What does individual ownership add over public ownership if this role of management and administration is held by someone who has just as much ownership as any other worker?
Other than the idea of individuals being independent from the state (separation of power), it doesn’t add anything and it doesn’t remove anything.
This is exactly my point. We do not gain anything from taking away private ownership in a situation in which the real control / power is in the State / Workers and the owners are just independent individuals at the service of the State/Workers.
Profit only exists through exchange, ie for the purpose of sale so that you can use a greater quantity of money to produce a greater quantity of commodities, in a Money -> Commodity -> Greater Money circuit. This process inevitably results in competition, centralization, and death of competition. It isn’t a static, motionless system. Markets suffocate themselves.
Which statement I made is specifically challenged by this?
Let me ask you this: does the manager of your local publicly owned facility, be it a Post Office or school, own said facility? Would they need to?
In my proposed State, they would not necessarily need to (ie. they could delegate to a manager that does that job), but the responsibility towards the State/Workers in relation to the use of the facility would still be with the owner. So if the State/Workers are not happy about this arrangement for whatever reason (maybe they think the distribution of services is not being held with the benefit of the State/Workers in mind, or don’t think it’s fair for the owner to not take action himself), they can vote him out and elect a different one.
Individuals being separate from government isn’t a “sepparation of power.” It’s shifting power from the workers to the hands of the owners. If you’re playing a purely semantical game, then no, an owner without any ownership is not an owner.
What does “independence from the workers” do to help accountability for the workers?
The statement you made that contradicted it was believing individual ownership would last in a system where those rules no longer apply.
Your proposed role of ownership is functionally no different from an administrator and doesn’t consist of actual ownership. There’s no reason nor benefit for it, like, you could have a society where everyone has to wear an eyepatch, but that doesn’t make any sense and would never happen.
What does “independence from the workers” do to help accountability for the workers?
The Workers is not a power, it’s a community.
What I’m talking is an executive power, one that needs to be overseen by other entities and that has to abide by regulations. I feel the more independent from the ones setting those regulations and from those who are judging the execution of those rules, the least chances of corruption.
Do you believe in division of power?
The statement you made that contradicted it was believing individual ownership would last in a system where those rules no longer apply.
What rules? where’s the quote? I still don’t understand what you think that I’m thinking.
Your proposed role of ownership is functionally no different from an administrator and doesn’t consist of actual ownership. There’s no reason nor benefit for it, like, you could have a society where everyone has to wear an eyepatch, but that doesn’t make any sense and would never happen.
Having an eyepatch does make a functional difference though, it obstructs vision.
A better example to your point would be a society decides they want it to be spelt “color” (vs “colour”, lets assume that really makes no functional difference)… then a bunch of people show up and argue that the spelling of “color” is the cause of problems so they want to make it so it’s spelt “colour” instead… and just on the side maybe try and fix problems that they think were caused by the spelling… even though the measures to fix them can also be done with the same spelling in place.
My position is that the spelling of the word is not relevant… what’s relevant is the measures that should be taken to fix the problems, which would continue to happen if the only thing you change is the spelling of the word.
If the government is democratically owned and controlled by the workers, ie the entirety of society, what purpose does having people distinct from the rest of society serve? If they don’t actually have power, then they aren’t owners and are just administrators. If they do have power, said power works against the workers.
Individual ownership of industry will not exist in an economy where the reason for its existence has disappeared.
What powers would these owners have that requires them be distinct from society at large? What is the purpose of retaining class distinctions?
I think you misunderstand. It’s not like they are a completely separate kind of person.
They are as distinct as an executioner who needs to cut someone’s head is distinct from the person whose head needs to be cut.
The minute executive officials become friends with the officials redacting rules and/or the officials organizing the push towards kicking them out, my trust in the system decreases. Because now you can’t trust the ones pushing for rules to make them in a way that benefits the one executing them… or that the ones judging the rules do not get swayed in favor or letting malpractices slip.
Why does this need ownership? Why are you attached to that idea? Why would individual ownership exist in a system that has moved beyond the reason for individual ownership’s existence? You haven’t answred that.
