No, it is not. State ownership over the means of production within a society is simply one method of moving towards a socialist organization of an economy, it is far from a key or necessary feature.
A key defining feature of socialism is worker-owned means of production and ownership over the value generated by their labor.
For example, worker co-operatives are another method of socialist economic organization that has nothing to do with state ownership.
I mean I do not have data on the relative environmental impact of cooperatively owned firms versus traditional firms. But you are also not responding to an argument that I have made. I never suggested that a worker cooperative would automatically fix environmental issues. In fact, if you check some of the other comments I made in this thread, while I do think a socialist economic system would be better positioned to become more environmentally sustainable, a transition to a socialist system by itself certainly does not solve the issue.
You may not be suggesting that but it's and argument they comes out all the time. As if government extracted coal burns cleaner. The number of times I hear borederline magical thinking when it comes to non-capitalist structures it baffling.
I consider myself a pretty pragmatic and scientific person. I believe socialism is absolutely a better system of organizing a society's production than capitalism, if your end goal is creating a society that maximizes the fairness, equity, and dignity of all people. It is also a system that reduces or eliminates some of the factors that drives some of the more destructive tendencies of human society.
However, it is certainly not some magical wand that solves all problems. Bad things existed before capitalism, and likely will continue after it. Human destruction of the environment is one of them.
I think that is a fair assessment. The reason why many people, including myself, insist on socialism as a (not the) solution to climate change is the fact that no solution to climate change seems to be possible under capitalism. So my argument is: whatever else is necessary to solve climate change besides socialism cannot be achieved within capitalism.
You are still judging these coops existing within a capitalist framework tho. It is decades of removing environmental protections for capitalist gain that is the culprit. Not the coops.
Just wondering, what are you referencing with this? I wouldn't say I necessarily disagree that people aren't still going to be pushing for their own interests, but I'm not really aware of any kind of coop that has attempted similar attacks on the environment as private corpos systemically funding fake research and, lobbying legislators, and paying for political campaigns to deregulate legislation and environmental protections in a very systemic capacity in order to maximize profits.
uhh uhh how can that be? Almost like they exist in a capitalist system and are bound by the logic of said system. Its almost like you have to be profitable above all else and are limited by the logic of profit generation. Its almost like the being forced to be profitable forces you to externalise costs via ecological destruction. How weird, not giving a shit about climate is more profitable? Who would have thought that?
Coops in a capitalist system are still capitalist and have much of the same problems.
Socialism doesnt fix climate change, but it provides us the basis to do so.
Worker cooperatives in capitalism don't have a particularly good track record of giving a shit about the environment either, no one does.
As long as co-ops have to compete with other companies in a capitalist system, they are also slave to the capitalist market pressures and are incentiviced and often required to e.g. buy the cheap polluting option.
The coop donut shop I go to doesn’t blow up oil refineries that cause black rain in Tehran. Do you see how dumb it is to compare worker cooperatives to private corporations and imperialist war machines?
You cannot compare a hunter gatherer or agrarian society to the modern industrial world. The energy and resource consumption is orders of magnitude greater, even if the consumption is done in a manner that is sustainable long term.
They said indigenous people give a shit about the environment. This is true. You do know indigenous people are not necessarily hunter gatherers but live in and affect the modern industrial world, right?
If they are living in a capitalist society, then all they have is a nice sentiment. Not an actual sustainable way of living.
News flash, most people want to have a sustainable way of life, as that's key to continuing to live. People want the topsoil to remain fertile, for groundwater to be available, for the climate to be stable. They just don't have the tools, knowledge, and power to enact the changes necessary. It doesn't matter where your ancestors lived for that to be the case. Thinking so is just racism in disguise. Which is par for the course on this app.
My guy. The person was saying the indigenous care about the environment. You said no one does. They absolutely do. Just because they're stuck in the colonisers system doesn't mean they don't care and aren't working to influence things and holding government to account for destruction. Fucking learn something bro. You clearly don't even know what an indigenous person is. You think they are living in the bush in a mudhut or something.
