>>74631
> Also you seem to have some sort of arbitrary barrier where workers is suddenly everyone else but those who owned the businesses beforehand. If I form my own software company, am I not a worker because I formed the company and own the property used to operate it>
Ask /leftypol/ about that one. Something something "labor aristocracy".
>>74633
>If the world economy collapses, how would the "average person have more purchasing power than anyone else? Also, how viable is a computer, internet and power-grid dependent currency in the case of a global collapse? A barter and physical metals system would be much more likely in event of collapse
If cryptos are still used as a means of exchange they will hold value, more so than debt based currencies. Especially if cryptos start being tied to physical metals like silver, which would be a logical step to ensure stability with intrinsic value.
>some workers buying a failed company means all workers now control the means of production
>even though the people that bought the company are now, by definition, the owners and not the workers
>i'll just let you embarass yourself on this one
/leftypol/ has this debate as to whether or not cooperative enterprises are communism or not but since coops are in the dreamland of "liberatarian leftism" and don't function as well as hierarchical entities it's really quite idiotic. If somehow the worker's converted their companies into cooperatives they would fail to entities with a more limited leadership or be bought out by ambitious investors, like the collapse of guilds during the industrial revolution evolving into a system of advanced independent artisans and low skilled factories revolving around the elite ownership.