4 ms·
> or something very close to it. Mandating that some large corporations award some stock to their employees may be socialism in your eyes, but that's not actua
by root_axis 7y ago
> or something very close to it.
Mandating that some large corporations award some stock to their employees may be socialism in your eyes, but that's not actually socialism, it's just a FUD talking point.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI didn't say it was socialism. I said it was bestowing collective ownership of private capital to the proletariat - which it very clearly is. Or at least which it very clearly is quite close to. It's bestowing collective ownership of half of private capital to the part of the proletariat that works at that business.
- root_axis 7y agoForcing companies to offer stock to employees is not "bestowing collective ownership of private capital". Stock is private ownership by definition. Using that logic the minimum wage is socialism because it enforces a wealth transfer to low-skilled employees.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI don't see much difference between "collective ownership" and "private ownership by everyone".
- root_axis 7y agoIt's not "private ownership by everyone", it's "stock ownership by some individuals employed by the company". Not even remotely close to the same thing.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoHow is it not, if everyone receives ownership of the company that they work for? Does that not, on the level of the society as a whole, add up to "bestowing collective ownership of private capital"?
- root_axis 7y agoYou are misinformed about Bernie's proposal. The proposal is not "everyone receives ownership of the company they work for" or anything even remotely similar to that. The proposal is that publicly traded companies that bring in more than $100m in annual revenue must remit 2% of their stock to employees per year until employees retain a 20% share of stock ownership. "Everyone receives ownership of the company that they work for" is an absurd and false characterization.