Why the fuck is workers owning the means of production the essence for socialism...

Because leftypol has an oppression complex so big they formed a political philosophy out of it. I cringe every time a fag on here accuses anybody else of 'muh oppression'

Its not really ownership. Its a con to keep stupid people happy.

If you work on a £100,000 CNC machine, a communist / socialist government would say you owned it.
But you dont have any of the rights of ownership. You cant take it home, you cant sell it or modify it or replace it.

Its just like those plastic steering wheel toys they give kids where the kid thinks hes actually driving the car even though he isnt.

Pic related.

I've read enought of it i just recently became mutch more left and socialist skeptical and so i make a post to re-evaluate it. I just think the complete reset of an economic system will maintain the existance of work and fetish for productivity. And global cooperation on sutch level is impossible with conflict of interests allready appearing on individual level, cooperation can mostly only appear in comprimise,coercion or mutual interest. And Mutual interest usually isnt the best option when you yourself can get better stuff and drop the other fucker if you got the ability.

Whats right according to you?

Hell no they dont.

PS I notice nobody else ITT even attempted to answer your question directly.

Material conditions are not morals and you shouldn't frame this as a moral issue, or be stupid enough to do so. It can generate moral outrage, but the heart of the issue is material mismanagement

how does it feel to be a retard

So the Wikipedia page

Offcourse, for examples with phones made to break within like a year or with so mutch funding to the material industrial complex with faulty and expansive airplanes wich arnt even good compared to the shit NASA could make.

Anyway im suprised nobody yet has mentioned that Ownership of Capital (Supported by the enforcement of private property) results into capital accumulation wich devides the society in owners and non owners where one group has alot of economic power and the other almost none. Both still are captured within the economic system itself where they must act and compete with certain guidelines but the big diffrince still remains of the diffrince in power to controle life and the other dependence on those who hold power. Basic Marx.

Looks like you havent even skimmed it with your arguments. :^)

Because control over the forces of production is fundamentally in the interests of those who produce. Production has profoundly far-reaching impact upon every aspect of a producer's life. One cannot have autonomy without control over that all-encompassing aspect of his life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Technologies

I can just list example by example all day about how blindly trusting yourself on this is a bad call. Because it isn't your trust you're blinded to.

This corporation, specializing in defense tech, donates millions to politicians, because of policy like ALEC. Now this is nothing new, but its board shares a Christine Todd Whitman, 9th Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 50th Governor of New Jersey. Daughter of prominent entrepreneur Webster B. Todd.

But that's all besides the point.

She has a conflict of interest, largely legal in the US Government, to be on a gigantic influencing think tank and a corporation, especially one that pays politicians off and has influence in the Council on Foreign Relations

Geopolitics that thinks of wars and how to manipulate the public into accepting them.

It doesn't effect you at first, so you don't give a fuck. Only when refugees come from wars you didn't care about does idpol kick into full drive

And then you still can't seem to understand Capitalism is a bit of an issue

Thus Economic power within society as society its functions is based on the functioning of the economy. Thats nice and dandy but would working place organisation still be maintained to maintain the productive standart within our current system? Would the fetish of productivity be maintained or do we have the right to be lazy?

In a capitalist society the goods necessary for survival appear as commodities. This means you have to get money if you wish to survive. And the only way to get money is to sell commodities.

The problem is, most people don't have commodities to sell or access to the means to produce them. To solve this, they do the only thing they can: turn part of themselves into a commodity. Workers turn their labour power into a commodity, and sell it to the capitalist in exchange of their survival.

The important thing to understand here is that wage labourers don't sell their actual work or the fruits of their labour. They sell their labour power, which is their capacity to work. They are selling their time, a part of their life.

But if this part of their life is sold, it's no longer theirs. This is alienation. It's not some feeling or a fragment of their imagination, it's a fact. During your work hours, your boss determines your life.

Superficially I dont have a problem with any of that but I fail to see how its related to OPs question.

I had actually never thought of it like that. Liberals BTFO

Thats a good explination.

That's a cute snake.

Wew fag, back to the re-education camp with you.

...

NEXT

If we're asking dumb questions, how do Marxists respond to the contention of James Burnham that we've moved into the age of managerial capitalism - i.e. that power has transitioned from the capitalist class (now the investor class) to the managerial class (i.e. the CEOs, executives, managers etc that actually run corporations and society in general)?

Can the amorphous class of investors in any organisation really be treated in the same terms as the classic owner-operators of the 19th century that were actually involved in many of the decisions made in their factories?

Because then there is no owner to extract surplus value from you. Also, communism requires a high degree of automation, so chances are you won't be working at that plant.

you couldn't wait 3 minutes before samefagging?

FTFY. Producing as much as possible is just barely enough to keep civilization from falling apart. Artificially reducing production is surefire way to usher in a new dark age.

What the hell. That is NOT the goal of socialism you lazy bum! The ultimate goal of socialism is to finally take the fucking peanuts out snickers. That was the goal all along.

Workplace organization is to be done within the workplaces themselves by the people who work there. Since the means of production would be collectively owned by the people who work there, decisions as to who would do what and how much of it would be done would be made at that level.

Without the profit motive it is unlikely that workplaces would continue to operate like the ant colonies they are now, however there would be incentive to produce at a high rate, since socialized goods entitle workers to compensation of equal value.

That owes to the wastefulness of capitalism and the unending demands of the profit motive, not any practical reality. Society produces way the hell more than it needs, but a lot of what it produces is useless trash.

Ah, but socialism does not reduce production. While individual workplaces will likely produce less, a far greater portion of society will be actively producing goods. Currently, in addition the massive army of the unemployed and the underemployed, there are large sectors of the workforce that are dedicated to unproductive labor–labor that produces no use-value. By getting at least most of them involved in productive labor, socialism will be able to outproduce its former capitalist self.

What nonsense. Managers have the power to do nothing except maximize profits for the board of directors. They follow templates and occasionally hire experts to come up with way to increase productivity and lower overhead. They are nothing but employees.