>>101162641HE DID FOLKS HE USED GOOGLE!
Good boy. You get another a response, then I'm going to sleep.
>Communism is when the workers seize "the means of production".Yeah, not bad!
>Socialism is when people elect a government to do it. Okay, not as good as your first try but thats ok. You're learning.
For someone clearly new to talking about these things, you did pretty ok. Serious B+ work there anon.
>involves stealing someone's propertyPause, why is their property? Don't say "they built it" that's statistically improbable. Usually they either own it because they inherit it or because they bought it. Either way they have 0 claim to the production going on within the place of building and simply charge on the workers who actually create something of value. Without the workers they would have nothing. They are the thieves, full stop.
>who knew how to run the businessesDoesn't actually take much work even if we want to pretend that the owner class doesn't outsource all it's managerial labour to various busybodies working under them. Because a certain level of wealth propagates itself and lends itself to government protection and subsidy, a sufficiently well cat capitalist doesn't need to do much but shit his litter box all day.
>why there's no crops growing, and why everyone's starving to death.Why would the farmers who have tilling the fields for generations know less about the production of crops than the fucking fancy lad who spends all day drinking sweet tea on his daddy's well shaded porch?
Do you have any actually evidence to support this or do you just sort of FEEL that's what would happen?
>>101162651Eh doubtful. Obviously a reactionary period is likely but many reactionaries are dying off from age and the younger ones are largely outnumbered. They're not outfinanced but that's only a problem is the current youth continues to buy into liberal representational democracy.
And with ecological collapse approaching us they might not!
