5 ms·

> Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public. Th

> Socialism is when workers own and control the means of production. In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public. They just have to risk their capital to buy a share of the company - like every other owner.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
You missed the second part of that definition. Both parts must be satisfied. Workers do not control any public companies that I am familiar with.
- worrycue 3y ago
  If they are owners, they control it as much as the other owners - following the same rules; which I believe in most companies is the majority get the final say.
- astrange 3y ago
  If the workers control a company it's not a public company. That's what "public" means. There are worker coops, customer coops, and state owned companies in the US.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    This is true, but workers do not broadly own or control the MoP in the US. Thus, the US is not socialist. It is not a "mixed" economy, because there is no such thing.
    - astrange 3y ago
      I know "all numbers are either 0 or 100%" is a common belief, but people on here are supposed to be smarter than that. Also you're still trying to argue against Keynes and your statement would make China and Vietnam capitalist, which would be a surprise to them. Not to mention Lenin's NEP mixed economy. nb the people who "control" the means of production in the US are the voters, who can get the government to pass laws regulating it. It doesn't matter if you "own" it ie are equityholders. Although we have that too, in the form of our worker-owned index fund company Vanguard.
      - yellowapple 3y ago
        > and your statement would make China and Vietnam capitalist Well they are. Just because they wave red flags and call themselves "socialist" doesn't make it true, for the same reason North Korea is precisely none of "democratic", "people's", or a "republic" despite its assertions otherwise.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public A thing being true throughout an economy and it being permitted by the formal rules are not the same thing. Socialism is not merely where some workers do control some of the means of production, but where the entirety of the means of production are cobtrolled by the workers by virtue of their being workers. If some people who happen to work also happen to have a private property relationship to some capital sufficient to be on par with their labor in terms of importance in their personal relation to the economy, then they are just petit bourgeois in a capitalist economy.

Paul-Craft 3y ago

You missed the second part of that definition. Both parts must be satisfied. Workers do not control any public companies that I am familiar with.

worrycue 3y ago
If they are owners, they control it as much as the other owners - following the same rules; which I believe in most companies is the majority get the final say.
astrange 3y ago
If the workers control a company it's not a public company. That's what "public" means. There are worker coops, customer coops, and state owned companies in the US.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  This is true, but workers do not broadly own or control the MoP in the US. Thus, the US is not socialist. It is not a "mixed" economy, because there is no such thing.
  - astrange 3y ago
    I know "all numbers are either 0 or 100%" is a common belief, but people on here are supposed to be smarter than that. Also you're still trying to argue against Keynes and your statement would make China and Vietnam capitalist, which would be a surprise to them. Not to mention Lenin's NEP mixed economy. nb the people who "control" the means of production in the US are the voters, who can get the government to pass laws regulating it. It doesn't matter if you "own" it ie are equityholders. Although we have that too, in the form of our worker-owned index fund company Vanguard.
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      > and your statement would make China and Vietnam capitalist Well they are. Just because they wave red flags and call themselves "socialist" doesn't make it true, for the same reason North Korea is precisely none of "democratic", "people's", or a "republic" despite its assertions otherwise.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> In most cases, workers can own the means to production as many corporations are public A thing being true throughout an economy and it being permitted by the formal rules are not the same thing. Socialism is not merely where some workers do control some of the means of production, but where the entirety of the means of production are cobtrolled by the workers by virtue of their being workers. If some people who happen to work also happen to have a private property relationship to some capital sufficient to be on par with their labor in terms of importance in their personal relation to the economy, then they are just petit bourgeois in a capitalist economy.