So confused by this because I thought Santa owned that particular means of production by himself.
They give out the products for free for the good of humanity though. I don’t know if you can call it private ownership if it’s a non-profit.
Now you’ve got me thinking about it, they distribute those products incredibly unevenly, with most presents going to the wealthy and middle class, in wealthy nations.
It’s definitely not progressive. Also there’s the bullying over (nose) colour that has historically gone on there, with leadership turning a blind eye.
It tells us alot about the character of poor people. The naughty get less, the nice kids get a lot. Don’t confuse cause and effect, you get born in a poor family because you are evil. Google karma. That’s why poor people have a higher crime rate, it’s not because being poor is criminalized, which is also true but not the reason. /s if not obvious
Good point, the more presents you get the better you must be. It’s also about choices. Evil children choose to be born to poor parents. /s
If it’s free, you are the product. Isn’t he keeping a list who’s naughty who’s nice? Do you have any idea what amount of data is needed for that and how valuable this data is?
I mean the optics of an unpaid staff of non human yet sapient creatures working for a humanoid authoritarian who punishes children with fossil fuels are… Uhh… bad.
Santa uses spyware to collect private information without consent. On children, too.
It’s true that it’s not exactly capitalist without profit motive, but it’s still private ownership since only santa owns the means of production rather than the elves. Just because he doesn’t profit from it doesn’t mean he doesn’t own it.
Still unethical business practices for the enslavement and overworking of his workers.
It’s co-op
Start a company and share ownership with all your workers.
Capitalism is solved everyone, if you don’t like it just make your own job. Something that is both realistic and feasible for every exploited worker.
Not for everyone, but it’s a little weird that self-proclaimed communists are apparently completely incapable of putting their money where their mouth is.
Easier to bitch on the internet than work for actual change, isn’t it?
‘If you don’t make your own worker owned company you’re a fake communist’ is certainly a take.
More like “If you don’t action your words, then you’re full of hot air.”
There are too many occasions of Internet whiners yelling “Eat the rich” then not actually eating the rich.
Their bark is worse than their bite. They live to sow anger, but not action.
So the only two ways to be a real communist are to either eat the rich or start your own company, interesting. I will give this all the consideration it deserves.
Let me be more blunt.
The only way to be a real communist is to actually act out the philosophy, rather than be all talk.
You think posting online is real communism. Lol.
Maybe, but it’s your take, not mine.
What money?
The money that isn’t even enough to buy a house?
Why is sharing ownership weird to you but the fact they’re just taking a lions share of the worker’s wealth indefinitely not weird to you? Why do you believe workers should be sharing their wealth with already rich people?
You clearly have no idea what I believe but are stupid enough to lie to me about it – like I wouldn’t know my own beliefs.
Why should anyone ever take what you say seriously? Much less even attempt a conversation when you’re not capable of having a real one?
That’s definitely a way to respond to a rebuttal while providing no significant value.
You think you provided a rebuttal – thanks for proving the point you completely missed.
You think you provided a deeper point. Interesting. If I missed it, please correct it. It’s how normal dialogue and debate occurs instead of … whatever your toxicity is.
Straight up co-ops are way more financially stable than regular businesses
I wholeheartedly agree. Yet self-proclaimed communists are arguing against them!
Even better, start a company with other workers and share ownership because you’re all workers, or join an existing such company. Unfortunately this isn’t a feasible option for most people, and neither is your suggestion
Do you dictate you must sell your share when you leave the company? How do you generate more shares when you acquire more employees? Is this a commonly done thing?
Yes both things aren’t uncommon features of worker coops though you might also want to look into foundations. Might want to reserve some influence for the Lumpen, for the municipality, suchlike, not strictly workers as otherwise they themselves could become a ruling elite.
There’s also the issue of “does every worker actually have a share” IIRC Mondragon had a ruffle about that one dunno how it ended never followed up.
wrong because Santa is part of the bourgeoisie
