- Capitalism and Alternatives -

I can't see how common ownership could work

Posted by: DonS ( USA ) on July 22, 1999 at 11:54:23:

In Reply to: Wasn't socialism at all. posted by Red Deathy on July 21, 1999 at 18:17:14:

: : Don: In socialist nation states such as the USSR,

: Which wasn't socialist, which was in fact 'State Capitalist'- i.e. production ocurred for the market (although the state seemed to determine production, lergely it was just reacting to shifts in the real market)

Don: And if you have a system where production does not in some way react to the demands of the market, you will end up with horrible results such as mass starvation.

: : After all, if you were a citizen in the USSR, you couldn't just decide to take off for a joyride in a MiG 29, could you? The MiG in fact belonged to your government, and you had no say in its use.

: Exactly, so If I don't own it, its not common ownership, therefore its not socialism. After they nationalised Coal in britain, people were prosecuted for theft and told by teh Judge 'You are stealing the King's cole!'

: : . Common ownership works fine at a family level, and get increasingly difficult with larger groups.

: It becomes non-ownership, no-one really owns it, effectively.

Don: Which results in results such as: no one having a personal interest in the system, except what they can take under the table . . .

: :At some point socialists define state ownership as common ownership, but it is just a fiction.

: Not if they are being theoretically consistent their not.

Don: I can't see how common ownership could work, so state ownership is the closest I can see you getting to true socialism on a large scale. And that doesn't work all that well, as we have seen . . .

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup