[B0ycey]

First, I don’t agree that everyone wants the full value of their production.

You question that people don't want to be exploited?

People accept the system because there is no alternative today. If there was they wouldn't.

I have known too many people who believe the secret to a happy life is 8 hours of work to enjoy the other 16 hours plus weekends without any responsibility. They actually enjoy being the workers rather than the owners.

Socialism does not mean the end of work. And if anything it reduces overall responsibility, not enhances it. After all, why do you work in a capitalist society? To provide a means to survive. If the means of survival is provided then your only responsiblity is to work. Not pay bills.

The problem is when they attempt to make it larger than a community, which can only result in a contradiction to the very basis of socialism/communism. How can people be owners if it is dictated what their economy/government must be. It is a contradiction I fail to understand. It seems to me Socialists/communists are simultaneously claiming to have it all figured out while claiming it is social evolution that they don’t know the end result of. This makes no sense to me.
The morality part is this same contradiction. How can you claim to understand human morality as an absolute while claiming it is evolutionary? How can you claim ownership of the means of production leads to the greatest moral Good when there are people who don’t want to be owners.
It comes down to academics deciding there is a natural morality and they are smart enough to figure out what it is despite the evidence we are capable of no such thing. Why does it allow for societal evolution if they already claim to know the answers?
I am sure they may have answers for these questions, so take my post as a request for further information on how they justify what I see as contradictions. To me, it just seems another attempt to create a humanistic quality of sameness to humans which is a contradiction to our uniqueness.

If you eliminate the value of ownership people would not desire it. Simple. And people don't become owners under socialism. The means of production changes hands from the bourgeois and given to the state. So the only real difference to the worker is the surplus labor is a commodity for shared excess and not turned into profit for the land owner which creates a division is class FYI. Although it has to said I believe in democracy. If socialism is to be achieved I would prefer it to be done democratically. I do not believe revolution is the answer as it causes division and perhaps forces the culture to change rather than evolve naturally which in turn produces contradictions that can end the movement.

Nonetheless we have had welfare and acceleration in Capitalism discussed in other threads and they have relevance to this one. It needs to be said the only thing that has stopped capitalism from falling apart today is the welfare state. After all, someone needs to buy the products created by the factory and welfare gives money back into the hands of the poor who would have not have the means to buy the products they created without it. And as things progress with capitalism, the Capitalists are running out of ideas to solve the contractions they make for themselves. Solutions they have done so far is create easy access to credit and they have executed QE to subsides toxic loans. How many more crashes are needed before it all falls apart and there are no solutions left? And when they do, people will revolt and they will revolt against the bourgeois.

So it isnt a question of if but when socialism will raise from the ashes and the means of production returns to the state - as this is the only solution for a broken economy within a financial crash - and to also create new jobs BTW is by reverting to Keynesian method by starting new socialist projects.

[One Degree]

You question that people don't want to be exploited?

People accept the system because there is no alternative today. If there was they wouldn't.

I disagree. They truly enjoy being workers. What basis do you have that all people object to this? I don’t believe the majority of psychologists would agree with you.

Socialism does not mean the end of work. And if anything it reduces overall responsibility, not enhances it. After all, why do you work in a capitalist society? To provide a means to survive. If the means of survival is provided then your only responsiblity is to work. Not pay bills.

There is no need to work to survive in Western countries. This is an anachronism. People work due to a social or personal moral obligation.

If you eliminate the value of ownership people would not desire it. Simple. And people don't become owners under socialism. The means of production changes hands from the bourgeois and given to the state. So the only real difference to the worker is the surplus labor is a commodity for shared excess and not turned into profit for the land owner which creates a division is class FYI. Although it has to said I believe in democracy. If socialism is to be achieved I would prefer it to be done democratically. I do not believe revolution is the answer as it causes division and perhaps forces the culture to change rather than evolve naturally which in turn produces contradictions that can end the movement.

Nonsense. People in every society throughout history have wanted personal possessions. 67% of people in post industrial countries are landowners. More anachronism of applying the past to the present.