Take a look at how Soviet Democracy functioned. The existence of individual owners would work against that system, but administrators still existed:
We are, because what you call ownership isn’t what I call ownership.
Let’s agree to disagree. But I find it sad that you wanna boil it down to semantics and don’t address the aspects of control that allow you to stop considering ownership as ownership.
Other than the idea of individuals being independent from the state (separation of power), it doesn’t add anything and it doesn’t remove anything.
This is exactly my point. We do not gain anything from taking away private ownership in a situation in which the real control / power is in the State / Workers and the owners are just independent individuals at the service of the State/Workers.
Which statement I made is specifically challenged by this?
In my proposed State, they would not necessarily need to (ie. they could delegate to a manager that does that job), but the responsibility towards the State/Workers in relation to the use of the facility would still be with the owner. So if the State/Workers are not happy about this arrangement for whatever reason (maybe they think the distribution of services is not being held with the benefit of the State/Workers in mind, or don’t think it’s fair for the owner to not take action himself), they can vote him out and elect a different one.
Individuals being separate from government isn’t a “sepparation of power.” It’s shifting power from the workers to the hands of the owners. If you’re playing a purely semantical game, then no, an owner without any ownership is not an owner.
What does “independence from the workers” do to help accountability for the workers?
The statement you made that contradicted it was believing individual ownership would last in a system where those rules no longer apply.
Your proposed role of ownership is functionally no different from an administrator and doesn’t consist of actual ownership. There’s no reason nor benefit for it, like, you could have a society where everyone has to wear an eyepatch, but that doesn’t make any sense and would never happen.
The Workers is not a power, it’s a community.
What I’m talking is an executive power, one that needs to be overseen by other entities and that has to abide by regulations. I feel the more independent from the ones setting those regulations and from those who are judging the execution of those rules, the least chances of corruption.
Do you believe in division of power?
What rules? where’s the quote? I still don’t understand what you think that I’m thinking.
Having an eyepatch does make a functional difference though, it obstructs vision.
A better example to your point would be a society decides they want it to be spelt “color” (vs “colour”, lets assume that really makes no functional difference)… then a bunch of people show up and argue that the spelling of “color” is the cause of problems so they want to make it so it’s spelt “colour” instead… and just on the side maybe try and fix problems that they think were caused by the spelling… even though the measures to fix them can also be done with the same spelling in place.
My position is that the spelling of the word is not relevant… what’s relevant is the measures that should be taken to fix the problems, which would continue to happen if the only thing you change is the spelling of the word.
If the government is democratically owned and controlled by the workers, ie the entirety of society, what purpose does having people distinct from the rest of society serve? If they don’t actually have power, then they aren’t owners and are just administrators. If they do have power, said power works against the workers.
Individual ownership of industry will not exist in an economy where the reason for its existence has disappeared.
What powers would these owners have that requires them be distinct from society at large? What is the purpose of retaining class distinctions?
I think you misunderstand. It’s not like they are a completely separate kind of person.
They are as distinct as an executioner who needs to cut someone’s head is distinct from the person whose head needs to be cut.
The minute executive officials become friends with the officials redacting rules and/or the officials organizing the push towards kicking them out, my trust in the system decreases. Because now you can’t trust the ones pushing for rules to make them in a way that benefits the one executing them… or that the ones judging the rules do not get swayed in favor or letting malpractices slip.
Why does this need ownership? Why are you attached to that idea? Why would individual ownership exist in a system that has moved beyond the reason for individual ownership’s existence? You haven’t answred that.
Take a look at how Soviet Democracy functioned. The existence of individual owners would work against that system, but administrators still existed:
Individual Ownership adds nothing.
I’m not saying that it ownership is an absolute requirement… again… THAT’S MY POINT… that ownership is IRRELEVANT to the root of the problem.
I feel we are going in circles.
We are, because what you call ownership isn’t ownership.
We are, because what you call ownership isn’t what I call ownership.
Let’s agree to disagree. But I find it sad that you wanna boil it down to semantics and don’t address the aspects of control that allow you to stop considering ownership as ownership.