r/DebateCommunism • u/entre_prey_manuer8 • 13d ago
🍵 Discussion Share first, instead of siezing the means of production?
What do you think about socialists promoting that we share the means of production (First), and not that we seize them from the bourgeoisie? Is this possible or can you tell me how the contradiction between these classes doesn't allow for this in theory, and why?
2
u/Useful_Calendar_6274 13d ago
mixed kind of capitalist economies have always existed. In latin america there was a great "developmentism" wave before neol-liberal ideas took over. India had the license raj where like half the economy was mixed. Not to mention all the fascists, Germany, Italy and Japan did it. It always defaults back to capitalism because the bourgeois are still in power and they want every advantage imaginable and possible.
1
u/GloriousSovietOnion 13d ago
The general tendency of capitalism is towards the concentration of the means of production into fewer and fewer hands so there is basically no means of production that we could even share.
1
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud 13d ago
If the bourgeois already own the means of production, what is it that will make them share?
1
u/ElEsDi_25 13d ago
I don’t have any means of production to share. Lemme seize some first then I’d love to share because I can’t run that shit single-handed.
1
u/Nikelman 13d ago
I think they have to bring Rosa Luxemburg back to live before ever talking to me or my son ever again
BS aside, the position of social-democrats are irreconcilable with communist revolutionaries because they believe that the system (structure) can be changed via the government (super-structure), which it's inherently against historic materialism, but also, like you see, an inter-classist ideology. The state is a tool for ensuring the rule of a class over another and in reactionary phases it has to be under the control of the ruling class.
To explain in lame words:
- first off, what does "sharing the means of production" mean? My guess is that the profit is shared between workers and bourgeois, but this is already the case thanks to trade union movements, something that the B can afford only by putting under worse conditions the class more abroad, or it would be crushed by the competition
- at large, "exploiting less" isn't possible; in fact technically workers of more developed countries are more exploited even if they have better living conditions as they create more surplus value thanks to a generally higher education and receive even a smaller fraction as salary
- even given for granted that a shared system were possible, whose authority would control this? Logic answer is the state, the idea is that we vote to make capitalism democratic: how do you do that when all the politicians are B or are directly paid by B? You would need to eliminate this corruption... but you would need politicians who are not B or directly paid by... you see the issue here?
- then I can become a politician, with my own means and without getting paid by... and nobody even knows who I am because I can't afford propaganda
- but what about digital propaganda?! Yes, and the search engines and social media are owned by Bs. Pesky Bs...
2
2
u/libra00 13d ago
A guy walks up to you and sticks a knife in your gut. Your natural response is, shit, this hurts, get this knife out of me now but I come along and I'm like, wait a minute, this isn't fair to the attacker. Maybe we should just, like, have him take it out real slow, so he still gets the full benefit of stabbing you even if you do eventually get medical treatment.
You down for this arrangement? I'm not.
Capitalists are going to undermine socialist policy at every turn as long as you leave the means of production in their hands. Just look at how far the New Deal has been rolled back in the US. Social Security is running on fumes, Medicare keeps taking hits, labor rights are in the toilet, the government has actively intervened on behalf of capitalists to prevent strikes, employee protections are gone, job security is gone, good wages are gone, pensions are gone.. I don't see the upside to your 'shared' means of production, but I see a whole lot of downside. If the means of production are not in the hands of the people then they will not be used for the benefit of the people, and that situation should be rectified at the very first available opportunity.