Nonetheless we have had welfare and acceleration in Capitalism discussed in other threads and they have relevance to this one. It needs to be said the only thing that has stopped capitalism from falling apart today is the welfare state. After all, someone needs to buy the products created by the factory and welfare gives money back into the hands of the poor who would have not have the means to buy the products they created without it. And as things progress with capitalism, the Capitalists are running out of ideas to solve the contractions they make for themselves. Solutions they have done so far is create easy access to credit and they have executed QE to subsides toxic loans. How many more crashes are needed before it all falls apart and there are no solutions left? And when they do, people will revolt and they will revolt against the bourgeois.

Socialism does the same thing. They just call it something like ‘labor credits’ instead of money. Capitalism isn’t the problem. Government corrupted by capitalists is the problem. These government officials will be just as corrupt under Socialism. Ideology isn’t the problem, a system dependent upon hierarchy is.

So it isnt a question of if but when socialism will raise from the ashes and the means of production returns to the state - as this is the only solution for a broken economy within a financial crash - and to also create new jobs BTW is by reverting to Keynesian method by starting new socialist projects.

How do you see any difference for people whether the means of production is controlled by capitalists or the government? Elite control is elite control. Both return some value to the worker, but there is zero evidence government returns more in reality. The only way people win is if you eliminate the hierarchy. What evidence is there that centralized government is efficient? It seems to me we complain about how wasteful they are. Even the best examples of socialism didn’t return more to the workers, they returned more to the non workers. Which might explain why they no longer even have worker support.

[B0ycey]

I disagree. They truly enjoy being workers. What basis do you have that all people object to this? I don’t believe the majority of psychologists would agree with you.

What makes you think work ceases under socialism?

Boxer is a requirement not a hindrance to socialism.

There is no need to work to survive in Western countries. This is an anachronism. People work due to a social or personal moral obligation.

Are you for real?

It is not a requirement to work in Western Countries?

Who pays taxes in an idle society?

Nonsense. People in every society throughout history have wanted personal possessions. 67% of people in post industrial countries are landowners. More anachronism of applying the past to the present.

Because in every society pocession has value. If procession has no value it is not desirable.

Socialism does the same thing. They just call it something like ‘labor credits’ instead of money. Capitalism isn’t the problem. Government corrupted by capitalists is the problem. These government officials will be just as corrupt under Socialism. Ideology isn’t the problem, a system dependent upon hierarchy is.

Do you think I am not aware that socialism can be corrupt? I have highlighted this in many threads before now. But that doesn't mean socialism isn't the answer. Just that it shouldn't be the totalitarian states that is covered in socialist clothing we have seen so far and the means of production should be focused on the needs of the populous not the state.

How do you see any difference for people whether the means of production is controlled by capitalists or the government? Elite control is elite control. Both return some value to the worker, but there is zero evidence government returns more in reality. The only way people win is if you eliminate the hierarchy. What evidence is there that centralized government is efficient? It seems to me we complain about how wasteful they are. Even the best examples of socialism didn’t return more to the workers, they returned more to the non workers. Which might explain why they no longer even have worker support.

Communism eliminates inherited hierarchy FYI. Although it needs to be said you are focusing on history rather than ideology. Where do you want your surplus labor to go? To the bourgeois or your own pocket? Socialism provides the answer to this but only if the right systems are in place. The problem is the human instinct of self interest which makes the elite class look after their own interest rather than that of the collective - and this aspect of human nature doesn't seem to eliminate in a socialist environment if we look back into history. But that does not take anything away from Marx ideology. It is just that all socialist governments become new forms of Marxism that evolve away from his objectives and become more state driven economies. So for Socialism to work it should be a social project and a society driven economy with the ultimate goal being that the means of production is given to the workers and that the state is eliminated all together.

[One Degree]

@B0ycey , we seem to have a lot in agreement. As far as whether I want my money to go in my pocket or the bourgeois is an unnecessary question imo. I don’t think socialism/communism needs all the restrictive minutiae. It is what causes it to fail by over planning which requires higher authority to enforce.
The basis, as I understand it, is community ownership. Simply banning outside ownership is all that is needed. All labor and wealth must then benefit the community.The rest is to dictate world uniformity which is not necessary if you believe it is truly a better way of living. This would be better left to the individual communities working out cooperation and allowing others to copy their success in their own time and individual approach. This allows the best to surface rather than assuming you already know the best and dictating it.
There is nothing that centralized control is needed for that voluntary cooperation can not accomplish.

