ok, i can understand this. so it’s small-business are private run while bigger businesses are organized differently?
Very small businesses would tend to be private. At least that's the trend. But keep in mind even a worker-owned co-op is a private business so it's one of those things where the exact implementation has varied. And many businesses that would otherwise be private and might be partially nationalized, requiring certain standards, barriers to creating a storefront, strict rules on employment (or not). It's something that countries can experiment with. Struggle doesn't end after revolution and the development of productive forces changes employment.
The best targets for nationalization are the big industries, the developed ones. They are much easier to plan and run and expropriate. But a country could do so earlier if conditions allowed. Keep in mind that every country with a socialist revolution has faced constant attack, so they have been under fairly desperate conditions to industrialize or otherwise abandon more idealistic forms of work, e.g. being the primary target of Nazis.
to sum it up, i’d like to add a point. businesses spend money mostly on 4 categories:
raw materials
wages for workers
machinery (this one has to be largely paid up-front)
profits to shareholders
In Marxist terms you can usually summarize it in two: material inputs (dead labor) and labor. Profit isn't an input to production, it is actually variable and is just what is left over after all expenses. Income vs. expenditures. Raw materials and machinery are just commodities you buy to do production.
so to “socialize much of the gains” means that company profits are either redirected to the community (“state-run enterprise”)
It could be business taxation or it could be a redirecting of productive capacity (provide X prefab concrete widgets to this state project). Profits don't need to be redirected, that's just an accounting question. They may be made unprofitable by a given expropriation. But in countries taking this approach, like China, it's mostly business taxes.
or redirected into extra wages (“co-ops”)
If the co-op runs the business and is functional then the workers are basically setting their own wages and trying to optimize their business to pay as much as possible while still doing well as a business. If this is basically private enterprise then over time the state will begin direct involvement as it grows in size, observing production, expenditures, living conditions, etc. If a state allows small enterprise run more like a capitalist business, then eventually the state may step in a force cooperative governance, ensures a state-meditated union, etc.
But really this is exactly something that countries have experimented with, it's not just one prescription. And it has varied based on conditions, particularly external ones from imperialist countries.
Real estate development tends to be done on loan. Before the decision to buildi a house is made, it is pitched to the lenders. The lenders also lended mortgages for other houses in the area and own a few, they want values to go up. The lenders approve the more expensive developments expected to increase real estate prices, not the lower income housing. The lenders can always choose a different developer to give the money to, the one that will pitch the higher perceived value development.
Individual rich people don't lend the mortgages, it is large financial institutions that do that and then use the equity to do even more gambling. Individual rich people own a few expensive properties, sure, but this accounts for very little of the overall residential real estate "market".
But when nations restrict the financialization of housing, prices flatten or even go down.
Posting something on a private platform is actually not public. It is the private property of the platform owner and they can make it public or private any time they want or find ways to commodity it in their terms of service when you sign up.
I say this to back up what you say about the myth of the digital commons. Most online networks are not a commons at all, they are the exact opposite, they are an enclosure to extract profit from what would otherwise be a commons, usually built by finance capital to have appealing features at first, generated at a loss, and then once profit needs to be taken the alleged "commons" is increasingly closed and monetized. Journalista don't really understand this, sure, but neither do most people. They expect, correctly, that social interactions should be analogous to chatting with someone on the street or at a public square, and social networks try to give that illusion.
Regarding individual choice, well a person is surrounded by the exact opposite of what we are saying and all their friends are on their addiction habit social networks so what would you expect them to do. These things don't just happen on their own, people must work to organize and educate on the way capitalism turns their social lives into profit.
According to the alleged dynamics of capitalism, housing prices should be somewhat flat. Build houses that are too big and expensive? Demand is down for that market subset, gotta drop your prices or stop making such but houses. Housing supply is low? Prices go up, so companies will build more housing to make money off of that, increasing supply and stabilizing prices!
So the dynamics are not working like that. Now of course real estate has a "natural monopoly" aspect, certain land is less valuable because it is just too hard to get to and from relative to what people need to do: work, eat, go to school. So land rents are higher in some places more than others because of this. Am economist might call this a distortion.
But there is a much more important aspect in the US and similar economies, and that is financialization. Some comments here say prices are very high because houses are treated as an investment. That is true, but also incomplete, and it might make you wrongly think that it is individual homeowners saying, "this house will be worth more later so I will buy it". This is not enough! The financialization is by the bank that sells you a mortgage, that takes a nice percentage of your money in exchange. They can then make your house into a form of equity that can be seized later as needed if you're not profitable enough, which they carefully calculate to decide on your initial interest rate. And then they can gamble on that equity on the market. That equity is only worth something if the actual house has value and it has value because they will still loan you that amount on a new house. So an individual home buyer might buy based on the ability to be financed, sure, and the expectation that it will be worth it. But this is only possible because the mortgage lender themselves sees it as profitable for them to do so. If those high mortgages were not available, nobody could buy the expensive houses, land values would plummet, and so would housing prices, etc. of course because the dynamic is capitalist, this would involve a massive disposession and immense suffering if done at their hands and potentially threaten mass organizing and a threat to real estate profits, so whenever that threatens to happen (like 2008) the state keeps finance (and therefore real estate) afloat with free money.