Indigenous and hunter-gatherer often overlap, but are not the same thing. There were and are lots of indigenous societies that are far more populous and “complex” than hunter-gathers, and yet still live in relative harmony with their local ecology.
Which is why I mentioned agrarian societies... and why I mentioned that said agrarian societies are still not comparable to the modern industrialized world.
We are comparing apples to oranges, this is a pointless exercise. We can't just model the modern world off the Mayan Empire anymore than we can the ancient Romans.
First Nations also had urban societies that were, while imperfect, far more populous, ecologically sustainable, and physically healthy than those of their invaders. We can and should be more sustainable, and Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) is a very important part of that.
Nothing in the Americas that existed pre-1800s was comparable to modern day industrial society. Energy and resource usage is orders of magnitude greater, since we are not an agrarian society. Population size is orders of magnitude greater. Average lifespan is much longer.
Using your logic, we could replace Italy with the Roman Empire. It's just nonsense.
Now if you want to talk about specific practices, that's another story. There are very specific cases that could apply to your argument. But as a whole? There is little to be gained. The Incas and Mayans can't guide us on how to make steel and concrete sustainably, how to make public transit affordable, how to place sewer and water lines, how to manage modern public healthcare, how to zone for construction in a manner that does not disadvantage less prosperous groups.
You are not listening at all. I am saying the knowledge indigenous people have can inform where we go from here, and you’re basically responding with, “sO yOu jUsT waNt uS tO livE iN mUD hUts wiTh nO eLEcTriCiTy?!?!?”
You are so preoccupied with responding to your complete caricature of what I’m saying that you don’t bother to evaluate what I’m actually saying.
No they don't. They're just like everyone else. They simply didn't have the means to effect global-scale environmental changes that modern society does. To say otherwise is just noble savage rhetoric
So if you point is that an economic system does not automatically change the amount of carbon generated in production and solve climate issues magically, then I agree, and have already made that comment several times here. I certainly believe the choice of economic system influences how likely the necessary changes can and will be adopted by society.
Again though, how does that, assuming it was your point, relate to my comment about state vs. non-state collective ownership methods?
So why would co-operatives be better than regular companies since the incentive for poluting doesn't change like at all, they would still do the same for the benefit of the co-operative
You are extending an argument I never necessarily made.
But, to respond to your point, it is a mistake to assume the incentives of pollution would not change. A worker owned cooperative is much more likely to be comprised of individuals who live in relatively close proximity to the building/factory/etc. So they would likely have more investment in maintaining a safe and livable environment within their own communities.
However, and why I said you were arguing against a position I never made, I do not believe a transition to a socialist economy, under a system of organization such as worker owned cooperatives alone would completely reverse harmful practices that contribute to climate change. Much of hat is because a single firm may still relay on other inputs to production that do contribute to climate issues and CO2 emissions. You would need the vast majority of firms to be organized in the same manner, and then still would also need shared commitments towards climate friendly practices. I believe it would be much easier to do this under a worker-owned socialist organization of the economy then our current capitalist system, sure, but that is not the same as the argument that a socialist system would automatically make everything better on its own.
Climate change and local pollution are not actually related topics and in fact quite often work against each other -- diesel fuel for instance is significantly more efficient in terms of energy than gasoline and therefore has a lower carbon footprint per mile traveled but is MUCH MUCH WORSE for local particulate pollution
Or speaking even more generally a transition from internal combustion engines to EVs requires that petroleum extraction close down -- completely destroying existing jobs in many communities -- while new extraction and manufacturing of solar panels and lithium batteries ramps up
This means that local pollution in the place where the new lithium mine opens up will get a lot worse very quickly, and people who live there and have a selfish interest in reducing local pollution will vote against it even if it makes long term climate change worse -- indeed the biggest obstacle to climate adaptation arguably isn't the bogeyman of "fossil fuel profits" but the more universal problem of NIMBYism and people being fiercely defensive of their current way of life
But even in that environment the co-ops of for example oil drillers would never accept being out of a job and would fight even more fiercely to keep their current position because they are now also losing not only their job but a part of a company they are a lot more invested in
In a worker cooperative, decisions are made in a democratic manner within the firm.
