Comment by bongodongobob 6 months ago Nationalizing a company isn't communism and isn't intended to resemble it. 4 comments bongodongobob Reply sanex 6 months ago How is that not common/collective control of the means of production? thaumasiotes 6 months ago What would common or collective control mean? If everyone held "control" in common, it wouldn't be possible to do anything.It is possible to nationalize a company, though. For example, Saudi Aramco is owned by the state.How is that not common/collective control of the means of production? sanex 6 months ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is. yunohn 6 months ago Indeed, it’s actually a horrific non-communist pro-capitalist version that leaves citizens much worse off - see “bailout socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for masses”.
sanex 6 months ago How is that not common/collective control of the means of production? thaumasiotes 6 months ago What would common or collective control mean? If everyone held "control" in common, it wouldn't be possible to do anything.It is possible to nationalize a company, though. For example, Saudi Aramco is owned by the state.How is that not common/collective control of the means of production? sanex 6 months ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
thaumasiotes 6 months ago What would common or collective control mean? If everyone held "control" in common, it wouldn't be possible to do anything.It is possible to nationalize a company, though. For example, Saudi Aramco is owned by the state.How is that not common/collective control of the means of production? sanex 6 months ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
sanex 6 months ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
yunohn 6 months ago Indeed, it’s actually a horrific non-communist pro-capitalist version that leaves citizens much worse off - see “bailout socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for masses”.
How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?
What would common or collective control mean? If everyone held "control" in common, it wouldn't be possible to do anything.
It is possible to nationalize a company, though. For example, Saudi Aramco is owned by the state.
How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?
1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
Indeed, it’s actually a horrific non-communist pro-capitalist version that leaves citizens much worse off - see “bailout socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for masses”.