The workers do not need to control the means of production when Pooh Bear Xi knows what's best for them before they do.
Socialism is when capitalism
The DPRK is, I'd argue, more or less an absolute monarchy that just uses different words to describe itself than traditional for that kind of system.
If socialism were bad, law firms wouldn't be structured as partnerships.
Law firms are so so so not socialist.
Partnerships only involve a few select attorneys at a firm, associate attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants, and every other role is not part of the partnership, and has no stake other than their vested interest in getting their paycheck (the same as any employee).
"Big Law" firms have thousands of employees excluded from any partnerships including billable (associates, paralegals) and non billable (legal assistants, HR, IT) staff, the partnership is more of a private ownership club where people are accepted mostly on vibes and sometimes, rarely, on merit.
The partnership structure is pretty antithetical to socialism, since it's structured in a way to exclude people deemed not worthy of receiving profits (But still somehow needed to make the profits??).
TL;DR: a small group of owner operators within a larger company is decidedly capitalist.
karl marx only invented socialism for rich people, read theory shitlib
by that logic credit unions are socialist lmao
Come on now! China is totally communist! After all when Marx envisioned his ideal state is was an authoritarian police state with billionaires, massive wealth disparities, stock markets and an investor class, right?
Genuinely curious about the standard by which you evaluate whether the means of production are collectively owned. For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production. Another person might say it looks like each industry being controlled by a union representing the workers in said industry. A third could say that it means anytime a person operates a machine, they own it and can decide what to do with it, until they stop using it.
Is there any concievable physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers and in what form? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
"Does socialism really MEAN anything?
"Really showing the libs, I see.
No True Scotsman
No True Scotsman
I love how people use the term to mean "Words cannot have definitions", which isn't what the fallacy means at all.
But I bet it makes them feel real smart for a few seconds when they incorrectly use the term.
Lol yeah. No True Scotsman is against shifting/arbitrary definitions, but your definition of socialism here is rigid and clear.
Come on, this is Lemmy where every person is a self-enlightened "intellectual" and any argument that they don't like or don't have a response for is a fallacy of one of the 2-3 that they can remember at the moment (always strawman and no true Scotsman) and of course then the opposing always completely invalid with no counter argument. (Even that this in itself is the fallacy fallacy lol)
Every metaphor, simile, or analogy is a strawman,every definition is a no true Scotsman, and every history book, report, research, or scientific studies is an appeal to authority 😉
Similarly:
Is every good or service-providing entity privately owned? No? Then it's not capitalism.
Is the fire department part of the government (i.e. worker-owned), or is it a private entity? Do you have pinkertons or police? Are there soldiers, or are the armed forces entirely mercenaries? Are roads privately owned? When people get old and need some kind of regular monthly payment, does that payment come exclusively from private insurance policies and/or investments, or are the payments provided by fellow workers in the form of a government benefit?
Every modern economy is a mixed system involving some capitalist elements and some socialist elements.
That's ot what the word capitalism means. Like, not even close.
Socialism is generally considered to be the workers owning the means of production.
Welfare, infrastrucutre, and public services are not means of production, even if you think that the government is a workers' state (and I can think of no major current governments which are legitimately workers' states).
Socialism is not simply when the government or community does or owns things in general, but the core means of generating economic output.
The meme said, "the means of production." It did not say, "every, single means of production."
The OP could have meant anything from workers electing their CEOs in 51% of the steel mills, smelteries, oil rigs, cinemas, restaurants, etc. all the way up to 100% like you decided to assume.
But honestly, it makes very little sense to read 100% into this, especially with your wording of "good or service-providing entity".
A hell of a lot of "good or service-providing entities" are sole proprietorships, which are in a blurry gray area between private ownership and cooperative ownership. On the one hand, many capitalists started out as sole proprietors. On the other hand, by owning one's own means of production, a sole proprietor is both worker and owner, fitting perfectly in the definition of socialism. In fact, I would argue that the sole proprietor doesn't really become a socialist or a capitalist until another worker joins the business and it becomes a cooperative or a private company. Until then, the distinction is meaningless.