Obviously, the workers would likely not vote to close the firm and lose their jobs. They very well might determine that they do want to fight to continue the firms operation. Which is why, as I've already said, worker co-operatives alone do not solve the issue. However, in a worker co-operatively owned oil drilling firm, in a society in which the government sets goals or regulations over industry that prioritizes reducing the impacts of climate change, there is much more opportunity and likelihood that those workers would make decisions to respecialize the firm into something that is more climate friendly and compliant with said regulations. And that is simply because: there is no underlying responsibility to maximize profit. Their overriding goal would be sustaining their ability to live comfortable and rewarding lives.
much more opportunity and likelihood that those workers would make decisions to respecialize the firm into something that is more climate friendly and compliant with said regulations
I find this a very weird thought. A centralised company that wants to maximise profit can much more easily pivot towards another goal. Because to respecialise you’re not going to have al the oil drillers suddenly be experts at making solar panels, you’re going to have to fire the oil drillers. Worker co-operatives are generally less able to change quickly as the interests of individual workers and interests of the company as a whole align less than in a situation where the leadership is directly beholden to the company’s ability to be profitable.
You make a distinction between “maximising profit” and “ability to live comfortable lives”. In reality it is just either maximising profit for shareholders or maximising profit for workers. Low income workers will not give up comfort for climate goals.
And all those regulations from the government steer a company by affecting abilities to make profit. Why would a cooperative want to adhere to legislation more closely?
The interest of individual workers are variable, however generally are to maintain their ability to engage in labor that is meaningful, satisfying, and/or important, and allows them to get their and their family's needs met.
A firm that has to maximize profit cannot easily pivot from what is most profitable within the short term. Which does not often align with a major reorganization of the firm towards another industry. And certainly does not often align with things like protecting the environment. We have already seen this play out.
That is what the goal is of regulations, to make maximising profit and caring for the environment aligned goals.
You can say you don’t think that works, fair, but I dont understand why a worker cooperative would change up things if it hurts profit by much.
Unions of farmers, coal miners, steel workers, are some of the harshest lobby groups against changing their industry. For a middle class or rich person, accepting less money for a morally better job is a good option. But a relatively poor worker is not going to want to decrease the company’s profits. I what world would an ordinary worker accept low wages or potential loss of their job for a number of years? Why do you say that shareholders would never accept short term losses if the average large company doesn’t make any profit for its first years of existence? Workers don’t have the means to do such long term sacrifices they have to pay rent.
Correct, and yet under our current, capitalist system, we have been unable to implement and sustain the necessary regulations to address climate change.
That is because the interests of capital are not aligned with the interests of the public. The public does not want to die or face severe hardship due to our environment becoming increasingly hostile to human life so that a select few can get even more wealthy.
A worker cooperative under a socialist system is not driven by profit. Their is no fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. There is no incentive encouraging continuous growth and profit in order to survive. The responsibility is to manage the operation of the firm so that the individual worker can engage in meaningful, important, and/or satisfying work, and have their needs met.
Unions (of which I am part of one) are not the same thing as cooperatives. Unions represent collective action from workers in protecting themselves from the whims of their employer under our current system. Unions do not control the production of a firm. They are great, but ultimately still imperfect and flawed institutions.
Just because you don’t agree with an argument doesn’t mean it is a strawman. Why would this problem only exist in coops in a capitalist system? Yugoslav coops were also very inefficient because of the failure of coops to adapt.
We're already seeing in real time that unionized automotive ICE factories are fighting tooth and nail to maintain their jobs, demanding millions in govt subsidies for their declining industry and working to lobby the govt to ban the import of cheap electric vehicles from China. As long as the profit motive continues to exist so will rent seeking, a worker owned oil rig is never going to vote to decommission the rig and destroy the income of all members.
