zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. fach+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-23 01:48:36
Branding nationalizing companies as “citizens control” is quite the spin. Chinese citizens surely own the means of production, right?
replies(2): >>bongod+71 >>harima+M7
2. bongod+71[view] [source] 2025-08-23 01:59:22
>>fach+(OP)
Nationalizing a company isn't communism and isn't intended to resemble it.
replies(2): >>sanex+i3 >>yunohn+4A
◧◩
3. sanex+i3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-23 02:19:59
>>bongod+71
How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?
replies(1): >>thauma+oB
4. harima+M7[view] [source] 2025-08-23 03:03:25
>>fach+(OP)
I suppose that depends on whether said country is a democracy where citizens control the government or a dictatorship where they do not.
◧◩
5. yunohn+4A[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-23 08:56:20
>>bongod+71
Indeed, it’s actually a horrific non-communist pro-capitalist version that leaves citizens much worse off - see “bailout socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for masses”.
◧◩◪
6. thauma+oB[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-23 09:12:55
>>sanex+i3
What would common or collective control mean? If everyone held "control" in common, it wouldn't be possible to do anything.

It is possible to nationalize a company, though. For example, Saudi Aramco is owned by the state.

How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?

replies(1): >>sanex+jP
◧◩◪◨
7. sanex+jP[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-23 12:15:53
>>thauma+oB
1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.
[go to top]