So why aren't more and lower cost homes built, especially in the locations that need them? They bring down property values that have been gambled on by huge institutions. Only luxury apartments can be built, not affordable housing units. And real estate basically owns your local government, and every politician above that level is still beholden to them. Ultimately they can crash the entire "economy" if needed.
Workers owning the means of production is not an overly prescriptive idea. It means the bourgeois have been deposed or substantially oppressed such that workers actually dictate production. This is only really possible for a society after a revolution, as the bourgeois ruling class will not allow themselves to be deposed or substantially oppressed otherwise.
This is one of the more flexible and interesting ways in which socialists can experiment. Experiments have ranged pretty widely. Some subgroups tried forms of primitivist agricultural communalism, though this can only exist for any significant duration under the protection of an industrialized state. In the context of industrialized production it can look like co-ops or state-run enterprises or various forms of oppressed bourgeois or all of the above simultaneously at different levels of productive forces (start more bourgeois and get stripped of it as production becomes so developed it can be more easily run via planning). Chile wanted to experiment with cybernetics developed with Stafford Beer before being murdered by US-backed fascists, the left leadership murdered in the tens of thousands following this. Can't stress enough the importance of that revolution part - Allende rose via liberal democratic means and capitalists asserted the true basis of their rule, which is violence and coercion.
So to answer your question, it would probably look petty bourgeois at first (individuals incorporating a business) under most near term circumstances, and does in countries run by socialists, but what to do as the enterprise grows varies. And sometimes a state may coordinate production even early on. For example important technologies may be developed by university researchers and to enter production they are state-funded and forced to collaborate with other researchers, with a petty bourgeois payoff (salary, ownership that dwindles until it enters a certain tier, etc). The latter also happens under capitalism but the profits are entirely privatized, capital feeds off the state funding, whereas the point of this industrial policy in socialist states is to either build missing productive capacity, to socialize much of the gains, and eventually turn over to co-ops and state-run enterprise, etc.
One large Howitzer shell would at least disable it.
Do not fall for the Fourth Reich Wubderwaffe lies. Their military doctrine only works with complete air superiority, mostly killing civilians, small groups of "the enemy" (people defending their country), and destroying infrastructure.
Hope everyone is enjoying their further proletarianization! Rents? Up! Transportation costs? Way up! Healthcare? Lucky if you can get it at all. Go to college? Enjoy 20-30 years of debt. Jobs? Down!
Gulags were just prisons and people regularly escaped from them. The soviets actually dramatically decreased the scale of gulags vs. the tsarist period.
A 'gulag' alias should just be a leaky pause or backgrounding or something. rm -rf is forceful denazification.
lmao what on earth do you think unity among groups whose core positions are diametrically opposed looks like.
Usually in the US this logic is not about building an even slightly coherent coalition where there is something on the table for each group. Instead it is a nagging and attempt to shame people who are developing a political consciousness (not to mention conscience) into simply supporting the capitalist right wing status quo. Everyone with left principals has already correctly stepped away from that game entirely.
Let's make it simple: what policy position are you giving to the Zionists and anti-Zionists, people whose sole descriptors are antithetical. Remember, the status quo state policies are Zionist, so doing nothing is not neutral.
This article aside, Germany arrested, beat, and prosecuted people for protesting Israel committing genocide in Palestine and promoting freedom and sovereignty for Palestinians, including the common slogans for freedom and sovereignty. It similarly bans left parties, justified by making a false moral equivalence between their genocidal Nazi past (members of whom were then wrapped into West Germany's government) and the communists who defeated them.
Germany does not believe in freedom of speech nor are its restrictions morally or socially valid. It serves capital and will use every lie and trick and violence necessary to make this legal and publicly acceptable. They're currently in the process of making VW work with Israel to produce weapons during overt genocide. No real state restrictions there, eh? But they will surely continue going after the protesters.
Both countries are run by ML parties following revolution and would therefore be designated both socialist and communist based on like 100 years of precedent.
The topic being what Dengism is and why those you label with it might reject your use of the label. I explained this in the previous comment, you can choose whether to engage with it or not but I don't feel any urge to immediately respond to your various diversions.