[B0ycey]

You spend all your time arguing against a system to then say you agree with it?

Although it is the value of surplus labor and who gains from it that is the reason for the exploitation of the working class. It isn't really something that should be brushed under the carpet as an unnecessary question in a topic about morals. For example, is it right that someone who works full time on minimum wage does not have full access to healthcare in America yet Paris Hilton get hers by inherented wealth? Under socialism both would have access to healthcare and Hilton would contribute to society rather than be a stain on it. Perhaps remember that the next time you visit a hospital and you have limited healthcare options avaliable to you and you start blaming migrants for exploiting the system and getting theirs for free or whatever.

[One Degree]

You spend all your time arguing against a system to then say you agree with it?

Although it is the value of surplus labor and who gains from it that is the reason for the exploitation of the working class. It isn't really something that should be brushed under the carpet as an unnecessary question in a topic about morals. For example, is it right that someone who works full time on minimum wage does not have full access to healthcare in America yet Paris Hilton get hers by inherented wealth? Under socialism both would have access to healthcare and Hilton would contribute to society rather than be a stain on it. Perhaps remember that the next time you visit a hospital and you have limited healthcare options avaliable to you and you start blaming migrants for exploiting the system and getting theirs for free or whatever.

I argue against all universalists systems and support them all locally. It is only the hubris of assuming they know what is best for everyone I object to.
Life is not fair. You can not dream up a system that eliminates it. You can only create communities that will help you if you need it. I prefer to trust in my neighbors than a universal ideology based on a stereotype that is not me. Create ‘community ownership’ and the community will take care of it’s own. No need for elaborate universal ideology. Universalism destroys community which is our true safety net mentally, emotionally, and physically. It got us to where we are and now fools want to destroy it with federal dominance and globalism that doesn’t even know I exist, let alone care about me.

[B0ycey]

Yadi-Yadi-Ya. Yes One Degree we all know you want a load of square communities based on longitude and latitude, forgetting economics relies on collaboration.

[One Degree]

Yadi-Yadi-Ya. Yes One Degree we all know you want a load of square communities based on longitude and latitude, forgetting economics relies of collaboration.

There is nothing preventing autonomous communities from working together. Centralists always bring up this criticism, but they never defend it. Tell me something that can not be accomplished through voluntary cooperation? It is actually how it is done now. No one forces a company to sell parts to Boeing to make a jet. Many different communities contribute to a product finished in one community. That need not change.

[B0ycey]

There is nothing preventing autonomous communities from working together. Centralists always bring up this criticism, but they never defend it. Tell me something that can not be accomplished through voluntary cooperation? It is actually how it is done now. No one forces a company to sell parts to Boeing to make a jet. Many different communities contribute to a product finished in one community. That need not change.

It is not about voluntary cooperation but basic economics. You can get more out of pooling tax revenues in terms of public spending. Not to mention trade barriers and resources. If you start creating a shit load of small nations, they could never accumulate enough wealth to finance building a well let along alone an aerospace firm.

[One Degree]

It is not about voluntary cooperation but basic economics. You can get more out of pooling tax revenues in terms of public spending. Not to mention trade barriers and resources. If you start creating a shit load of small nations, they could never accumulate enough wealth to finance building a well let along alone an aerospace firm.

That would explain Switzerland, Monaco, etc, suffering so badly. Lol. What specifically does the government save us money on by pooling tax money that can’t be done by a community of one million or even 100,000?
Their wall would be shorter so of course they could afford it. They did it a lot in history.
It’s all delusion. The federal government does nothing the states couldn’t do through cooperation. Increasing the number of states makes no difference.

[B0ycey]

That would explain Switzerland, Monaco, etc, suffering so badly. Lol.

Tax and financial havens. Nice One Degree.

Wealth needs to be created before it can be hidden FYI.

What specifically does the government save us money on by pooling tax money that can’t be done by a community of one million or even 100,000?

With America that is a tough one. Space flight? Illegal wars? Dams? WALLS?

Perhaps consider vital infrastructure like power stations, reservoirs, sewage, transport links, rail, airports, seaports etc.

