I'm having a hard time understanding socialism on a practical

>>2519860
It means that everyone "owns" the coal mine or house, but there is still one person who does the hiring, the workers, etc. The people who belong to the coal mine in some way are the ones who own it. The buyers aren't part of it, so they don't own it, since they just buy coal. I guess what I'm trying to say is the workers and managers own the coal mine equally and workers have just as enough rights as the managers.
>Then why should they have equal ownership of it?
Because in theory the architect wouldn't have the house if it weren't for the builders, and vice versa. Thus everyone owns it equally.

>>2519905

But aren't the builders a lot more replaceable than the architect? That is, it would be a lot easier to find other builders, than to find other architects who could design a home of similar quality. So I don't see how the contribution and worth are equal. If the builders refused to build it unless they had equal ownership, couldn't the architect easily just find more builders?

>>2519860
Shares are owned by employees.

For example if you hire a cleaner to clean your office they have to get a dividend payout and a vote.

>>2519961
that's DSOP and socialists don't believe in "shares of a company" or "a company" or even "a firm's right to practice"

File: R.jpg (3MB, 3320x2547px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3320x2547px

>&humanities

>>2519860
Workers in the coal mine would own it collectively, with a meritocratic command structure among themselves.

In the most crude socialism, private ownership and decision-making is supplanted by worker ownership and decision-making.

>>2519971
Depends on which socialists you ask. Most believe that's acceptable. Even many communists. They just don't see it as a desirable end goal.

>>2519928
What makes a single trained architect inherently less replaceable than the requisite number of trained builders?

All you have to know it that it doesn't work and is inherently dangerous to humanity.

File: 1440831904564.jpg (22KB, 350x295px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 350x295px

>>2519978
>being this autistic
Capitalism, socialism, nationalism, liberalism, conservatism etc. all played massive parts in the last four hundred years of world history. Trying to comprehend these things is intrinsic to the study of world events.

>>2519860
>I'm having a hard time understanding socialism on a practical level
Probably because there IS no practical level to socialism and socialist theory is just an ever increasing amount of smoke and mirrors to hide that fact. Socialists say they believe in the voluntary participation of workers in theory but reject it in practice. They say their theory supports the working class but in reality it comes down to removing a significant majority of it. Just go ahead and file it under "Shit that should not be touched with a 10 foot pole unless it's fiction writing" along with leftlibertarianism, communism and most anarcho-whatevers.

File: 1485605884418.jpg (41KB, 540x404px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 540x404px

>>2520012
>no practical level
>actively ignoring 300 years of experimentation that would have much better proven his point

Don't be retarded.

>>2520015
>actively ignoring 300 years of experimentation that would have much better proven his point
[Citation fucking Needed]

>>2519994
because the skill required to be an architect is more specific and requires a greater deal of training than a builder.

>>2519860
Socialism means different things to different people. To people in 1880s UK, socialism meant universal suffrage, public schools and national health care. Those ideas were way radical then and are more or less accepted now.
Having any social programs would have been socialism to 1920s America. Even food stamps. Right wing Americans think of every possible social program as being discredited because of the fall of Marxist-Leninist communism. The reality is that most of the OECD countries have implemented what would be "radical socialism" in the US, with no ill effects.

>>2519995
>What is Yugoslavia

>>2520046
>get propped up by capitalists as a buffer against the COMBLOC
>still do horribly and collapse as soon as the capitalist bux stop flowing
Yeah, real successful example you have there.

>>2520055
>Capitalists as buffer
That's a funny way to say state run factories. GDP bitch!
The only reason it fell apart was because of American spies which caused each side to wage war against each other
So, yeah its still a good example

>>2520068
t. Serb who dindu nuffin

>>2520039
>Socialism means different things to different people
And those people are wrong
To most of 1880s Europe socialism did mean social ownership of production, it was the ultimate goal even if they did attempt to improve conditions along the way (which ironically may have been to the detriment of the socialist revolution). Social democrats started moving more towards mixed economy/reforming capitalism and stopping there in the interwar period.

>>2520071
Actually Bosniak here, not serb dinduer

>>2520046
you mean the country that broke apart and ended in ethnic cleansing and civil war?

>>2520086
It was okay while it lasted, I guess.

>>2520084
Sorry, Bosnian dinduer* My mistake.

>>2520092
>Still calls me (whose ancestor came from Atlantis) a dinduer
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>2520101
How much din could a dindu du if a dindu dindu nuffin? About 100,000 Bosniak nuffins apparently.

>>2520121
Source? Citation? Anything?

practically its getting the full value of your labor from socoety as there is no surplus value wasted on someone profiting on your work. This is also accomplished by the common ownership of industry and production as a whole.

shit like housing is personal, not private property and is individually owned, but in a socialist society it is by law that every working person has a right to housing. So if you worked, youd be getting the full value of it not trough currency but shit like 'free' housing, healthcare, cheap and affordable cinema and theatre and all simmilar social programs, which are incentivized.

unemployment is illegal. no NEETS allowed.

>>2520130
Try any citation of Bosniak casualties during the Yugoslav wars. Wikipedia gives the estimate of 101,000, but I've read as high as 140,000.

>>2520030
Yes and?