing the exact same motions he does at the factory, and at the end of the day, he could not find anyone to give him anything in exchange for the products of his movements.

It seems, then, that labor and means of production must work together to produce something of value, and it is in the contract between a laborer and an owner where the two decide how to apportion the proceeds from that value they create together.

How they decide that apportionment will likely depend on the alternatives the two parties have. Each will seek his best alternative, and it may be that the owner simply has more alternative laborers than the laborer has alternatives.

Each will seek his best alternative, and it may be that the owner simply has more alternative laborers than the laborer has alternatives.

this is true but only because of gatekeeping and crony capitalism , without those things the effects of real capitalism could boost the efficiency of the "means of production" side of the equation as currently in the west it seems beyond corrupt, with a few real workers providing most of the labor for the throngs of fake labors and managers who contribute very little.

You have no idea what your talking about nobody gives a fuck about your prefab shop or grocery store. Its about international companies that became monopolies through their access to the government.

I think you have it wrong, friend. If production were made more efficient, the pot to share between owners and workers would certainly become bigger. But there is no reason to think that the workers would get any more of the pot than they do now. All of the extra would go to the owners, again because of the difference in alternatives. In fact, if all the fake workers and needless managers were knocked down to the level of base workers, the owners would have even more alternatives and could thus give the workers even lower wages than they get now.

Again, I think the main problem here is the difference in alternatives. The employer has really too many alternatives when selecting workers, thus reducing the value any given worker can present in a contract for employment, while the worker has too few alternatives when choosing employers, thus increasing the value he brings to a contract.

Increased profitability induces competition.

If the way you increase profitability is by cutting your workforce and increasing the number of jobless workers, then competition may increase between employers, but it will increase much more between employees because there are so many more of them. It is that greater increase in competition between employees that would drive down wages.

You are getting two different things mixed up, general efficiency and profitability. something can be very productive but not very profitable , something capitalists sometimes have a hard time wrapping their heads around

I don't think your math checks out. If you're in the paperclip business and you increase profitability by cutting the useless workers, then some other capitalist will see that paperclip profitability is beating the market average and will build a new paperclip factory. And that continues until paperclip manufacturing stops attracting new business. I don't see how the competition between workers will be disproportional to the competition between employers.

As far as efficiency is concerned, fewer workers are needed, thus swelling the numbers of unemployed, thus increasing competition between them, and ultimately collapsing their wages.

Where Marxists go wrong is in thinking that the apportionment of profits into wages is based on how much profits there are, but it's not. It's based on the lowest wage an employee will settle for. Wages could go up today if employees would only settle for higher wages, but because of employee competition, they can't. If you increase employee competition through increased efficiency, you will further lower the lowest wage employees will settle for, thus reducing wages overall.

What the fuck is with all the commies on /pol. You fucks should all move to Cuba. If i have a roofing company and i own the trucks/tools/bid the jobs/pay everyone than i get the fucking profits and you get your $8/hour.

As far as efficiency is concerned, fewer workers are needed

your only thinking this half way through, sure we can get 5 workers to do the work of 50 but that doesn't mean you have to fire the other 45 , you can just have 50 workers doing the work of 500. the economic downsizing of the west is part of an agenda

you're fired.

You may be right. It would depend on where the increased efficiency comes in and how many employees are let go. If it's just a few middle managers, then the increase in workers would probably not be proportionately greater than the increase in factories.

But I'm not clear on why those middle managers would be employed in the first place if they are not needed and the goal is profitability, so I don't know why this method of increasing efficiency would ever happen.

The profits would be greater, but the competition between workers would remain the same, and since that's what determines wages, wages would also stay the same, while the profits for the owners would go up.

Have you worked at McDonalds anon? Would you trust your coworkers by democratic vote to efficiently run and control the source of their paycheck?

It’s a manner of juggling risks and trade offs. Put more money in, get more money out. Risk your dough, lose your dough. Have responsibility for profit or loss, or just responsibility to show up, fry fries and earn a paycheck.

I’d give it to you on shareholders though. Shareholder supremacy has gone too far and taken the dynamic thrust out of capitalism in favor of autistic bean counting.

they should. they shouldn't