Very small businesses would tend to be private. At least that's the trend. But keep in mind even a worker-owned co-op is a private business so it's one of those things where the exact implementation has varied. And many businesses that would otherwise be private and might be partially nationalized, requiring certain standards, barriers to creating a storefront, strict rules on employment (or not). It's something that countries can experiment with. Struggle doesn't end after revolution and the development of productive forces changes employment.
The best targets for nationalization are the big industries, the developed ones. They are much easier to plan and run and expropriate. But a country could do so earlier if conditions allowed. Keep in mind that every country with a socialist revolution has faced constant attack, so they have been under fairly desperate conditions to industrialize or otherwise abandon more idealistic forms of work, e.g. being the primary target of Nazis.
In Marxist terms you can usually summarize it in two: material inputs (dead labor) and labor. Profit isn't an input to production, it is actually variable and is just what is left over after all expenses. Income vs. expenditures. Raw materials and machinery are just commodities you buy to do production.
It could be business taxation or it could be a redirecting of productive capacity (provide X prefab concrete widgets to this state project). Profits don't need to be redirected, that's just an accounting question. They may be made unprofitable by a given expropriation. But in countries taking this approach, like China, it's mostly business taxes.
If the co-op runs the business and is functional then the workers are basically setting their own wages and trying to optimize their business to pay as much as possible while still doing well as a business. If this is basically private enterprise then over time the state will begin direct involvement as it grows in size, observing production, expenditures, living conditions, etc. If a state allows small enterprise run more like a capitalist business, then eventually the state may step in a force cooperative governance, ensures a state-meditated union, etc.
But really this is exactly something that countries have experimented with, it's not just one prescription. And it has varied based on conditions, particularly external ones from imperialist countries.
Real estate development tends to be done on loan. Before the decision to buildi a house is made, it is pitched to the lenders. The lenders also lended mortgages for other houses in the area and own a few, they want values to go up. The lenders approve the more expensive developments expected to increase real estate prices, not the lower income housing. The lenders can always choose a different developer to give the money to, the one that will pitch the higher perceived value development.
Individual rich people don't lend the mortgages, it is large financial institutions that do that and then use the equity to do even more gambling. Individual rich people own a few expensive properties, sure, but this accounts for very little of the overall residential real estate "market".
But when nations restrict the financialization of housing, prices flatten or even go down.
Posting something on a private platform is actually not public. It is the private property of the platform owner and they can make it public or private any time they want or find ways to commodity it in their terms of service when you sign up.
I say this to back up what you say about the myth of the digital commons. Most online networks are not a commons at all, they are the exact opposite, they are an enclosure to extract profit from what would otherwise be a commons, usually built by finance capital to have appealing features at first, generated at a loss, and then once profit needs to be taken the alleged "commons" is increasingly closed and monetized. Journalista don't really understand this, sure, but neither do most people. They expect, correctly, that social interactions should be analogous to chatting with someone on the street or at a public square, and social networks try to give that illusion.
Regarding individual choice, well a person is surrounded by the exact opposite of what we are saying and all their friends are on their addiction habit social networks so what would you expect them to do. These things don't just happen on their own, people must work to organize and educate on the way capitalism turns their social lives into profit.
According to the alleged dynamics of capitalism, housing prices should be somewhat flat. Build houses that are too big and expensive? Demand is down for that market subset, gotta drop your prices or stop making such but houses. Housing supply is low? Prices go up, so companies will build more housing to make money off of that, increasing supply and stabilizing prices!
So the dynamics are not working like that. Now of course real estate has a "natural monopoly" aspect, certain land is less valuable because it is just too hard to get to and from relative to what people need to do: work, eat, go to school. So land rents are higher in some places more than others because of this. Am economist might call this a distortion.
But there is a much more important aspect in the US and similar economies, and that is financialization. Some comments here say prices are very high because houses are treated as an investment. That is true, but also incomplete, and it might make you wrongly think that it is individual homeowners saying, "this house will be worth more later so I will buy it". This is not enough! The financialization is by the bank that sells you a mortgage, that takes a nice percentage of your money in exchange. They can then make your house into a form of equity that can be seized later as needed if you're not profitable enough, which they carefully calculate to decide on your initial interest rate. And then they can gamble on that equity on the market. That equity is only worth something if the actual house has value and it has value because they will still loan you that amount on a new house. So an individual home buyer might buy based on the ability to be financed, sure, and the expectation that it will be worth it. But this is only possible because the mortgage lender themselves sees it as profitable for them to do so. If those high mortgages were not available, nobody could buy the expensive houses, land values would plummet, and so would housing prices, etc. of course because the dynamic is capitalist, this would involve a massive disposession and immense suffering if done at their hands and potentially threaten mass organizing and a threat to real estate profits, so whenever that threatens to happen (like 2008) the state keeps finance (and therefore real estate) afloat with free money.