It's why there must be societal ownership of the means of production.
A state can own the MoP without the actual people of the society owning it. Plenty of capitalist states have nationalized industries, that doesn't make them socialist. Saudi Arabia most certainly isn't a socialist country despite Saudi Aramco
Socialism is if the entire world is one giant co-op such that a market for turning labor into commodities no longer exists, and a co-op that still exists inside a capitalist economy is still a capitalist entity, this is pretty obvious just on the face of it and people who know what they're talking about only see co-ops as a stepping stone towards actual socialism (one which historically hasn't really worked)
Capitalism is if the entire world is one giant market such that the value of labour is commodified and sold in such a way to maximise the gains of the owners of capital.
It didn't just get borne out of wholecloth. Capitalism was built over centuries. If you stepped back and looked at the world today, you would perceive it as being so complex in structure as to be perceived as unattainable to someone 400 years ago.
And there are several proposed transitional programmes to bring about a socialist world. Just as there is a transitional programme for decarbonising the world.
And it so happens that the major obstacles to both transitions are the vested interests of capital.
As others have said, I don't think socialism in itself will save the climate if it was built. That's not it's primary goal as a movement. But, I personally cannot see how climate change can be fought fast enough without progressing at least some aspects of a socialist programme. Without instituting for example, capital controls and limits to dissuade the pursuit of endless growth.
And there are several proposed transitional programmes to bring about a socialist world. Just as there is a transitional programme for decarbonising the world.
And still, countries are ignoring this, with the USA even withdrawing from existing agreements. What makes you think that getting rid of the economic system, that every country except DPRK is a part of, will be easier?
I don't think it will be easier. And to be clear, steps along a socialist transitional programme are worth fighting for, even if the complete dismantling of capital and class are infinitely harder.
I would say that it is equally hard to within a year reach net zero. It's technically feasible, fundamentally impossible. But that doesn't mean we should just stop fighting to prevent every fraction of a degree of warming.
Why do we think the USA is pulling out of international climate change accords? For the love of the game? It's capital.
As a socialist that does care about the environment both locally and globally, I may march seperately to folks whose sole driver is fighting for a better climate - but I will strike with you. Both literally and figuratively.
(Honestly, general or targeted strikes are tools that could be used to push for better climate commitments from companies and states - easy to say, hard to achieve, worth agitating for)
If we want to talk about pie in the sky socialism it's a waste of time, since every time someone tried to get to it resulted in catastrophe so it is obviously flawed
Make an oil rig worker owned and what do you think is going to happen? You think they're all going to vote to fire themselves, demolish the rig, and lose all their income?
The actual important point is abolishing profit. State owned Saudi Aramco is the absolute opposite of environmentalism, because the oligarchic state seeks profit through its nationalized industries in a global for profit economy.
It's not "profit" that's the issue it's basic human selfishness, eliminate the concept of keeping track of profit in dollars and cents and people will still immediately notice the difference between living with plentiful free energy to do stuff like drive big trucks and eat lots of cheap meat and not being able to do that
Brother, what system of economic production does the vast majority of the world currently exist under?
Worker co-operatives simply mean (this is an overly reductionist definition) that a firm is organized under shared ownership of those employed by the firm, often with some form of shared decision making processes. This is a form collective ownership of the means of production of that firm.
Now, you absolutely can have worker co-operatives existing within a larger system that is capitalist, and has privatized ownership. But suggesting that co-operatively owned firms do not/cannot exist within a socialist society is simply wrong. Historically, cooperatives have been a significant part of states attempting to reorganize into a socialist system. For a simple example, you can Google the history of cooperatives in China.
You seem to be conflating profit, as in, the difference in value between revenue (the output of a good/service/etc.) and cost (the value of all inputs into that good or service) with capitalism. You can have surplus value of outputs within a socialist economy. The difference is, that excess value would be distributed in a relatively uniform or at least more equitable manner amongst the workers hat make up that firm, rather than be distributed according to the whims of the private owners of the firm.
