The free market does not provide the full fruit of a worker's labor, but limits access to what an employer is willing to pay them, which will invariably be but a fraction of the full value of their labor because the employer will keep the lion's share of this as profit. The worker will then be very limited in what he/she can access, limited by the funds in their pocket or bank account rather than what they may actually need to live comfortably and survive, this including their basic material and psychological necessities.
Thus, the employer holds a great advantage in any negotiation process, with typical unions utilized by workers often becoming careerist and compromised by monetary offers.
And once again, you Straw Man me by claiming I support the Soviet autocratic model of state ownership, which, in your words, "hand[s] over" assets to some "communist" government (you actually meant *state-controlled* government). No one "hands over" anything in an actual Economic Democracy.
Since everything is socially owned with no autocratic state apparatus handing over the majority of it to a privileged minority, all workers enter a restaurant and help themselves to the buffet, take medical supplies as needed & prescribed by doctors from a distribution center, step into an educational facility to learn as they need or want, and acquire everything else they need and as per their reasonable wants without worrying about being unable to afford it because a few people own them instead of all the workers as a whole and charge the majority a fee to acquire what they need and reasonably wants. No one has to make a profit in order for needed items and services to be distributed, and all reasonable wants are met directly in exchange for workers' contributions. All workers vote on how this process is carried out, with collective control that is bottom-to-top.
By "communist rule," you again refer to Leninism and Stalinism, i.e., state-controlled, autocratic, class-divided society that in no way resembles what Marx & Engels actually described. This makes no sense based on what I have stated repeatedly, but that is the narrative that pro-capitalism pundits follow.
I'm trying to sell you a life in prison? For an economic democracy that meets everyone's material needs, and thus having no need to force order via the use of coercive elements like an expansive state or privately controlled police force or prisons? Again, I support an entirely different type of economic world order than the failed one you are wrongly attributing to me simply because that is what you have been conditioned to think of when you see or read terms like "socialism," "communism," "Marxism," etc.
"because in the free world, millions get mugged, die in accidents, and have their hearts broken every year."
Living with that type of insecurity doesn't exactly sound like a free society to me. It sounds more like one where far too many, likely the majority, are not getting even their basic material and psychological needs met and where order has to be maintained by force. To me, that is not freedom but constant fear, alienation, and oppression. In that conception of a "free" society, there are only a few enjoying such security, and they do off the back of the great majority.
The free market does not provide the full fruit of a worker's labor, but limits access to what an employer is willing to pay them, which will invariably be but a fraction of the full value of their labor because the employer will keep the lion's share of this as profit. The worker will then be very limited in what he/she can access, limited by the funds in their pocket or bank account rather than what they may actually need to live comfortably and survive, this including their basic material and psychological necessities.
Thus, the employer holds a great advantage in any negotiation process, with typical unions utilized by workers often becoming careerist and compromised by monetary offers.
And once again, you Straw Man me by claiming I support the Soviet autocratic model of state ownership, which, in your words, "hand[s] over" assets to some "communist" government (you actually meant *state-controlled* government). No one "hands over" anything in an actual Economic Democracy.
Since everything is socially owned with no autocratic state apparatus handing over the majority of it to a privileged minority, all workers enter a restaurant and help themselves to the buffet, take medical supplies as needed & prescribed by doctors from a distribution center, step into an educational facility to learn as they need or want, and acquire everything else they need and as per their reasonable wants without worrying about being unable to afford it because a few people own them instead of all the workers as a whole and charge the majority a fee to acquire what they need and reasonably wants. No one has to make a profit in order for needed items and services to be distributed, and all reasonable wants are met directly in exchange for workers' contributions. All workers vote on how this process is carried out, with collective control that is bottom-to-top.
By "communist rule," you again refer to Leninism and Stalinism, i.e., state-controlled, autocratic, class-divided society that in no way resembles what Marx & Engels actually described. This makes no sense based on what I have stated repeatedly, but that is the narrative that pro-capitalism pundits follow.
I'm trying to sell you a life in prison? For an economic democracy that meets everyone's material needs, and thus having no need to force order via the use of coercive elements like an expansive state or privately controlled police force or prisons? Again, I support an entirely different type of economic world order than the failed one you are wrongly attributing to me simply because that is what you have been conditioned to think of when you see or read terms like "socialism," "communism," "Marxism," etc.
"because in the free world, millions get mugged, die in accidents, and have their hearts broken every year."
Living with that type of insecurity doesn't exactly sound like a free society to me. It sounds more like one where far too many, likely the majority, are not getting even their basic material and psychological needs met and where order has to be maintained by force. To me, that is not freedom but constant fear, alienation, and oppression. In that conception of a "free" society, there are only a few enjoying such security, and they do off the back of the great majority.