Their wall would be shorter so of course they could afford it. They did it a lot in history.
It’s all delusion. The federal government does nothing the states couldn’t do through cooperation. Increasing the number of states makes no difference.

Look around your flat and ask how many items you have from your community? None I suspect. Then ask if what you eat is produced from your community? Is your community landlocked? How does your supplies get to your house? Does you community have fuel? Does it have a power station? And water? Now ask from your items in your house, how many communities create each individual part in your devices and do you think they resources the materials for those parts as well. The more barriers the more cost involved btw.

It is simple economics. The freer the market the wealthier the market. Perhaps you need to understanding globalisation before you talk shit.

[One Degree]

Tax and financial havens. Nice One Degree.

Wealth needs to be created before it can be hidden FYI.

You are just going to ignore Switzerland exports of...
Gems, precious metals: US$84.6 billion (28.2% of total exports)
Pharmaceuticals: $70.3 billion (23.5%)
Machinery including computers: $23.7 billion (7.9%)
Clocks, watches including parts: $20.2 billion (6.8%)
Organic chemicals: $19.8 billion (6.6%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $16.1 billion (5.4%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $12.2 billion (4.1%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $5.1 billion (1.7%)
Perfumes, cosmetics: $3.3 billion (1.1%)
Articles of iron or steel: $3 billion (1%)

With America that is a tough one. Space flight? Illegal wars? Dams? WALLS?

I already explained how Boeing could continue producing jets, space flight is no different. Building a dam does not require the resources of the US.

Perhaps consider vital infrastructure like power stations, reservoirs, sewage, transport links, rail, airports, seaports etc.

Research will show for each 50,000 people we have a power plant, sewage treatment, transport links, airports and usually rail. International airports and seaports exist in communities less than a million.

Look around your flat and ask how many items you have from your community? None I suspect. Then ask if what you eat is produced from your community? Is your community landlocked? How does your supplies get to your house? Does you community have fuel? Does it have a power station? And water? Now ask from your items in your house, how many communities create each individual part in your devices and do you think they resources the materials for those parts as well. The more barriers the more cost involved btw.

None of this needs to change. See above for power and water.

It is simple economics. The freer the market the wealthier the market. Perhaps you need to understanding globalisation before you talk shit.

The more participants in the market does not change the freedom of the market. Personally, I see no need for tariffs. You either trade for a product or you don’t. You either trade with another community or you don’t.

You keep thinking the federal government does these things but in reality they are all done by local communities. Funneling the money through the federal government first is an unnecessary and recent event whose purpose is control, not efficiency.
Admittedly there may be some projects that need their own location, but these could be established as international communities.

[B0ycey]

You are just going to ignore Switzerland exports of...

But One Degree, you are ignoring that Switzerland is a country not a square city.

I already explained how Boeing could continue producing jets, space flight is no different. Building a dam does not require the resources of the US.

In a world of square cities, multiple barriers, custom checks, multiple partners, resource issues, transport links and nations that are meant to fund airports, power plants and sewage and water pipes with tax from 100,000, who are not likely to be rich due to wealth stagnation. Whatever. keep thinking your reality is anything more than a pipe dream. There is a reason I never even take a word you say seriously. You are full of shit due to your Trump butt sniffing.

Research will show for each 50,000 people we have a power plant, sewage treatment, transport links, airports and usually rail. International airports and seaports exist in communities less than a million.

So? Who has the debt to fund these programs? Your nation. And in a world of square cities all the wealth would be at the coast and anywhere with resource - and there wouldn't be much wealth being created either. Everywhere else could not fund a well so all that will happen is that everyone would migrate into Hong Kong type cities by the coast. Which is fine of you want to stagnate overall global wealth and pocket population within large areas into small areas. Not to mention logistic problems. Corroboration is the key for wealth. Not barriers.

None of this needs to change. See above for power and water.

Every nation is a barrier. They have their own interest and aren't just going to let things pass without checks. You are expecting everything to not change when everything has changed? And if nations create tariffs in order to finance their landlocked city with little resource? Not to mention that with the creation of product using multiples parts the added costs of these as it no longer becomes deals between companies but agreements between nations.

