DEFINING FEATURES OF COMMUNISM:
1. No privately owned property.
2. No privately owned means of production.
3. No single leader, but a community reaching a decision.
4. The workers own the means of production.
DEFINING FEATURES OF CORPORATISM:
1. Property is publicly owned by shareholders.
2. Means of production is publicly owned by shareholders.
3. No single leader, but a board of shareholders reaching a decision.
4. Workers own shares in the company.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
...
Just for future reference, these are the same things.
...
That's exactly how it works.
Workers = shareholders.
All shareholders = board of shareholders.
Board of shareholders = owner of the corporation and all its assets.
Can I be the first to say that makes a scary amount of sense.
Horseshoe theory at work?
Horseshoe theory only applies to political systems, not economic.
Corporatism is basically syndicism and co-ops, in other words corporatism is socialism. Just accept it.
Except in the real world, corporate workers have scraps of the total shares of the company, meaning in practice they don't control shit.
In coops, they get all the shares but only because this the legal translation of workers ownership of MoP under capitalism,.
And shareholders are private, not public.
I thought we were talking about socialism.
Because most modern corporations started off as privately owned companies, with one dude owning 100% of the company. Then they went "public" and the owner allowed parts of the company to be sold so he could make money, but he still kept a large portion of the shares.
Look into co-ops, these are corporations that start as corporations, not as private LLCs.
Of course… how can an individual person be a "public"? How fucking dumb are you?
Shareholders as a group are called the board, and THIS is public.
yeah sure if you want to equate corporatism with coops then corporatism is socialism.
that would be a structured direct-democratic form of socialism
whereas in the other thread youre talking about anarcho socialism
There are a lot of different forms of co-operative ownership. Not all of them really have anything to do with socialism.
Wew
That's because socialism can't exist in anarchy. Direct democracy is about as anarchic as you could get and still have socialism. We went over this for fucks sake.
Coops are the only form of socialism that actually works, and you want to reject it out of hand? OK bro, keep chasing the wet dream.
Horseshoe theory is a meme invented by centrists to piss off people who are far-left/far-right.
Nobody in poli-sci actually takes it seriously.
This means government ownership.
en.wikipedia.org
Words mean things you dumb nigger.
That's because everyone in poli sci is far left or far right, and considering they hate the other side they don't like to be equated to them.
You're the one arguing a group of billionaire owning a company constitutes public ownership. Shareholders are not the fucking governement.
OOOOH nice strawman attempt.
They are if the entire state is one corporation, ie a corporatist state.
Each worker would (by owning the share) be both a voter and a crucial part of the governing body (board of shareholders).
This is the literal interpretation of communism.
I wonder why people studying politics are not centrists…
"Property publicly owned by shareholders that's what you said."
A bunch of billionaires can own a company.
So a group of billionaires owning a company is called public ownership under your system, that's basic logic.
That's the capitalist interpretation of communism. For you can't think outside of property rights.
Shareholders imply trade of property, something irrelevant under socialism.
In the context of corporatism, not present day corporations in a non-corporatist state.
Wow you're dumb.
Shares don't have to be traded…
No, it's because it's horseshit.
Horseshoe theory is just a smug sounding way to say "these two extremely opposite things are basically the same because they share one or a few similarities".
I'm an anarchist and I would gladly help build the gulags to store the people who use that meme seriously.
...
Here we go again…
Oh look the libertarian version of this edgy pic.
Lots of posting from Holla Forums on Holla Forums today.
pong
Blame the convention.
US ruining everything as usual.
Is OP trying to imply that because it is posible for for workers to hold shares in companies we live under socialism?
Remember when the United States supported a coalition they were in?
Yes he's clinically retarded.
To op: if people who don't work in the company, or someone in the company can own a disproportionate amount of shares than any other employee, it's not socialism. Socialism wouldn't even have shares, things would just be decided democratically by the workers.
Oh yeah, we need to keep the 'Muricans spooked!
KEK!
I have 51% of the shares, yet "A BOARD" is reaching a decision.
KEKEKEKEKEKEKEK
PLEASE! STOP! YOU'RE KILLING ME!
kek
Nope, just that a state run like a corporation would essentially be a Marxist utopia.
Thanks for answering for me faggot, but the answer is the opposite of the strawman you built.
We're talking about a corporatist state, not a corporation in a modern state, you mong.
see
Except private property still exist you mong.
Communism and Socialism is mysteriously missing.
It is not the same as socialism or communism(which as I said before, is stateless) and I'd like you to find a political scientist who thinks so.
Ok. Whatever. I'm done.
There are multiple types of corporatism. Be more specific, if you mean progressive corporatism or liberal corporatism then that's pretty close to social democracy. The various corporatist regimes we've had(the fascist in WW2 mainly) kept the core principles of capital they just worked closely with the state. There was not democratically elected leaders(if there are any) in the workplace, which would be a characteristic of socialism.
They are. A private company is still a corporation though, it's called a closed-corporation.
You're doing the equivalent of confusing socialism and communism.
Except that's fucking bullshit as there are very few shareholders and the shareholders have to buy their shares so there remains an enormous hierarchy.
That's like equating Athenian democracy to ours even though they owned slaves.
...
Already posted and debunked, try again.