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.
Can your “owners” buy and sell Capital? Are they competing in markets? Why would they want to own Capital, if not for accumulation and profit? What you’re calling “ownership” is by all accounts the same as managers and administrators in a publicly owned and planned economy. You haven’t explained how they own in a way distinct from a manager or administrator.
So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?
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.
Can your “owners” buy and sell Capital? Are they competing in markets? Why would they want to own Capital, if not for accumulation and profit? What you’re calling “ownership” is by all accounts the same as managers and administrators in a publicly owned and planned economy. You haven’t explained how they own in a way distinct from a manager or administrator.
I have explained that they don’t, as long as they are scrutinized in the same level as I consider owners should be.
So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?