The more participants in the market does not change the freedom of the market. Personally, I see no need for tariffs. You either trade for a product or you don’t. You either trade with another community or you don’t.

Ask why a nation has tariffs before expecting it not to have them. Do you seriously think a world of cities would not have them? And think of the tariffs involved in just crossing products from one side of America to the centre. More Hogwash from the economist of fantasy thinking.

You keep thinking the federal government does these things but in reality they are all done by local communities. Funneling the money through the federal government first is an unnecessary and recent event whose purpose is control, not efficiency.
Admittedly there may be some projects that need their own location, but these could be established as international communities.

Haven’t you heard of the Federal reserve?

More bollocks written by the fantasy economist. It is as if you can't understand that money goes further when it is pooled together and spent in areas that needs them (at specific times) at the expense of areas that don't to create more wealth for a nation overall which in turn finances new national projects. Plus financial institutions work better when they invest in areas outside their city. Money crosses borders.

[One Degree]

But One Degree, you are ignoring that Switzerland is a country not a square city.

One degree areas are not squares.

In a world of square cities, multiple barriers, custom checks, multiple partners, resource issues, transport links and nations that are meant to fund airports, power plants and sewage and water pipes with tax from 100,000, who are not likely to be rich due to wealth stagnation. Whatever. keep thinking your reality is anything more than a pipe dream. There is a reason I never even take a word you say seriously.

Who do you think built these power plants, airports, etc.? You seem to think the federal government is responsible for things it isn’t. Private companies and local communities funded these projects.

You are full of shit due to your Trump butt sniffing.

Here we have the admission of defeat in a debate.

So? Who has the debt to fund these programs? Your nation. And in a world of square cities all the wealth would be at the coast and anywhere with resource - and there wouldn't be much wealth being created either. Everywhere else could not fund a well so all that will happen is that everyone would migrate into Hong Kong type cities by the coast. Which is fine of you want to stagnate overall global wealth and pocket population within large areas into small areas. Not to mention logistic problems. Corroboration is the key for wealth. Not barriers.

You have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge in who funds these projects. You have not given a single example where the resources of the US are needed except for war. Most federal funding today is only needed because the money is funneled through Washington first. It is not necessary and it is inefficient.

Every nation is a barrier. They have their own interest and aren't just going to let things pass without checks. You are expecting everything to not change when everything has changed? And if nations create tariffs in order to finance their landlocked city with little resource? Not to mention that with the creation of product using multiples parts the added costs of these as it no longer becomes deals between companies but agreements between nations.

The world has gone from 57 nations to 195 in less than 100 years. Has it made the things you mentioned better or worse? Your argument has no factual basis, just an unrealistic reliance on ‘centralized is better’. Barriers are not determined by the size of countries.

Ask why a nation has tariffs before expecting it not to have them. Do you seriously think a world of cities would not have them? And think of the tariffs involved in just crossing products from one side of America to the centre. More Hogwash from the economist of fantasy thinking.

Tariffs have no relationship to a country’s size.

Haven’t you heard of the Federal reserve?

We can function without it, but there is no reason it could not be continued by cooperation.

More bollocks written by the fantasy economist. It is as if you can't understand that money goes further when it is pooled together and spent in areas that needs them (at specific times) at the expense of areas that don't to create more wealth for a nation overall which in turn finances new national projects. Plus financial institutions work better when they invest in areas outside their city. Money crosses borders.

So you like our world controlled by the interests of big banks and global corporations? That is putting money in your pocket? However, there is no reason this must change just because the number of countries increased as the last 100 years proves. Your arguments are imaginary.

[B0ycey]

Who do you think built these power plants, airports, etc.? You seem to think the federal government is responsible for things it isn’t. Private companies and local communities funded these projects.

Talk about someone who doesn't know anything. Just confirming what I already know. Don't worry.

Nonetheless if you are talking about private investment ask yourself if is ever locally funded? Very rarely. And if it isn't state funded that investment might come from any square city. Not that it is likely to happen of course. Trying to create such an economic system, capitalism as we know it would collapse so what would happen is the areas with power will have it and the areas that don't won't as there be no money to make new investments.

