This huge problem stems from “we need”. Collectivism leads to hierarchy, because a collective isn’t semantically compatible to one person. A collective can’t be responsible, a collective can’t make a decision, a collective can’t think, a collective can’t speak in one voice. But collectivism means trying to treat a collective like one person. Leading to dictatorships.
average US corpo is just 1 vote 1 share, just right there it’s more equal representation than the US government has been for it’s entire existence.
And an individual can hold multiple shares. So some have more votes than others. That’s not democratic in any way.
throw in shit like recalling/installing new c-suites etc.
That’s a lot harder than you make it sound. That dysfunction is the main executive pay relative to performance has massively inflated over the years: accountability to shareholders in matters of compensation is piss-poor.
Finally, someone had to say it. While capitalism is far from perfect, I’d rather have billionaire capitalist assholes that I can then call on their bullshit than so-called ‘socialism’ which is just the pretty way to call a dictatorship. Show me one ‘socialist’ country that has thrived. One, come on.
OK, I can name one. It’s Israel. Before 90s it was (administratively, politically, socially) socialist (not like marxist, but with collectives and communes and kibbutz, and much of economy being state monopolies). One reason after 90s everything changed about it was because there were certain reforms which, eh, significantly raised level of life, making all the old institutions unpopular. So it’s no more socialist in anything.
A-and, of course, the part about collectivism was present. Some things I’ve heard about Israel before 90s emotionally reminisce USSR. Sort of a procrustean bed of a society, if you don’t fit it’s your problem.
Calling pre-1990s Israel socialist is like calling the Confederate States of America democratic.
Yeah, it was, except for a large disenfranchised population. If you count them as people too, then it’s not. And don’t come back at me with false distinctions about what was “Israel proper” versus the bantustans-- oh, sorry, “occupied territories.” Those places have no real sovereignty.
This huge problem stems from “we need”. Collectivism leads to hierarchy, because a collective isn’t semantically compatible to one person. A collective can’t be responsible, a collective can’t make a decision, a collective can’t think, a collective can’t speak in one voice. But collectivism means trying to treat a collective like one person. Leading to dictatorships.
You talk as if with corporations a single person can be held responsible…
You can have syndicates and get close to socialism
Show me where.
My country has a bunch of syndicates, even some big coops, it’s not uncommon in Europe. You just need the legal structures for it.
Thats then syndicalism which is a form of socialism
Yeah but only when it’s the dominant form of doing business? We have a bunch of them in my country but we’re definitely still capitalism.
shit, the average public corporation is a more representative democracy than the US’s actual government is.
With voting power weighted by the amount of money they have invested.
Kind of like the way the US actually works.
I had to scroll back up to make sure I was stilling the same thread
average US corpo is just 1 vote 1 share, just right there it’s more equal representation than the US government has been for it’s entire existence.
throw in shit like recalling/installing new c-suites etc.
far more responsive/equal form of government than the clown show that is US “democracy”
And an individual can hold multiple shares. So some have more votes than others. That’s not democratic in any way.
That’s a lot harder than you make it sound. That dysfunction is the main executive pay relative to performance has massively inflated over the years: accountability to shareholders in matters of compensation is piss-poor.
Finally, someone had to say it. While capitalism is far from perfect, I’d rather have billionaire capitalist assholes that I can then call on their bullshit than so-called ‘socialism’ which is just the pretty way to call a dictatorship. Show me one ‘socialist’ country that has thrived. One, come on.
OK, I can name one. It’s Israel. Before 90s it was (administratively, politically, socially) socialist (not like marxist, but with collectives and communes and kibbutz, and much of economy being state monopolies). One reason after 90s everything changed about it was because there were certain reforms which, eh, significantly raised level of life, making all the old institutions unpopular. So it’s no more socialist in anything.
A-and, of course, the part about collectivism was present. Some things I’ve heard about Israel before 90s emotionally reminisce USSR. Sort of a procrustean bed of a society, if you don’t fit it’s your problem.
Calling pre-1990s Israel socialist is like calling the Confederate States of America democratic.
Yeah, it was, except for a large disenfranchised population. If you count them as people too, then it’s not. And don’t come back at me with false distinctions about what was “Israel proper” versus the bantustans-- oh, sorry, “occupied territories.” Those places have no real sovereignty.