Worker or Communal Ownership?

[PoliticalNightmare]

I've been stuck on this idea for a while. Should the means of production be under the management and ownership of the workers who actually work their or society as a whole? I would like to hear the debates from both view points.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Idealistically, the means of production would be owned by society in general. Obviously the workers in a certain place would make the work-place function, but it would be owned by the workers in general, its just that the workers in the particular work-place represent the working class in that place of work, and run it for the benefit of their class.

[Invincible Summer]

If the pants factory was owned purely by the workers that operated the factory, then that is basically like a co-op, is it not? It's basically keeping private property.

I mean obviously the factory would be managed by the workers who work in it, but the ownership would be that of the larger community.

[fa2991]

What is produced and in what quantity, etc. should be controlled by society, but the workplace itself should be managed by the workers. Society would own the MOP, not the workers directly, though they would control its operation.

[ContrarianLemming]

Worker ownership is private ownership and socialism, because private ownership is not a characterstic of capitalism - profit/surplus value is

Individualist anti capitalist anarchists support workers ownership, like individualist mutualists.

We support commnal ownership because it is society - not those who work at the workplace - who use the means of production as a whole.

There is nothing capitalistic about private ownership, nor is there anything capitalistic about a market, so don't let anyone bullsht you about this, you might notice then whenever a ocialist here suggests workers ownership th first socalled "criticism" is that it's "like capitalism" or it would lead to capitalism, without any reasonable argument as or why or why this is capitalistic.

[Invincible Summer]

Worker ownership is private ownership and socialism, because private ownership is not a characterstic of capitalism - profit/surplus value is

Individualist anti capitalist anarchists support workers ownership, like individualist mutualists.

We support commnal ownership because it is society - not those who work at the workplace - who use the means of production as a whole.

There is nothing capitalistic about private ownership, nor is there anything capitalistic about a market, so don't let anyone bullsht you about this, you might notice then whenever a ocialist here suggests workers ownership th first socalled "criticism" is that it's "like capitalism" or it would lead to capitalism, without any reasonable argument as or why or why this is capitalistic.

But in a market, with price values attached to things, how will everyone be able to get things "according to [their] need?" You'd need the appropriate amount of currency. I thought the goal was to create a gift economy?

I agree that private ownership isn't inherently capitalist, but what advantages are there to private ownership of the MoP? If there is no free market, then what is the point of private ownership of the MoP?

[Magón]

But in a market, with price values attached to things, how will everyone be able to get things "according to [their] need?" You'd need the appropriate amount of currency. I thought the goal was to create a gift economy?

I agree that private ownership isn't inherently capitalist, but what advantages are there to private ownership of the MoP? If there is no free market, then what is the point of private ownership of the MoP?

Vouchers work. Give a voucher that says it's good for such and such a thing, get a pork roast or something? Of course, these vouchers would only be distributed in certain quantities. Like I'd have maybe three pork vouchers for the whole month, maybe a fourth for say a party or something?

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Should the means of production be under the management and ownership of the workers who actually work their or society as a whole?


Obviously the workers in a certain place would make the work-place function, but it would be owned by the workers in general, its just that the workers in the particular work-place represent the working class in that place of work, and run it for the benefit of their class.


I mean obviously the factory would be managed by the workers who work in it, but the ownership would be that of the larger community.


What is produced and in what quantity, etc. should be controlled by society, but the workplace itself should be managed by the workers.


We support commnal ownership because it is society - not those who work at the workplace - who use the means of production as a whole.


Vouchers work. Give a voucher that says it's good for such and such a thing, get a pork roast or something? Of course, these vouchers would only be distributed in certain quantities. Like I'd have maybe three pork vouchers for the whole month, maybe a fourth for say a party or something?

To me communism is the total self-abolition of the working class, the demise of commodity exchange, and the abolition of 'productive labor', which is very different from what is being discussed in this thread.

[Invincible Summer]

To me communism is the total self-abolition of the working class, the demise of commodity exchange, and the abolition of 'productive labor', which is very different from what is being discussed in this thread.

Other than the mention of vouchers, how?

The use of the term "workers" is to differentiate from those not working inside the given means of production.

[this is an invasion]

"However, the people who "socialized" the universities did not see the factories as SOCIAL means of production; they did not see that these factories have not been created by the workers employed there, but by generations of working people. All they did see, since this is visible on the surface, is that the capitalists do not do the producing but the workers. But this is an illusion. Renault, for example, is not in any sense the "product" of the workers employed at Renault; it's the product of generations of people ( not merely in France ) including miners, machine producers, food producers, researchers, engineers. To think that the Renault auto plants "belong" to the people who work there today is an illusion. Yet this was the fiction accepted by people who had rejected specialization and "property" in the occupied universities. " - Fredy Perlman, Worker-Student Action Committees