So all your pipe dream would do is just create pockets of population in affluent areas in high rise living. Nobody is going to reside in a square city (Yes, Square) if all they have to export is rocks and sand. Because you cannot see this there is no point even replying. Also you have not taken into account tariffs and said something in the lines of it has nothing to do with size of the country. So? Well sherlock, there is an awful lot of tariffs and custom checks crossing twenty square areas to get to sell in the former central America. What do you think will happen to inflation in such a square city?

So you like our world controlled by the interests of big banks and global corporations? That is putting money in your pocket? However, there is no reason this must change just because the number of countries increased as the last 100 years proves. Your arguments are imaginary.

There is only two outcomes to eliminate trade barriers. End the existence of nations or create federations. More nations with their own involvement and interests equals more barriers. It really is that simple.

But sure if you want to end big banks and corporations and live a more basic lifestyle and reduce your finacial outcome and cause inflation then break up America. It certainly will do the world a favour.

[One Degree]

Talk about someone who doesn't know anything. Just confirming what I already know. Don't worry.

Nonetheless if you are talking about private investment ask yourself if is ever locally funded? Very rarely. And if it isn't state funded that investment might come from any square city. Not that it is likely to happen of course. Trying to create such an economic system, capitalism as we know it would collapse so what would happen is the areas with power will have it and the areas that don't won't as there be no money to make new investments.

So all your pipe dream would do is just create pockets of population in affluent areas in high rise living. Nobody is going to reside in a square city (Yes, Square) if all they have to export is rocks and sand. Because you cannot see this there is no point even replying. Also you have not taken into account tariffs and said something in the lines of it has nothing to do with size of the country. So? Well sherlock, there is an awful lot of tariffs and custom checks crossing twenty square areas to get to sell in the former central America. What do you think will happen to inflation in such a square city?



There is only two outcomes to eliminate trade barriers. End the existence of nations or create federations. More nations with their own involvement and interests equals more barriers. It really is that simple.

But sure if you want to end big banks and corporations and live a more basic lifestyle and reduce your finacial outcome and cause inflation then break up America. It certainly will do the world a favour.

You seem to not grasp the point that the federal government builds nothing. All actual work must be done by local people in local communities. There is no way around this. The disagreement about what the EU should be shows trade barriers do not have to exist between autonomous countries. Tariffs don’t need to exist at all if you are free to trade with who you want. International banking exists. It did not disappear when the number of countries increased.
Centralized government is forcedcooperation of local communities. The only difference I propose is any cooperation be voluntary. You don’t need direct control of individuals for communities to work together.

[B0ycey]

You seem to not grasp the point that the federal government builds nothing.

Then you are uneducated in Keynesian economics. It is true that the private sector gets involved in national projects but they will only do so if there is a fast or very profitable return with any high risk project that the government gives to them. Also Keynes nemesis Heyek advocated for the private sector to profit in the free market the market needs to be completely free and have as little influence from any state involvement. More national involvement equals more barriers and more state involvement meaning less goods. Then there is the Invisible hand. This needs complete cooperation between nations so both become wealthy and barriers again hinder the free market and self interest capacity. But if you don't care for corporations or big banks and want a more centralised economy, then you will be poorer for it and you will have a more socialist society. Plus there be migration like anything you have ever seen before as residence from poor square cities will just migrate to affluent areas for work.

All actual work must be done by local people in local communities. There is no way around this. The disagreement about what the EU should be shows trade barriers do not have to exist between autonomous countries. Tariffs don’t need to exist at all if you are free to trade with who you want.

Trade barriers don't need to exist. But they will exist if there is a need for it. If a square city can profit from taxing goods that pass through it they will.

International banking exists. It did not disappear when the number of countries increased.
Centralized government is forcedcooperation of local communities. The only difference I propose is any cooperation be voluntary. You don’t need direct control of individuals for communities to work together.

As I said, it won't work. Or it will but at the cost of creating small highly populated areas and lower standards of living.

