[quote=@Dinh AaronMk]
The thing that tends to nag at the back of my brain despite being a filthy commie or Anarcho-Com depending on the time of day is what happens to the distribution side of things, my father being a small-business (hardware store; over a hundred year old establishment now) and how that might effect such places as those. Presumably if the target is only manufacturing then not much would actually change for the retail distribution network, at least at a scale as small as my dad's. No one's really working on owning the means of production at Home Depot, they're just working to get the end-product of another factory organized on the shelves so they can be distributed out the populace on the presently used as-needed basis under the rules of capitalism.

But at the ultimate end, I suppose employees of Walmart, Staples, or Home Depot or what not would end up taking ownership of the stores they work in and taking full ownership of the warehouse/storefront and being able to dictate what product comes in, how much of it, and all the other details of working retail or just consumer-level distribution.

The situation for my dad may not actually change much, since he's either the only person working at the store, or the people that work with him are practically on the same level of operational hierarchy and the only notable difference between he and them is an official legal recognition that he pays all the bills and taxes.
[/quote]

In pure Marxism, these details and the obvious complications is where the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" came in. Thing is, Marx was only into arguing that the revolution must occur, and doesn't predict the exact details of it. His schtick wasn't to discuss the problems of Communism, which he was leaving for future generations, but rather the point out what he saw as fatal problems in capitalism. 

I feel like Marx's place in modern society is more about giving a second perspective. Clearly his doomsday didn't go down quite the way he assumed it would, but because he didn't ace the test doesn't mean he didn't have some perspectives that should be taken into consideration. Modern socialism I feel is looking at a different set of problems, namely the twin problems of economic stagnation in developed countries and the looming threat of final automation. Because the Marxists failed, after all, doesn't mean that Capitalism is the word of god for all time and always. We gotta look at the problem from all angles instead of, like the An-Caps do, hunting for virginal sacrifices to feed to the Volcano god called capitalism. Or, like the liberals do, assume it will be CURRENT YEAR forever.  

[quote=@catchamber]
Mind rephrasing this? Because it sounds like they're not only getting paid, but also profiting from the sale. If they voluntarily agree to a contract that limits their compensation to one of those forms, is it not ethical to hold them to their word?
[/quote]

Because they didn't have a choice. The contract was coercive in the sense that they either sign the contract or die of starvation. If you are freezing to death and wandering from house to house, and everyone requires you to emasculate yourself before you walk in the door, would your inevitable castration be considered truly voluntary?

[quote]If you're compensating others to do the work on your behalf, why do you need to work? For all we know, the owner-resident of the factory could be mentally and physically incapable of operating the machines, but still be capable of fairly managing labor and distributing compensation.[/quote]

What you are saying is if the guy is good at sitting down and receiving money, shouldn't he be allowed to sit down and receive money? I mean, sure. I'd like that gig too. I'll sit down real good and you guys can give me millions.

[quote]My issue with this scenario, and the American Revolution incidents in the higher quote, are that the workers are forcibly and illegally taking away property. It's one thing to say you're going to create a new society that's based on voluntary transactions, and another to say that while you're basically stealing property from others.[/quote]

That's a matter of perspective. The American Revolution was an illegal taking away of property as well. All revolutions necessarily are. The King was not allowed to choose whether he renounced ownership of the North American colonies. You might think this is a funny comparison, but legally speaking, it's the same deal. If we are going to argue for the rights of aristocrats, we need to be consistent.