So why aren't more and lower cost homes built, especially in the locations that need them? They bring down property values that have been gambled on by huge institutions. Only luxury apartments can be built, not affordable housing units. And real estate basically owns your local government, and every politician above that level is still beholden to them. Ultimately they can crash the entire "economy" if needed.
How does China treat Muslims, Denmarker? Have you checked your sources?
Workers owning the means of production is not an overly prescriptive idea. It means the bourgeois have been deposed or substantially oppressed such that workers actually dictate production. This is only really possible for a society after a revolution, as the bourgeois ruling class will not allow themselves to be deposed or substantially oppressed otherwise.
This is one of the more flexible and interesting ways in which socialists can experiment. Experiments have ranged pretty widely. Some subgroups tried forms of primitivist agricultural communalism, though this can only exist for any significant duration under the protection of an industrialized state. In the context of industrialized production it can look like co-ops or state-run enterprises or various forms of oppressed bourgeois or all of the above simultaneously at different levels of productive forces (start more bourgeois and get stripped of it as production becomes so developed it can be more easily run via planning). Chile wanted to experiment with cybernetics developed with Stafford Beer before being murdered by US-backed fascists, the left leadership murdered in the tens of thousands following this. Can't stress enough the importance of that revolution part - Allende rose via liberal democratic means and capitalists asserted the true basis of their rule, which is violence and coercion.
So to answer your question, it would probably look petty bourgeois at first (individuals incorporating a business) under most near term circumstances, and does in countries run by socialists, but what to do as the enterprise grows varies. And sometimes a state may coordinate production even early on. For example important technologies may be developed by university researchers and to enter production they are state-funded and forced to collaborate with other researchers, with a petty bourgeois payoff (salary, ownership that dwindles until it enters a certain tier, etc). The latter also happens under capitalism but the profits are entirely privatized, capital feeds off the state funding, whereas the point of this industrial policy in socialist states is to either build missing productive capacity, to socialize much of the gains, and eventually turn over to co-ops and state-run enterprise, etc.
Literally the prison system inherited from the tsar but downsized and with improved conditions.
Go read a book.
One large Howitzer shell would at least disable it.
Do not fall for the Fourth Reich Wubderwaffe lies. Their military doctrine only works with complete air superiority, mostly killing civilians, small groups of "the enemy" (people defending their country), and destroying infrastructure.
Hope everyone is enjoying their further proletarianization! Rents? Up! Transportation costs? Way up! Healthcare? Lucky if you can get it at all. Go to college? Enjoy 20-30 years of debt. Jobs? Down!
Gulags were just prisons and people regularly escaped from them. The soviets actually dramatically decreased the scale of gulags vs. the tsarist period.
A 'gulag' alias should just be a leaky pause or backgrounding or something. rm -rf is forceful denazification.
No
I guess I'm the first person to tell you what Zionism is? Because their whole thing is ethnic cleansing and concentration camps.
lmao what on earth do you think unity among groups whose core positions are diametrically opposed looks like.
Usually in the US this logic is not about building an even slightly coherent coalition where there is something on the table for each group. Instead it is a nagging and attempt to shame people who are developing a political consciousness (not to mention conscience) into simply supporting the capitalist right wing status quo. Everyone with left principals has already correctly stepped away from that game entirely.
Let's make it simple: what policy position are you giving to the Zionists and anti-Zionists, people whose sole descriptors are antithetical. Remember, the status quo state policies are Zionist, so doing nothing is not neutral.
Discharged straight into the trash chute
This article aside, Germany arrested, beat, and prosecuted people for protesting Israel committing genocide in Palestine and promoting freedom and sovereignty for Palestinians, including the common slogans for freedom and sovereignty. It similarly bans left parties, justified by making a false moral equivalence between their genocidal Nazi past (members of whom were then wrapped into West Germany's government) and the communists who defeated them.
Germany does not believe in freedom of speech nor are its restrictions morally or socially valid. It serves capital and will use every lie and trick and violence necessary to make this legal and publicly acceptable. They're currently in the process of making VW work with Israel to produce weapons during overt genocide. No real state restrictions there, eh? But they will surely continue going after the protesters.
Both countries are run by ML parties following revolution and would therefore be designated both socialist and communist based on like 100 years of precedent.
Depends on which instance is doing the removing but around here it's usually just racism and orientalism getting removed on this kind of post.
lol why are you so afraid to just address what I said. Next pointless ramble and I'm out bud
The topic being what Dengism is and why those you label with it might reject your use of the label. I explained this in the previous comment, you can choose whether to engage with it or not but I don't feel any urge to immediately respond to your various diversions.