• Happy pride month, xisters of the schlog!

Very serious Collective property is impossible

Post thread
This tag connotates the discussion as something much more serious than a regular Serious tag.
ZOGs #1 Supporter

ZOGs #1 Supporter

Semen Chudakov Enthusiast
Gem
Joined
Jul 6, 2024
Messages
2,664
Before we begin, some definitions:
- Collective ownership is the ownership of private property by all members of a group. In other words, multiple people own the entirety of some arbitrarily defined property all at once.
- Ownership is the possession and control over property.

Take 2 people, Tim and Joe.
Both collectively own a stick.
That means these 2 people control this property (the stick) and can do whatever they want with it.

If Tim wishes to, let's say, turn this stick into a fishing spear, what would he have to do that wouldn't either:
A- violate Joe's property rights as Tim wants to do something to Joe's property without his consent, contradicting the notion it was Joe's property in the first place,
or
B- Require compromise, be it in the present, current or future, contradicting the notion it was Tim's property in the first place as he is restricted in his actions?

>But they can just both agree

Right up until Tim has no reason to, then refer to reasons A or B.

In short, unless you wanna be a consent slut for Joe, you're gonna run into conflicting wants, thus making collective ownership not possible w/o cuckoldry to the other person's wants or actions leading to contradictions.

Not to mention the cuckoldry isn't even voluntary, considering you are likely doing this because you don't want a conflict, rather than because you genuinely want everything that Joe wants.


Reddit edit:
- fixed some spelling errors
- showed the logical contradiction in reason A
- gave a simplified definition of collective ownership
- made some important points of notice bold
 
Last edited:
Mongoloigul said:
Is communism cuckoldry?
Click to expand...
yes, it is when I am the central planner and if you don't start licking my boots (crucial to the construction of the communist utopia) you are a kulak and will be pogromed.

Plajer Sojdżekowski said:
Is capitalism also with collective property because companies belong to many people?
Click to expand...
For the sake of the argument, consider this:
Imagine 10 identical coins in a bag. I own the bag, not the coins and am trusted with any copies of titles of ownership. A few people, let's say, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, have documented evidence (a title of ownership) that says that Hitler owns 40%, and the other 2 own 30% each. This isn't collective as each coin has its rightful owner, as documented by the paper proof.

In other words, it is closer to people owning bits of something that all VOLUNTARILY and mutually choose to cooperate with each other, all agreeing to a set of predefined rules before the conglomeration.

FrogKing said:
Capitalism and private property is also cuckoldry. You have to sacrifice 2/3rds of your life working for someone you probably don't even know and if you refuse to do so you get to starve
Click to expand...
>well erm, im mortal and i didnt consent to that therefore muh hecking capitalism WAAAH
sorry nusoicaca, i don't have a binky on me at this moment. Ask @DOLL, not me!
also
>big bad big government gets paid off by big bad big corporations to pass and enforce monopolistic laws
> the monopoly has control over more things than it otherwise would have
>thus making people either have to bow down to it or choose an alternative too backbreaking to be feasible
even then, it can at best have a monopoly over one resource, like Nvidia's almost monopoly on processors.

Oh also subjective theory of value mogs labour theory of value, due to value being a subjective thing.
 
FrogKing said:
>Value is subjective because I said so
Click to expand...
gigaSmard.png
 
SmallAnus said:
collectivism
Click to expand...
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the people collectively.

That's what my Grammarly plugin says it is. Tbh, considering it says
>economic system
and not a business organization structure, they, 'the people', will have to delegate an organization (typically the gov't) the 'right' to force people to own the productions and distributions as a group. I'm also assuming that the 'collective' part means collective ownership, that is each person owns the entirety of the thing they manage, of which I have demonstrated how that would lead to conflict or therefore contradiction.|
FrogKing said:
Value is subjective because I said so
Click to expand...
Yes, the definition of value explicitly states this (unless you are referring to the OTHER meaning of value). The question of trade is another conundrum.
FrogKing said:
private property is also cuckoldry
Click to expand...
No, owning things does not make you a cuck. Unless you mean a cuck to the voluntarily chosen (optional) responsibility to take care of your possessions, then even that isn't true because you can choose not to.
 
Ah, comrade, what a brilliantly reactionary diatribe we have here—a veritable tapestry of sophistry woven from the finest strands of bourgeois individualism! Let us dissect this masterpiece of absurdity with the sharp scalpel of dialectical materialism and expose its internal contradictions for the amusement of the proletariat.

We are told that collective ownership is an impossible dream because Tim and Joe, who jointly own a stick, will inevitably descend into a maelstrom of conflict should their individual desires for the stick diverge. The stick, poor proletarian that it is, becomes the stage for the supposed irreconcilable drama of human cooperation. What a curious world this argument inhabits, where all human interaction is reduced to a zero-sum game of property fetishism!

First, let us address the author’s axiomatic definitions. Ownership is framed as a sacrosanct realm of absolute and unrestrained control—a notion ripped straight from the catechism of bourgeois property worship. The argument assumes that for ownership to exist, it must be total, tyrannical, and atomized, ignoring the historical and material realities of how collective ownership actually functions. Were this caricature true, society would collapse at the first instance of shared endeavor—marriages, partnerships, and communal projects of every kind would evaporate in a puff of metaphysical confusion. Yet, lo and behold, humans have managed for millennia to build cities, sail ships, and wage revolutions together without descending en masse into the author’s imagined anarchy of stick-wielding despotism.

Now let us examine the heart of the argument: Tim, desiring to transform the stick into a fishing spear, finds himself shackled either by the consent of Joe or by the "cuckoldry" of compromise. The language here is telling—"cuckoldry" is not chosen at random, for it reveals the author’s puerile obsession with domination, as if the entire world were a Nietzschean soap opera where any cooperative action is an affront to the sovereign will. How sad and narrow a life must be that views collective decision-making not as a means of mutual empowerment but as some kind of emasculating horror!

Consider for a moment the material absurdity of the dilemma presented. Tim and Joe, ostensibly grown adults, are reduced to caricatures incapable of basic communication or negotiation. Why? Because the author requires them to be so in order to uphold their straw-man version of collective ownership. In reality, people resolve such conflicts every day without spiraling into existential crises. Should Tim and Joe fail to agree, they might employ a democratic vote, take turns, or seek arbitration. Or perhaps—shock of shocks—they might recognize that the stick, in its essence, is less important than their shared interest in catching fish. The author’s insistence on the impossibility of compromise assumes a pathological level of egoism that is neither universal nor inevitable.

Finally, the author offers us the rhetorical flourish of "consent sluts," an epithet as crude as it is revealing. Here, cooperation is reframed as servitude, mutual consent as submission, and solidarity as weakness. How amusing that the very relationships that build society—relationships of shared interest, trust, and collaboration—are cast as the ultimate villainy! It is as if the author has peered into the mirror of human interdependence and recoiled in horror at their own reflection.

In conclusion, this argument is not a critique of collective ownership but an unintentional parody of the bourgeois worldview—where individual will is sacrosanct, collective action is unimaginable, and the only alternative to atomized control is "cuckoldry." It is a philosophy fit for the dustbin of history, where it shall lie alongside other such relics of reactionary thought, gathering dust as the workers of the world march on toward their collective emancipation.
 
Back
Top