JKJ. You seem unable to understand the distinction between means of production (ie intermediate inputs) and final output.

You are also fixed on the idea that social ownership will not allow decentralized decisions on deployment.
My earlier comments on this question can be found here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16764&page=0#294763

JKJ,
Here is some homework:
http://brightfuture21c.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/brightfuture-online-wp.pdf

David
You seem unable to understand the distinction between means of production (ie intermediate inputs) and final output. Your idea that social ownership will allow decentralized decisions on deployment has been disproved here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16764&page=0#294763

JFAus
You need to do some homework. Everything you're arguing has already been disproved here:
http://brightfuture21c.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/brightfuture-online-wp.pdf

Now that we have disproved all the socialist arguments to their own standards and their own satisfaction, we are left with this fact: the author's idea that Marx stood for private ownership of the means of production is simply wrong, and so is anyone who agrees with him. They are floundering around in total confusion, trying to argue that a state of private ownership of the means of production, demonstrates the superiority of socialist theory and ideals. It's positively clownish.

Barry York's article is a load of malarkey.

He advocates for press freedom and says that the current trend to limit freedom of the press is proof of a "move to the right". He then says that press censorship is being advocated by the Liberals, Labor and Greens. I wonder what the former Communist party luvvies in the Green party would think of them being labelled "right wing?"

The primary instigator of political censorship in the press are the Left who have sucked up to the "immigrant vote" to support 18C. Notice how Barry did not even mention 18C? That is too much of an embarrassment to the Left.

The issue of press censorship in wartime is a tricky matter, and if Barry had an ounce of intellect he would have written an article trying to define where the limits of freedom of speech exist in wartime. That would have been an interesting topic, but instead Barry just wants to kick the right using any excuse he can.

The difficulty of advocating complete press freedom in wartime can be recognised by three examples.

Keith Murdock's grandfather famously by passed British censors in WW1 to report to the that the situation in Gallipoli was extremely serious, and that soldiers were dying by the thousands for no good reason. That is an example of responsible journalism during wartime.

On the other hand, during WW2, the US press released a statement by an idiot US politician who bragged that the Japanese could not sink US submarines because they did not know that US subs could dive below 60 metres. The Japs promptly reset their depth charge fuses and began sinking US subs. This statement was the cause of over 1000 US deaths in the submarine service.

Then there was the incident during the Falklands War when the BBC announced to the world that 2nd Para was about to attack Goose Green, just as the troops moved off to what they hoped would be a surprise attack.

Censorship in wartime is a thorny issue, and can never be a moral absolute either way.

LEGO, I have expressed opposition to 18C elsewhere. Point taken about war-time but...

I am always amused when someone tries to breathe life into the now extinct dinosaur of Marxism.

Marxism was not only responsible for the murders of tens of millions of the citizens of Marxist countries, but also the most brutal repression of the press in living memory.

Similarly in Aus it has been the left that in recent years that has tried to impose controls on the freedom of the press, with the new regulation proposed by comrade Conjob being the of the most restrictive seen in the free world.