[One Degree]

Then you are uneducated in Keynesian economics. It is true that the private sector gets involved in national projects but they will only do so if there is a fast or very profitable return with any high risk project that the government gives to them. Also Keynes nemesis Heyek advocated for the private sector to profit in the free market the market needs to be completely free and have as little influence from any state involvement. More national involvement equals more barriers and more state involvement meaning less goods. Then there is the Invisible hand. This needs complete cooperation between nations so both become wealthy and barriers again hinder the free market and self interest capacity. But if you don't care for corporations or big banks and want a more centralised economy, then you will be poorer for it and you will have a more socialist society. Plus there be migration like anything you have ever seen before as residence from poor square cities will just migrate to affluent areas for work.



Trade barriers don't need to exist. But they will exist if there is a need for it. If a square city can profit from taxing goods that pass through it they will.



As I said, it won't work. Or it will but at the cost of creating small highly populated areas and lower standards of living.

What do you need in your life that can not be provided by the joint effort of say 100,000 people? Your social needs are probably best met by a population of 10,000. This has been shown to be the ideal size for the best k-12 education for instance. 50,000 will provide all modern necessities. A population of 100,000 gives you redundancy in necessities. Larger only benefits the capitalists. You gain nothing from it except excess wealth if you are lucky. I allow for local communities of a maximum of a million people to satisfy our greed and need for indulgence. Ideally, our technology should be used to create self sufficient smaller communities for our mental health. Dependency upon world markets creates personal insecurity, not security. So, do you want wealth or a better life?
Small autonomous communities will still be corrupt but their corruption is limited. No one wants to see a large country fail, so we tolerate their corruption. We can let small communities fail from their own corruption and learn we don’t need to tolerate it for the ‘economy’.
Another way of looking at it is for me to accept your view. My position then becomes forcing you to accept my decisions as the ‘right’ ones. That is what we have now, and I don’t like it. If forced to abandon my view of local autonomy, then my rational choice is to eliminate all who disagree with me. See, I don’t think economics should be our priority.

[Pants-of-dog]

I know this is a bit confusing title so I will elaborate.

To get it started, what do i mean by morality in this case. The view of communism/socialism that the means of production should belong to the working class. In a sense of industrialisation of the late 19th century and the 20th century that view is understandable. People did produce things in mass, especially in less intellectuall intesive fields like coal, steel, grain, cars, planes, machinery etc. All mostly done through standardised means of production or the assembly line. Or something similar even before the assembly line was invented. All was done for meagar pay with less than desirable working conditions mostly. So from that view point common ownership of means of production is understandable to say the least.

Now i am not sure when the situation changed greatly. I guess it happened over time through out the 20th century and 21st century. Nowadays when we view a products that we consume then it is a bit different. First of all, our economy shifted from industry based economy to a services based economy. Also the economy requires more intelectual approach in general to the products that we produce and consume. It is a bit hard to explain but Ill try to do it with examples. So the question is, are the workers deserving of the common ownership of the means just because they are the one that produced it? Also who exactly are the workers/working class in the case of different products?

It is incorrect to say that our economy shifted from an industry based economy to a service based economy. It would be more correct to say that the industry based businesses simply transferred their industrial infrastructure to developing countries where wages are substantially lower.

As to your questions, I will address the second question first:

Also who exactly are the workers/working class in the case of different products?

So, before we get to the answer, we should agree that things have changed, and that the class system that was such a big concept in the time of Marx and Engels is no longer such a big deal. So that paradigm is not as useful as it once was. So, we have to analyse it further. And the next logical question is: what was (or is, in many places) so bad about the class system?

The answer is that the problem, from a Marxist point of view, is the problem of economic leverage being used as a tool for exploitation.

In other words, the person with all the money in an economic relationship has all the power in said relationship, and this person can then use this power to force the other into doing something they would not voluntarily accept otherwise.

So, the worker, or member of the working class, is the person who is vulnerable to exploitation in any economic relationship.

Which then leads us to your first question:

So the question is, are the workers deserving of the common ownership of the means just because they are the one that produced it?

Well, I think everyone deserves to be protected from exploitation in any relationship, including economic relationships.

So then we need to ask ourselves if the common ownership of the means of production is a good way to protect against this vulnerability to exploitation, and I think it is a very good solution.

Som they not obly deserve it because they produce the goids or services, but also because they are humans who should not have to deal with exploitation.