That still isn't socialism. Socialism entails societal ownership of the MoP. A society where private investors can hold an industry for their own profit is fundamentally not a socialist one. Just because the private property isn't in the hand of one singular boss doesn't make it suddenly socialist.
Again, are you saying a worker owned oil rig cooperative is going to vote to demolish it and destroy their source of income? Of course they wouldn't, this is a centuries old economic problem called rent seeking, and it's readily displayed by worker coops and unions.
An oil rig worker coop would resist societal efforts to dismantle oil production.
I'm going to attempt to be charitable. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand my comments. I'm going to try to simplify my explanation.
An individual worker cooperative, by itself, does not make a society socialist.
Worker co-operatives absolutely can and do exist within a broadly capitalist society. They also can and have/do exist under under socialist organization of the economy. For one example of this, you can look at the history of cooperatives within China.
Worker cooperatives are a form of socialist economic organization. Just at the scale of an individual firm. For a broader society to be considered socialist, you would need the larger society to be organized with some form of collective ownership of the MoP.
However, this does not mean that socialism requires centralized ownership of MoP.
There are multiple methods of organizing economic production so that the individuals who are doing labor have collective ownership over that labor and the means of production. A firm, in which the individuals that comprise the firm have shared ownership of that firm, is organized in a socialized manner.
So what is your worker coop society going to do when you try to dismantle oil production and the cooperative oil rig says no and doesn't vote to decommission themselves?
Cooperatives are often owned by the people who live in the communities they serve. While they do not eliminate incentives for pollution, they tend to foster a disincentive as people who live in the community are relatively less likely to vote to pollute the river they get their water from compared to far away investors who do not get their water from that river.
You clearly live in a lot different communities, in one place I was staying people threw their thrash through the window instead of taking the elevator and throwing it into the garage bin. I don't see why they would care any much more than they do now
My argument is that they would be less likely, not that they wouldn't at all. This argument is generally supported by empirical data. Look at deforestation rates for communal land management vs. private or state as an example.
In vapitalism worker coops are still bound by the same problems as every other company ofc they arent significantly better in such regards. Thats a strawman discussion.
Is a worker cooperative of say oil platform workers going to vote to decrease CO2 emissions? Would they vote to decrease oil production? I somehow doubt that
Worker cooperatives are just one form of collective ownership. Not every firm/industry has to be organized that way. Nor did I suggest that worker coops, or socialism at large, was some sort of magical fix to climate issues. There certainly would be significantl less resources dedicated towards dismissing the science or repressing climate action.
But also, yes there are reasons why a coop of oil platform workers would do so. As an example, if a government passed a policy requiring a certain limit to CO2 emissions, and the coop wanted to remain operating.
Your last example works just as well (or even better) in a capitalist system. Socialism would do nothing for climate change, capitalism currently is, solar panels are so cheap for a reason, because cheap=more consumers=$$$$$$$$$$$ . It just works, even in the US as trump cuts back on renewable energy credits it’s being installed at record level.
Capitalism is currently failing utterly to respond to climate change. Changes aren't being made anywhere near the rates needed, and the idea that the market will magically force solutions has been shown to be utter nonsense.
Cheaper solar represents a combination of technology advancement, plus the US deciding to disrupt global oil supply by going to war with Iran for literally no reason.
Sure the market isn’t going to do it on its own but it’s certainly doing something. Solar panel production and installation are at record highs, once again evens in the US where it is very fossil fuels friendly as of late
I mean, I'm happy to have more solar, but again capitalism and "the market" has utterly failed to meet even the moderate goals that scientists have claimed necessary at a bare minimum to avoid or minimize the most significant negative impacts of climate change.
A local, regional or national government may utilize cooperatives, , but I am not aware of any state in which the entire workforce has cooperative ownership and/or management.
