4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIf 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 agoIf 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 agoThis 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 agoI 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.