Hello hello. it would seem that you are assuming that there are no other employers to go to in a capitalistic society, or rather; that the CEO's all are in a joint marketing scheme against all the workers. It's kind of interesting, employers in the US convince their employees to stay put through benefits such as retirement, health insurance, stocks; and often the retirement packages become more valuable with duration of work experience in that particular company. The problem is that those benefits are not always mutual currency between competing companies. The result is a stagnant, and immobile work force. So essentially the workers get more for staying put and less for being a mobile corporate hopper. The way to solve this without nationalizing the means of production is to nationalize the benefits and keep the basic means of production privatized. When you empower employees with nationalized benefits, then the big bad guys that are in charge of the means of production are forced to make working conditions both more efficient and more bearable while also maintaining a sensitivity to the demands of the market. In this case the workers are also the consumers. So the tables are turned and the bosses become the slaves in a sense. But then who want's to become a boss? Well, naturally he will get slightly more pay for being the boss. So long as their are other bosses to go to who are in direct market competition, things should be ok for the work force. So long as corporations are not allowed to create joint monopolization while the workers are allowed to do so, the real slaves will be the corporate bosses, whose "moderate" remuneration is enough motivation for them to keep things running smoothly. Also, when you look at the means of production, differentiation of procedure (and thus machinery, I would assume) is vital for free-market comparisons that will shed light on "the best" way for production to appease the needs of the people. Do the people want shoddy electronics that break down after 2 years but look really cool, or do they want a more simplistic and effective design that lasts for several years? When the government owns the means of production, how would they be able to offer this same methodology of market progression? I guess this is presupposing the idea that the people know what kinds of product that they want better than "the government", (whoever that ends up being). It's also assuming that people are inherently good at judging what is necessary over what is excess. Essentially, saying that people are more efficient of percieving how best to accommodate their changing needs than the government. Another problem is the bureaucratic red tape. If the government owns the means of production and a certain type of factory becomes essential to certain societal needs, how does the government go about appointing and distributing the factories among the differing groups that desire to make the said products? It would seem that the government would have to be very perceptive and wise when making that judgement call that would leave others outside of the means of production who wish to be a part of that process. And how would the officials decide which version of the product is better and for which people? It doesn't matter if people want to make the cars or not. If they don't know what they are doing, then they are going to be shoddy cars. So why bother letting them into the factory in the first place? Who's to say that the government can even tell which car makers are more "qualified" to be making the cars than somebody else? credentials are nice (which is what a Bureaucrat will inevitably have to rely on) but experience and market feedback seems to be a much more accurate deciding factor than an exclusive group of officials who are perhaps naive of the rapidly changing demands of society. I suppose that Nationalization of the means of production would only work in an older market that has been thoroughly tested and subjected to the free-market test. Then perhaps the government could step in and buy the factories and let groups waltz in and out as they wished. However, when it comes to newer and inovative markets, it would seem that Nationalization of production would slow it down and perhaps make several mistakes. Also, who would create and invent the machinery used for production? Would the ideas belong to the individual or the government? How would an inventor's labors be rewarded in Communism? Not trying to be antagonistic, just slightly curious. but why not? When someone is a "unique" individual and others desire for that "rare" talent, people tend to get naggy about wanting to be a part of that "marketable" talent. Nagging is the worst form of torture, thus remuneration of sorts is arguably ethically required (depending upon the social circumstance, I suppose). In a capitalistic or even socialistic society, this works fine. In a communistic society, the green eyed monster would reign supreme; thus killing anyone born with inherent individuality that is (for some reason) desirable. Men are not born inherently "equal" in the literal sense, they have subtle differentiations. If one differentiation is societally most preferable by general consensus, why ignore that and rebuke it rather than encourage it? Isn't that killing individualism in a way? Especially if the "talent" is able to contribute to society on a large scale, either culturally or otherwise. I didn't know Obama was a proctectionist. That makes me very sad. I'm embarassed of US politics right now. = It's like watching cit-com re-runs. Political satire is perhaps a good word for our current media reality.