I think communism is an economic system where resource distribution (including labor) is centrally controlled by the state. That’s a lot like feudalism, except you don’t call the supreme leader who became supreme by killing his rivals “king”.
Ok well enlighten me then, because I was pretty certain communism is an economic system where resource distribution is centrally planned by the state. I wonder where I got that idea, tell me, what is communism?
No, Communism is a political ideology that focuses on giving the means of production to the people doing the labor.
What you just said is the right-wing capitalist propaganda definition of communism.
In the context of this conversation it is about removing the Capitalist from business. Making it so everyone earns their fair share of the profits instead of one person at the top (like a King/feudalism) gets all the profits, while also making all the decisions. Instead the laborors gets a stake in the business - giving more incentive to help the business do well while giving the worker more power and take home money.
So in such a system, distribution of resources wouldn’t be centrally planned? Resources would be distributed in a free market? A farm owner for example who worked their own farm would be free to sell his produce how he sees fit?
So what if, suppose, that farm owner had some neighbors that weren’t fortunate enough to own a farm for whatever reason, let’s say they were migrants from a less plentiful place, and decided it would be good for them and himself if he paid them so they wouldn’t starve to help him out on his farm. An open market for labor you might say. Would he still be able to sell that produce how he sees fit?
England has explicitly had a non-autocratic king since 1215, the idea that the King of England “owned everything” is ahistorical.
Do some research on the British East India Company before you’re so sure about how things worked in India. It was the first multinational, and it ran India as a profit center.
One thing I find interesting about your comments is that you’re using a very Marxist framework to talk about pre-capitalist modes of organization (which is reductionist and partly why he is not taken seriously as a sociologist in most settings).
Those were both feudalism, where the king owns all economic output and does wyat he wants with it, much like communism in practice.
Baby doll you just described capitalism.
Really? Capitalism is a system in which the king controls all economic resources and output?
Yeth
What do you think communism is? Cause it’s not at all like feudalism - you’re thinking of late stage capitalism that’s like feudalism.
I think communism is an economic system where resource distribution (including labor) is centrally controlled by the state. That’s a lot like feudalism, except you don’t call the supreme leader who became supreme by killing his rivals “king”.
What you think about communism is completely wrong.
Ok well enlighten me then, because I was pretty certain communism is an economic system where resource distribution is centrally planned by the state. I wonder where I got that idea, tell me, what is communism?
No, Communism is a political ideology that focuses on giving the means of production to the people doing the labor.
What you just said is the right-wing capitalist propaganda definition of communism.
In the context of this conversation it is about removing the Capitalist from business. Making it so everyone earns their fair share of the profits instead of one person at the top (like a King/feudalism) gets all the profits, while also making all the decisions. Instead the laborors gets a stake in the business - giving more incentive to help the business do well while giving the worker more power and take home money.
So in such a system, distribution of resources wouldn’t be centrally planned? Resources would be distributed in a free market? A farm owner for example who worked their own farm would be free to sell his produce how he sees fit?
Yes.
So what if, suppose, that farm owner had some neighbors that weren’t fortunate enough to own a farm for whatever reason, let’s say they were migrants from a less plentiful place, and decided it would be good for them and himself if he paid them so they wouldn’t starve to help him out on his farm. An open market for labor you might say. Would he still be able to sell that produce how he sees fit?
England has explicitly had a non-autocratic king since 1215, the idea that the King of England “owned everything” is ahistorical.
Do some research on the British East India Company before you’re so sure about how things worked in India. It was the first multinational, and it ran India as a profit center.
One thing I find interesting about your comments is that you’re using a very Marxist framework to talk about pre-capitalist modes of organization (which is reductionist and partly why he is not taken seriously as a sociologist in most settings).