Why would I want to share the ownership and profits of a company I founded with random employees who just work for me...

You owning private shit wouldn't happen apriori in socialism.

The fact that it happens now is one of the biggest problems with our current system. We expect capitalists (you) to resist it as they're the beneficiaries of capitalism. the point is to stop them and precede past this point in history.

Because it gives you a good feeling inside.

Unless of course you spent your youth working really hard setting up your business while they were having fun and being irresponsible.
Then telling them to fuck off would give you a good feeling inside.

So the point is to shut down this guys business and livelihood?

Why not say 'my'?

No. The point is to make the workers the owner of the business, rather than him alone. He can still continue to work there, although he will have just as much power as the other employees.

Because I dont own his means of production.

But who would invest their time and money in the business to start with if they get nothing in return?

How is it fair that OP spends 20 years building a business, working 7 day weeks just to be told to give Joe who started a week ago and has already been late twice an equal stake in the company?

How the hell is that fair? Imagine you work from a young age to gather the resources and expertise to start a company, work your ass of for years to get it off the ground and then finally succeed, only for some guy you hired just last week to suddenly have an equal say to you. That's insane.

Stop samefagging, OP.

my first post

no u

I guess it doesn't matter who owns OP's(

A hypothetical situation still illustrates how a similar scenario in real life would work out.

...

The point, I think, is that there is a fundamental disconnect between livelihood and private industry. The moment when an economy goes the latter is also when we start to exceed livelihood, usually at the expense of others' through hoarding of natural resources and extracting others' labour-power only to dole back a fraction of their worth in wages. Like the other user said, we would not want to shut down the business per se, but instead make sure that we can maximize its benefits to the workers involved rather than for the few who merely give a pretense working.

Who was it that invested their time before money was invented? Who was it that's investing their time while money is being thrown around as if it has inherent worth?

Please consider the possibility that your opinion is in the minority.

Mate. You can shitpost all you want.

It was a pretty barren hypothetical situation. But to humor you:

The bank does silly!

How about you address the argument instead of coming up with a weird conspiracy theory about how there can only ever be a single person who disagrees with you?

If you never want your leftist opinions go unchallenged then stay on facebook.

MFW A relative gave me a small loan of £700 to start my business and I paid him back within a month.

So we're talking about like a tricked out lemonade stand?

A small manufacturing company with around ten employees is all the info I am prepared to give.

But I really dont mind you believing what I achieved is impossible.

So a lemonade stand?

I would consider a lemonade stand as retail rather than manufacturing.

And for the record I wouldnt look down on anyone selling drinks.

If you own your own business then you are already way ahead of most people.

Oh and to clarify a bit:

We dont give a fuck about the few instances where your hypothetical good guy business owner has the best interests in mind with everyone and jamal is a fucktard who wants to burn everything because lolz.

Most of capitalism isn't small businesses, its big corporations owned by shareholders which mercilessly cuts costs at the expense of the employees, some of which worked there their entire life and gave it their all, unpaid overtime and all that. And they are laid off without a second thought. Your ideal "busines owner iz smarts and everyone else is retarded" company doesn't exist in any significant amount at all, they are a statistical insignificance.

This is what will happen under socialism. New small bussinesses will be formed by people who want to start one. They will "hire" new employees democratically when they decide that it will improve their overall productivity and is beneficial to them. If you start a business on your own or with your friends, you get a loan out of the bank like usual on name of your LLC, and you do the following: Don't hire retards. See? Its that easy. If you are as smart as you make it seem, your new colleagues will see you are the best person to have in the economic and managerial position.

Bureaucracy alone costs that much. And lots of people dont have family that just has 700 pounds stuffed in their old socks ready to give away, most people are poor and work for shit wages.

You shouldn't invite all your buddies to team up on a thread if you wanted actual arguments and out perspective. You just want to feel like you win and need your friends to help you to do so.

And no
does not happen in real life. Im not buying your act of innocence.

Don't expect any love when you try to flush out anyone who doesn't agree with you by sheer numbers.

And what did you "achieve" exactly? You used someone else's money to start a company where you pay other people to make things for you. So I'm curious what you've accomplished exactly.

Then how did it rise?

I think the thread title is intended to attract people who have an interest in these things.
I dont browse any one board in particular. This one was on the velocious threads list on the front page.

For one thing I own the means of production that I use to earn a living.

U jelly?

TalkingStickTV - Michael Parenti - The Assassination of Julius Caesar
youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o

t. protestant

Comic to illustrate

Thanks dude

Even if the owner is a dick, why does that give his friendly employee the right to control a company he invested almost nothing in whilst it's been the life's work of the owner?
Starting a small business that provides services really isn't that hard. You can be an independent contractor who uses the profits to gradually expand his business and hire other people who can perform such services to get more work done. No need to buy tons of expensive capital at first, you can just gradually build it up over time.
This is some seriously paranoid shit. You do realize this is the mainstream opinion, right? However do you expect to convince anyone when you freak out the moment the circlejerk is broken? I've been browsing this board for a few weeks and decided to ask a question which came up in a conversation with my sister earlier today to see what the socialist perspective would be, but apparently you're so scared of debate that you go full bunker mode the moment any degree of questioning appears.

We are on a communist board that is very tiny on a small website. The chance that 3 anti-communists browse the catalouge of this board at the same time, and start posting at the same time, is almost 0.

If this was reddit, it would be expected. This isnt a mainstream website with lots of people though. I would gladly argue with you over everything if
1. I had time
and
2. It wasn't 3 people who magically all agree with each other using the same thread right form the start vs pretty much only one or two people who could be bothered to argue against a thread that starts with a copy-paste strawman question that we get every week.

But I got to go eat not, I got shit to do. Good night.

Also chek em

Checked

What right do you have to claim a monopoly over this business when you don't do all or maybe even any of the work

It is fair. Just because you have worked to make something, it doesn't mean that you can use it to exploit others. Evidently there comes a point at which your freedom to do something stops.

You have a choice: to either stop exploiting (and work the machinery yourself, which is totally fine) or to share with those who you exploited.

An analogy would be that the slave owner has tried very hard to build his food picking operation with slaves - clearly, he doesn't have a right to have slaves. So he can either give up the slavery (free all the slaves under his control and cease getting new ones) or concede the farm and machinery to the slaves.

I think the second option is fairer for those who have been exploited. Either way, just because you work hard, it doesn't entitle you to anything. That's the Protestant work ethic, and it's rubbish.

but leftypol told me morals are spooks

If you'd actually read Stirner you'd know better

No prob fam, just watching it now too. I've always had a good opinion of Caesar, but I had no idea he was so based, or that Cicero was such a giant cunt.