I thought owning the means of production was the point, but requiring a consistent argument from a communist is like requiring a consistent argument from a communist.

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Common ownership" as in the workers collectively own the means of production. You, individually, don't get to own it, but a union of workers, a local collective, or the state might own it and decisions would be made, ostensibly, by the workers who make up those entities.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

or the state might own it

In other words... the workers don't own squat.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

There would generally be mandatory meetings for workers to attend that would allow for debates on the trajectory of the company. The state would "own" it but the workers would still direct it.

In a very very small way, it is like what Germany does with large corporations. They require a percentage of the board of directors be actual workers so it's not just a bunch of capitalist parasites making decisions that would hurt workers just to boost their own portfolios/profits.

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

Depends to what extent the state can be said to truly represent the workers.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

An individual can't own the means of production, it's supposed to be "owned" by the people. I'm not a communist, but that argument never changed.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago

But that's what this meme says