Well, all of this might be labeled AS socialism, but I would say that this is still reformistic and can take part in a capitalistic society. Socialism would mean things like:
Do you want to be table to have a say in your company on how your company should evolve?
If your company makes a profit, shouldn’t thus money be evenly distributed across the workers?
Shouldn’t it be illegal, to make a profit out of basic human needs like housing or food?
Socialism means, that it shouldn’t even be possible to become a billionaire. It means that the working class controls the means of production and that all products should be evenly distributed to satisfy everyone’s needs.
A company under socialism is a little bit different to a company under capitalism.
Under capitalism the goal of a company is usually somewhere on a range of personal motivation up to market domination and extracting AS much value AS possible while offering some form of product or service to customers.
Under socialism the spectrum is a bit smaller. A company becomes a construct constidting of one ore more persons offering a product without having to worry about producing money for the boss.
Socialism isn’t an all encompassing economic policy. Even under communism, shareholders can still exist.
Socialism in its basics is just the concept of publicly ran companies. How that’s implemented can be all over the board.
Police, firemen, and libraries are examples of socialist industries. But so are the Norwegian oil reserves. TSMC is (or at least was) a socialist company.
Shareholders cannot exist in communism, which requires a stateless, classless, moneyless society with full collectivization of production and distribution. You are confusing socialism, a mode of production, with the government doing stuff. Police, firemen, libraries, Norwegian oil reserves, and TSMC are example of public ownership, not socialism.
Socialism is strictly the public owning businesses. You can have an anarchist socialist business (weird I know) employee owned businesses and/or community stores fall into that sort of a category.
Marxist communism is a stateless society. Effectively socialist anarchy. States that call themselves communist are generally socialist state with a centrally planned economy. Leninism/maoism was basically communist leaders deciding that the populous would never adopt true communism and thus they forced it onto the public.
The united states has socialist programs, they tend to be some of the most popular programs. It’s not really considered a socialist state, though, as government policy over the last 40+ years has been to whittle away and remove those programs at every available opportunity.
Socialism is a mode of production, something to be applied at societal scale, not something you can slice out of a broader economy.
Socialism is characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. Publicly owned assets in an economy where private ownership is principle isn’t socialism, as its used to uphold capitalism.
Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution are collectivized across all of society. There’s no such
Anarchism is, to the contrary of communism, a communalist, decentralized mode of production based on interlinked horizontalist cells with internal ownership.
Marxism-Leninism is just Marxism but with Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and organizational theory, nothing like “forcing” communism on the public. Further, socialist states have never called themselves communist, just that they were governed by communist parties working towards communism through socialism.
Maoism is the belief that certain formulations created by Mao as a Marxist-Leninist within China are universal to all revolutions, such as Protracted People’s War, Cultural Revolution, and the Mass Line.
The US Empire has social programs, but they aren’t socialist. Private ownership is very much principle, and capitalists in charge of the state.
Well, all of this might be labeled AS socialism, but I would say that this is still reformistic and can take part in a capitalistic society. Socialism would mean things like:
Do you want to be table to have a say in your company on how your company should evolve?
If your company makes a profit, shouldn’t thus money be evenly distributed across the workers?
Shouldn’t it be illegal, to make a profit out of basic human needs like housing or food?
Socialism means, that it shouldn’t even be possible to become a billionaire. It means that the working class controls the means of production and that all products should be evenly distributed to satisfy everyone’s needs.
Removed by mod
A company under socialism is a little bit different to a company under capitalism.
Under capitalism the goal of a company is usually somewhere on a range of personal motivation up to market domination and extracting AS much value AS possible while offering some form of product or service to customers.
Under socialism the spectrum is a bit smaller. A company becomes a construct constidting of one ore more persons offering a product without having to worry about producing money for the boss.
Shareholders don’t exist in Socialism, so yeah, they obviously would not want to give that up.
Yeah they do.
Socialism isn’t an all encompassing economic policy. Even under communism, shareholders can still exist.
Socialism in its basics is just the concept of publicly ran companies. How that’s implemented can be all over the board.
Police, firemen, and libraries are examples of socialist industries. But so are the Norwegian oil reserves. TSMC is (or at least was) a socialist company.
Shareholders cannot exist in communism, which requires a stateless, classless, moneyless society with full collectivization of production and distribution. You are confusing socialism, a mode of production, with the government doing stuff. Police, firemen, libraries, Norwegian oil reserves, and TSMC are example of public ownership, not socialism.
Socialism is when the government does stuff.
Communism is when the government does a lot of stuff.
the United States is therefore socialist, and Norway is communist.
Socialism is strictly the public owning businesses. You can have an anarchist socialist business (weird I know) employee owned businesses and/or community stores fall into that sort of a category.
Marxist communism is a stateless society. Effectively socialist anarchy. States that call themselves communist are generally socialist state with a centrally planned economy. Leninism/maoism was basically communist leaders deciding that the populous would never adopt true communism and thus they forced it onto the public.
The united states has socialist programs, they tend to be some of the most popular programs. It’s not really considered a socialist state, though, as government policy over the last 40+ years has been to whittle away and remove those programs at every available opportunity.
There’s a lot wrong with this.
Socialism is a mode of production, something to be applied at societal scale, not something you can slice out of a broader economy.
Socialism is characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. Publicly owned assets in an economy where private ownership is principle isn’t socialism, as its used to uphold capitalism.
Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution are collectivized across all of society. There’s no such
Anarchism is, to the contrary of communism, a communalist, decentralized mode of production based on interlinked horizontalist cells with internal ownership.
Marxism-Leninism is just Marxism but with Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and organizational theory, nothing like “forcing” communism on the public. Further, socialist states have never called themselves communist, just that they were governed by communist parties working towards communism through socialism.
Maoism is the belief that certain formulations created by Mao as a Marxist-Leninist within China are universal to all revolutions, such as Protracted People’s War, Cultural Revolution, and the Mass Line.
The US Empire has social programs, but they aren’t socialist. Private ownership is very much principle, and capitalists in charge of the state.
Removed by mod
Think “employee owned”