3 ms·
Individual companies being owned by their employees isn't socialism. For that matter, the Soviet Union wasn't socialist either - the workers owned nothing, the
by sofixa 2y ago
Individual companies being owned by their employees isn't socialism. For that matter, the Soviet Union wasn't socialist either - the workers owned nothing, the state owned everything. All the land, all the factories, all the manufactured goods.
- oleg_antonyan 2y agoYep, that's what it leads to. But it all began with "good" intentions. They destroyed well-developed empire, took the land from the rich and see where it all now. Trust me, you don't want "to take money from the rich and spread them across poor" in USA, it sucks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization. Pleas, keep being a place where anyone can build a unucorn company and become rich af
- sofixa 2y ago> But it all began with "good" intentions. They destroyed well-developed empire The Russian empire wasn't well developed by any stretch of the imagination.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Miner49er 2y ago> Individual companies being owned by their employees isn't socialism. Actually, yes, this is the literal definition of socialism. It's workers owning the means of production.
- sofixa 2y agoNot individual companies, but at the wider scale. Socialism is an economic system, not the specific act of one group of employees owning where they work. In the same way that China having private companies doesn't make it capitalistic.