← Back to context Comment by bongodongobob 15 hours ago Nationalizing a company isn't communism and isn't intended to resemble it. 4 comments bongodongobob Reply sanex 15 hours ago How is that not common/collective control of the means of production? thaumasiotes 8 hours 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 5 hours ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is. yunohn 8 hours 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 15 hours ago How is that not common/collective control of the means of production? thaumasiotes 8 hours 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 5 hours ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
thaumasiotes 8 hours 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 5 hours ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
sanex 5 hours ago 1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
yunohn 8 hours 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”.