Ownership: good or bad?

[rupol2000]

Ownership is good, but I doubt that it is necessary to give the right of alienation, because it leads to speculative buying of the property of the people and monopolization of capital.

This problem needs to be solved somehow.

 

[eagle1462010]

WEF thread huh............

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ownership is good, but I doubt that it is necessary to give the right of alienation, because it leads to speculative buying of the property of the people and monopolization of capital.

This problem needs to be solved somehow.

If i am not mistaken , what you are suggesting was tried back in the old Soviet Union where no one owned anything. This is that result. When people dont own it, they dont take care of it, but if they are the owners then they have a pride in ownership.
Government owned apartments of the old Soviet Union.....

Private ownership of a free citizen.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is also private ownership....

 

[rupol2000]

If i am not mistaken , what you are suggesting was tried back in the old Soviet Union where no one owned anything. This is that result. When people dont own it, they dont take care of it, but if they are the owners then they have a pride in ownership.
Government owned apartments of the old Soviet Union.....

No, I propose to limit the sale to protect against monopolies.

 

[Muhammed]

the right of alienation

WTF????

 

[rupol2000]

WTF????

Alienation (property law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ringo]

Soros: I chose to work for the nazis for the same reason why I invest in certain stocks on the market - I'm looking for where the potential return is greater.
Isn't this the perfect, classic capitalist?

 

[rupol2000]

Soros: I chose to work for the nazis for the same reason why I invest in certain stocks on the market - I'm looking for where the potential return is greater.
Isn't this the perfect, classic capitalist?

No, this is a classic trader. A capitalist is the owner of large or monopoly capital taken from a bourgeois, a small proprietor. For example a Junker or a Bolshevik. A trader may be a capitalist, but this is only a special case. The trader owns only financial capital.

 

[rupol2000]

In fact, the question of ownership can be reduced to simple centralization and decentralization. The free man always has capital, the slave never has it. Perhaps a ban on alienation is an unnecessary measure, but then some kind of force is needed that will prevent fraudsters from taking capital from small owners.

 

[rupol2000]

In politics, the traditional American right did just that: they decentralized resources, shifting them from the center to the local places. Although it is usually only thought of as politics, it also applies to economics.

 

[rupol2000]

In fact, the very position of a slave is almost entirely due to the fact that he has no property.

 

[Ringo]

A trader may be a capitalist, but this is only a special case. The trader owns only financial capital.

For more than 100 years, this is one monster with two heads - financial capital. And he dominates. Because money is easier and more profitable to make than any product.

 

[rupol2000]

For more than 100 years, this is one monster with two heads - financial capital. And he dominates. Because money is easier and more profitable to make than any product.

It is not easy for ordinary traders and investment funds to make their own money, if there is no inside information, this is another matter. These are smart people.

But as for the banking system - yes, it's just a banal fraud of the socialist system. Banks do exactly the same as any socialist - redistribute resources.

The Bolsheviks were good bankers and swindlers. Their banks were no different from the "capitalist" ones. Almost all of them themselves came from a trading and fraudulent environment.

 

[Ringo]

The Bolsheviks were good bankers and swindlers.

What are you talking about? The Bolsheviks created the real economy in the shortest possible time from the scratch and brought the USSR into a superpower that produces everything.

 

[rupol2000]

What are you talking about?

It is obvious that the Bolshevik bankers and swindlers were no different from Western

 

[Ringo]

It is obvious that the Bolshevik bankers and swindlers were no different from Western

Who was "Bolshevik bankers" in one and only state bank? And bolshevik "swindles" ends up not in off shore accounts, but in thousands of industrial plants, free housing, free medical care, free education etc.

 

[rupol2000]

Who was "Bolshevik bankers" in one and only state bank?

Firstly, there was no "one" bank, in any "capitalist" system all banks are just branches and are directly subordinate to the central bank, and secondly, this does not cancel banking fraud.
The reason the communists believe in the honesty of communism is that they are morons and do not understand the system they are promoting.