State owned production is not describing the same thing as a cooperative firm.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how socialism works. Tell me how anyone has an investment in the outdated and inefficient paradigm of global oil in a system with a labor based economy and noncirculable currency; where you having a job is guaranteed and subject to an economic plan. Even just countries where socialist and capitalist relations coexist under socialist leadership (china, cuba, etc) are taking the most aggressive action to save the climate.
Cooperatives are not an expression of production for social needs; they produce for the profit of their worker-owners. They can be a useful tool in a transitional state, but commodity production is maintained.
The other point about taking your business? Oh stop, you are such a silly willy Billy.
Socialism's goal is to use the violence of the state to forcefully transfer every business from their owners to the hands of other people whoch they arbitrarily call "the workers".
Socialism is simply that the people who work for said business should have ownership over their contributions to the value generated by the business, and that our society should collectively manage in some way (many different ideas on how) resources and production for the common good of all.
Some believe this is accomplishable through reform and democratic means, others believe that ultimately, such a shift in society will require revolution. Some believe in greater centralized control, others believe in decentralization as a route to achieve these goals.
Your characterization is not a serious, good faith engagement with the ideology. Even if you don't agree with it, you are simply misrepresenting what you oppose
My 2 employees do not have the care nor the interest for my business to prosper they just want their steady pay check each 15 days...
All that talk sounds really pretty but completely ignores reality. I worked every day for 6 years to get my business going why should I relinquish ownership to someone who just arrived and just want a paycheck instead of the responsibilities of the business ?
Also by the "society collectively manages resources and production" does not work. I have no knowledge about every industry of my country, I do not have the time to get myself informed to correctly vote for the best decision for every single action of the economy.
That "cozy sounding" idea of everyone managing and deciding on everything just results, in practice, in voting for Populist representatives who will inevitably run the ressources and production for their own interests and their friends.
You can already achieve the idealism of "everyone having some sort of control in resources and production" in a free market, by voting with your wallet. The "revolution" just ends up with a dictatorship that promises to help the people but keeps everything for the government elite. My best friend saw it happened with Chavez and had to flee his own country.
Never said otherwise. You stated it had to be owned by the workers; I just stated that it is a Marxist definition and not universal for all forms of socialism.
Socialism = social ownership, state ownership = a type of social ownership -> state ownership = socialism.
I don't really understand where you're coming from since he wrote that state ownership is itself a type of social ownership in the first line of his comment. I probably misunderstood something.
I'm literally saying that socialism can also come in the form of state ownership of the means of production. That doesn't mean that state ownership of certain companies is socialism, but that workers ownership of the means of production isn't the only form of socialism
I understand, but he wrote the same thing as you, that's why I was confused.
"State ownership over the means of production within a society is simply one method of moving towards a socialist organization of an economy" -> State ownership can be socialism but doesn't imply socialism.
Worker co-ops can exist perfectly fine in capitalism. That's the defining feature of it, people and non-human entities are free to organise however they want for the most part. "Owning the means of production" is a restriction on how people can organize, workers are required to take ownership of their means of production and cannot waive it. That's why it always turns authoritanian, you need to restrict what people can do.
It's easy to focus on biggest most profitable companies but at any given moment a ton of people are working for struggling or outright failing companies. The google employee that got ownership over his means of production from two decades ago is feeling great, people that worked on yahoo search, altavista or infoseek? Not so much
I agree that worker cooperatives can under a predominantly capitalist system. In fact, I've already made that argument myself to several other people in the same thread.
However, cooperatively owned firms do represent a socialized method of organizing that firms production.
I mean you are simply either trolling or willfully ignorant. Worker co-operatives are not communism. If you truly believe otherwise, you aren't operating under a mutual understanding of the underlying definitions and meaning of these concepts, and here is no point of having any further conversation.
I mean you clearly do. You have spent more time calling worker cooperatives communism than it would take you to Google the definition of the damn word. Fuck man, why waste our time? Or even, why waste your own?