It is private in case you didnt know (police) It is just not on paper
Owning the means of production is a means, not an end in itself. I'd argue the social democratic welfare state comes impressively close to achieving the ends.
Not really.
Which is the better embodiment of socialism:
- Means of production are collectively owned, but the the moneyed elite is somehow still accumulating power and wealth while the working class suffers
- Means of production are not collectively owned, but the moneyed elite is somehow gone, and wealth and power are in the hands of the workers, who ensure that the creation of wealth benefits all
Not saying a welfare state is #2, but I'm interested to hear if #1 is a better socialist state.
only if you are strictly comparing it with full-force no-brakes capitalism
What does it even mean to own the means of production? How are decisions made? Big decisions can go to a vote, but what about small ones? I don't see how any organization can function without some kind of hierarchy. But the way you describe socialism implies that hierarchy can't coexist with socialism.
Maybe the pirate ship system would work well.
Every man got the same share except the captain (2x) and quartermaster (1.5x) and the doctor (1.5x) any of that position can be replaced anytime by a vote
Aye, this be a fittin' trajectory for ye politics
Maybe the base pay the same for everyone but and only do a multiplies on profit sharing.
The socialist democratically owned company would still elect a CEO or something like it to make those kinds of decisions, and if they don't make good decisions they can be recalled by the employees to be replaced with someone else. The way I look at it it would be like how companies are currently but with all employees owning shares of the company rather then outside investors or the owner of the company. Atleast that's how I interpret it but there's probably a million different ways you could set it up while still having it be much more democratic then the modern structure.
I think we're mixing up socialism and communism here.
I think that in order to have a socialist nation you first need a nation.
And you're not going to get that without being a power hungry lunatic.
We're still a serfdom ruled by kings, and no amount of window dressing has changed that. At best we decide what colour hat the king will wear every four years.
i mean, lenin era USSR might be socialist probably closer to communism though, but it was most definitely NOT socialist under stalin or communist.
Lenin's 'war communism' was little more than state-sponsored looting (which, to be fair, is far from unusual in times of crisis; it is not, however, much of an innovation or a path to socialism); while the NEP was the exact social democratic reformism that the Bolsheviks were supposedly against, only without the pesky 'democracy' bit the SRs liked.
the biggest difference was the war
yeah, the person who abolished the soviets' power was definitely implementing socialism /s
So are we pinning this post or what?
Done
Define "collectively own".
Ownership generally means two things:
- The owner gets to make decisions about the thing being owned.
- The fruits of the thing are directed to the benefit of the owner.
(I'm intentionally omitting the third implication of getting a share when the thing is being sold, because that requires the concept of selling a means of production which brings us deep into the realms of capitalism)
These things are pretty much clear-cut when it comes to individual ownership, but what do they mean in the context of collective ownership?
- Decision Making
- Does every decision have to unanimously supported by all the workers?
- Or is it enough for all the workers to get a vote in every single decision regarding the thing? Note that in this case there has to be a process where decisions are brought to vote, and whoever controls that process has the real power, but let's not get into that.
- Or is it enough for all the workers to elect someone to make these decisions every X years?
- Or maybe it is enough for that someone makes all the decisions as long as they insist really hard that they are representing the workers?
- Fruit Enjoyment
- Does the product of said means of production have to be distributed directly among all the workers who own it?
- Or is it enough to sell the product (a process which require some concepts from capitalism, but let's not go there) for some commodity and split that commodity among all the workers?
- Or maybe it's enough for the product can be put toward projects that are supposed to benefit all the workers?
Braindead take in all of these countries you do have the right to run a business collectively owned by the workers. Countries economics are not black or white its never 100% socialism or capitalism
Braindead take in all of these countries you do have the right to run a business collectively owned by the workers.
I mean, you can do that in the US too, but if anyone said the US was socialist I'd give them one hell of a long look.
Some aspect of US economics are socialized, in every country army is socialized as it would be dumb as hell to delegate your army to private companies. Still this meme point is dumb
