Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Charming-Fig-2544 t1_jdmhik6 wrote

No I would call this socialism. The workers own the means of production and are able to keep the surplus value produced by their labor. It's great. That's how it should be. They can decide for themselves what hours they work, what tasks they perform, how profits are divided, etc., instead of the owner dictating all of that to them and keeping the profits for himself. A lot of people don't realize how much socialism we already have in the US. I would describe every mom-and-pop store, sole proprietorship, credit union, worker co-op, etc., as socialism. It's already here in some places and works great. We just need more of it.

2

djdjddhdhdh t1_jdn386x wrote

Ye I guess that’s a good point using pure definition of socialism. But then that would mean that google and Facebook were socialist enterprises since the founders were the original workers and really continued working still, and for a while owned majority of shares. Theoretically every business starts as socialist enterprise then the original workers sell their stake in it, and incoming ones get none or tiny share

2

Charming-Fig-2544 t1_jdnihkc wrote

I mean, yes. Facebook was a "socialistic" enterprise until the IPO. That's not inconsistent with any definitions. Afterwards, Zuckerberg only has around 13.4% of the economic interests, and the other employees have far, far less than that. And what do you know, Facebook's influence and nefariousness have only grown as the corporate ownership becomes less connected to the people that actually work there.

1

spoil_of_the_cities t1_jdpnc9b wrote

Seems like they get their share of the profits and they get bought out when they leave

This Teamshares company provides a new boss to make the decisions

1