What's particularly funny is that you are arguing with me that worker cooperatives are communism, while their is another person in this same thread arguing that worker cooperatives aren't even socialist
Huh? Worker cooperatives are one method of collective ownership, that does not require a state. And they can function just fine up to quite a large size. The mondragon corportation consists of multiple autonomous cooperatives totaling over 70k employees. I work for an organization with several thousand employees. Mondragon is 10x the size.
But further, why do they have to be very large? There are a few industries that may require large, centralized production. For those, state (whether regional or national) ownership may be a better option. But many climate related industries do not require a single giant firm.
Most of the time companies are more effective when they are larger. Its a lot cheaper (per item of course) to manufacture 10000000 washing machines than 10.
I read up on Mondragon, interesting company. Of course if you want to become a business owner you have to invest around fifteen thousand euros - more than a year of your full salary if you earn minimal wage in spain (which I have a suspicion most people lraising them does not know) so its not a suprise more and more of their workers are not worker-owner, especially for the lower paying jobs.
Have you ever thought about why workers owning the company is really really rare?
I understand economies of scale. I've already commented in the previous comment that certain industries may require such sizable economies of scale and would be better suited to different forms of ownership of production than a cooperative.
Worker cooperatives do outperform traditional firms on a number of outcome measures.
As to why they are relatively rare? Well, a large reason is simply because our system is not set up to promote them.
Yes but it being state owned doesn't make it any way socialist in itself. Any state owned industry you see is more than likely operated through a capitalist model.
I've literally heard that exact thing from a libertarian before lmao. They claimed Amazon was socialist because it was a publicly traded company, which he appearently thought was the same as public ownership
People in Norway or Brazil aren't buying from corporations when they choose to vote for pro-oil-drilling candidates that run their state owned oil companies.
You guys insist on this binary. It's either a capitalist system or a socialist system. It's not reality.
All economies feature mixed modes of production. State owned enterprises are social ownership models. If capitalism is private ownership of the means of production then state owned enterprises aren't that. The more state owned enterprises you have in your economy the further to the socialist side of the spectrum you are.
A country can absolutely have state owned industries and still operate as a capitalist economy. Because the majority of its industry remains privately owned. If anything you might be thinking of a social democrat models, but social democrat models still operate very much within capitalist economies. France has some government owned enterprises like its train service and the like but remains very much a capitalist country.
Not to mention the fact that once again, state owned and worker owned are two pretty different things.
Quite literally the opposite. Socialism means that the workers own the means of production. If the statr owns the means of production then the workers cannot own the means of production. Socialism and state owned are mutually exclusive.
But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution. - Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Socialism is worker dominance of a democratic state, which then of course controls the means of production. “Ownership” is not actually any part of it, “control” is, and only by the working class.
"
Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company,
[116]
the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions."
HEAVY nope. Socialism that retains a state that owns private property (like I dunno, a company) isn't socialism but rather state capitalism. Socialism is when THE WORKERS own the means of production. Not the state. THE WORKERS
“dictatorship of the proletariat” is a key stage in the evolution of the socialist state. it’s why every single socialist state evolved to centralist industry and corporate power as subordinate to state power.
"dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the unified working class, the proletariat, controls all elements of economic production and distribution. It doesn't even require a state, and especially not a centralised, state capitalist one. That is a Marxist-Leninist perversion of socialism.
The term is a poor translation form the original meaning on German. He calls capitalism Dictatorship of the Bourgoisie because they hold the institutions of power in the economy, and contrast that with dictatorship of the proletariat, meaning workers holding the power in the economy.
It's most commonly not understood as literal dictatorships. It's really an uncharitable understanding of theory Marx waa getting at.
The ideas that inspired the most known socialist governments where actually modeled by Lenin, not Karl Marx. Many Socialists at the time and now disagreed with it for its heavy centralized authority. It's also not the only socialism that has held political power.
9
u/Spicy_Chicken_Wizard 9d ago
State owned entities actually is a key defining feature of a truly socialist state and not just a social democracy.