Socialist enough would be dismantling the legal framework that allows corporations to exist, and replacing that with something that decentralizes the distribution of wealth so that funnels of greed are a thing of the past.
Or establishing legal frameworks that promote (or require) worker cooperatives/socialist enterprises where shares/decisions are redistributed amongst the workers comprising the enterprise (but not the whole of society).
That’s petty bourgeois capitalism, not socialism. This isn’t about purity or anything, socialism is about the working class owning the means of production and distribution, not creating petty bourgeois cooperatives.
First of all, you mean petite bourgeoisie, which would be like craftsmen, independent store owners, small businesses, or self-employed contractors.
I am referring to the factory workers owning the factory, or social cooperatives. That might be a far cry from what people wish socialism encompassed, but that is not petite bourgeoisie. You won’t find me championing the cause of small business tyrants, lordy.
The Emilia-Romagna region of northern Italy comes to mind, where nearly 1/3rd of the GDP comes from worker
or social co-ops.
Sorry you don’t like cooperatives, but that doesn’t grant you the right to misconstrue my intentions based upon a flimsy, hand-wavy reference to Marxist jargon. We get it, you’ve read all three volumes of Das Kapital.
Petty and petite bourgeoisie are the same thing. In the Marxist conception, worker cooperatives are petty bourgeois. This is because cooperatives are necessarily creating class distinctions between those inside the cooperative and outside. It isn’t ownership by the whole working class, but instead a private, shared ownership. It’s for the same reason that multiple capitalists can own the same business, that multiple petty bourgeois worker-owners can own the same cooperative.
Are coops as bad as traditional firms? No. Is it socialism? Also no.
No that’s just logic.
Socialist enough would be dismantling the legal framework that allows corporations to exist, and replacing that with something that decentralizes the distribution of wealth so that funnels of greed are a thing of the past.
deleted by creator
Or establishing legal frameworks that promote (or require) worker cooperatives/socialist enterprises where shares/decisions are redistributed amongst the workers comprising the enterprise (but not the whole of society).
That’s petty bourgeois capitalism, not socialism. This isn’t about purity or anything, socialism is about the working class owning the means of production and distribution, not creating petty bourgeois cooperatives.
First of all, you mean petite bourgeoisie, which would be like craftsmen, independent store owners, small businesses, or self-employed contractors.
I am referring to the factory workers owning the factory, or social cooperatives. That might be a far cry from what people wish socialism encompassed, but that is not petite bourgeoisie. You won’t find me championing the cause of small business tyrants, lordy.
The Emilia-Romagna region of northern Italy comes to mind, where nearly 1/3rd of the GDP comes from worker or social co-ops.
Sorry you don’t like cooperatives, but that doesn’t grant you the right to misconstrue my intentions based upon a flimsy, hand-wavy reference to Marxist jargon. We get it, you’ve read all three volumes of Das Kapital.
Petty and petite bourgeoisie are the same thing. In the Marxist conception, worker cooperatives are petty bourgeois. This is because cooperatives are necessarily creating class distinctions between those inside the cooperative and outside. It isn’t ownership by the whole working class, but instead a private, shared ownership. It’s for the same reason that multiple capitalists can own the same business, that multiple petty bourgeois worker-owners can own the same cooperative.
Are coops as bad as traditional firms? No. Is it socialism? Also no.