So let us take an example:
Mobile Phone:
1 ) The mobile phone needs to appear as a "Good Idea" in someones head. (Let's say Steve jobs for example)
2 ) The mobile phone needs to be implemented from the "Good Idea" stage to reality in some shape or form. (Collective effort of many high ranking people in a corporation)
3 ) The mobile phone needs to be invented in a certain shape or form hardware wise.
4 ) The mobile phone needs to be invented in a certain shape or form software wise.
5 ) The mobile phone needs to be marketed so the people will be aware that it exists.
6 ) The mobile phone parts need to be produced by different enterprises or the enterprise that invented it.
7 ) The mobile phone needs to be assembled somewhere.
8 ) The mobile phone needs to be shipped somewhere.
9 ) The mobile phone needs to be sold somewhere.

So as we go through the steps then the communist/socialist common ownership of the means of production starts falling apart. So let us start with the obvious ones.

Who is the worker/working class in this case?

There are so many people involved in this and they do so many different things in different enterprises scattered all across the world so the meaning worker becomes vague. In the 20th century you could usually take a factory and see the workers themselves. They usually produce everything on site but that is just not the case anymore. Theoretically it is possible but that would only be possible in the very largest countries like China, Russia, US but not other smaller countries in this context. So how will it work if production is scattered between different countries? World revolution? (We all understand that is not possible)

In this situation, there are many working class people. The people in the factory who make the phones, the people working for the owners of the design firms, the people working for the shipping company, etc.

Are the workers even deserving of the common ownership?

What i mean by this is that there are definitely people that do the production itself physically. But the people higher on the chain enable it and without steps 1,2,3,4,5 there would be no production. The numbers of people involved in 1,2,3,4,5 are usually a LOT less than the people involved with everything else below. But if 1,2,3,4,5 do not do their job then the production is not possible. There is simply no product to produce. So it begs the question, why would the people involved in 1,2,3,4,5 be compensated on the equal grounds as 6,7,8,9?

The dependency is top to bottom and not the other way around because if 6,7,8,9 do not want to do it then 1,2,3,4,5 can do it themselves theoretically. The working class is technically needed for up-scaling or cutting cost because it is possible to do it with machinery if required. (If the working class doesn't want to produce it for example). Also i doubt people will argue that 1,2,3,4,5 have a harder job because it requires a certain level of professional knowledge/know-how that is not easily accessible. So again why would the workers in a classical sense be compensated the same as the people whos work is harder, on whom they are dependant and whos work enables the production in the first place?

The people who work for design and marketing firms (steps 3-5) can also be workers, and can network with the people in the followoing steps to get things done without capitalist ownership of their groups.

As far as I can tell, step 1 can be done by anyone.

Step 2 seems vague and unnecessary.

Another problem stems from the fact that our economy shifted from industry to services. To make the common ownership possible we need to identify the product itself which can't exist inside common ownership. When we talk about services then the service/product provided is usually is a vague brand like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc which separates them from common coffee shops or restaurants for example.

So right now if for example McDonalds will get "Expropriated" then will McDonalds even exist as we imagine it right now. Theoretically this prosses of expropriation will turn it in a standard burger joint of some sort. McDonalds is a large enterprise that is much more than just making burgers although that is their main product. I mean Communists will argue that there is no point of seperate burger joints but this argument is pretty much a no-go zone which basically will kill any hope of communism/socialism appearing. (I mean really? Who will even want to live in a world without McDonalds! You get the point)

Yes, brands like this would simply not exist any more.

But simple restaurants where you can get prepared food would still exist.

[JohnRawls]

@Pants-of-dog

You didn't answer the question though. Why are the workers higher on the chain deserving of the same pay as the workers on the lower levels. Steps 1 and 2 are more important than the other steps. If we take Steve Jobs as an example, he wasn't the first one that invented the smart phone, he is just the person who redesigned it and made it popular. So are you see, the 1st and 2nd steps can't be done by just anyone nor the compensation should be the same. Why would you compensate somebody the same for doing a better job?

As for the brands, well, i said that an answer that brands will not exist is not acceptable. Many can build a Lada but not many can build a Tesla or a BMW etc. That is kinda the point of brands which you want to disappear. People are generally not interested in an infinite amount of Ladas unless there is no other choice.