Communism is a bit more nebulous, so I’ll explain it with socialism if that’s okay. I’m also going to do so from the ground up, because it’s pretty clear if you go step by step, so apologies in advance if it comes off as condescending for that reason.
Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. The means of production refers to whatever creates goods and provides services.
If you think about what falls under the umbrella of goods and services, it’s pretty much everything. Food, water, shelter, health care, all of it should be held in common. You can see totalitarianism emerging already, but I’ll expand a bit further.
What does held in common mean? Well in theory it means that a collective takes ownership and control over something. If a state turns socialist in the purest sense, then that state and the people in it are the collective. The “common” would mean the ruling socialist party, of which everybody is a member.
So how do people get things done? Well, if someone owns a restaurant, they probably hire managers to keep order and give tasks to the workers. If a collective owns a restaurant, someone still has to decide who manages (you find out immediately that you need them if you try without). Since the state is the collective, then the state decides who the managers are. The workers may not like the managers, but instead of having a single owner to deal with, you now have the entire state to deal with.
You might think a union would be the answer to this problem, but unions are both a collective and a service, so if it’s truly socialism it would be of the state as well. The state would have little incentive to act against itself. In socialist countries, it’s common for unions to become agents of the state very quickly, this enacting state level control over how people protest their work conditions
Rinse and repeat with every good and service you can think of, and you have total state control over basically everything.
Couldn’t the workers decide who manages the restaurant? And get rid of them if they don’t like them? I don’t get what you mean by “the state decides who the managers are”.
The ownership of the restaurant is held in common, so if it comes down to a vote everybody in the state would have just as much a right to it as everyone else, so it wouldn’t inherently fall to the workers. If it did, it would be at the behest of the state; that’s true in both cases actually. It just isn’t a natural outcome for the workers to vote for their own manager: if it existed, it would only exist as long as the state allows it or chooses things to work that way.
Also, should workers be choosing their own supervisors? I would argue, regardless of whatever ism you subscribe to, without considering the political climate whatever work is sitting in, I would never see it as a good idea to let workers decide who supervises them. Managers are there to help workers who don’t know what to do, are unwilling to do what they need without supervision, or are just generally unorganized. If someone is in need of a manager, chances are they would also not know the qualities needed for management. In the best case, it’s because there’s some expertise they didn’t know was required for the job that they didn’t know about, in the worst case, I can imagine teenage me voting for the person I liked who didn’t give a fuck
In any case, it wouldn’t take long for some restaurant somewhere to choose a manager that appeases their laziness, stupidity, or whatever out of a desire to escape discipline and/or hard work. People are selfish, it’ll happen. As soon as it does, those in control of the state will decide it’s best to have a process in which they decide who manages their workers on your behalf. You can’t have a full direct democratic vote for every decision, it’s just not feasible, so the alternative is the party that you represent and represents you back and makes decisions on your behalf.
It’s also very easy for those in control of the state to see potential gains in changing the process to give themselves more power, that can and will just happen spontaneously out of a desire to strengthen the party
So your point is people are too selfish and egoistical to have a real saying on how work is organized? Then why are people responsible enough to vote for the right politicians every four or so years? Where is the line?
Following your argumentations it seems best if someone in charge makes all the decisions without the majority having any saying. That cannot be what you want.
Your desire to have a ruling party and then “all the others” is telling. Managers should absolutely be elected by the workers. Not all workers are lazy - in fact 20% of the employees create 80% of the issues. The other majority of folks want to work and want to be a part of a team. It’s how democracy works too - one of the people is voted on by all the others to be in charge for a short time. This arrangement doesn’t seem to have resulted in any democracy being less productive than a more authoritative state. In fact, looking at the least economically productive states, all of them are dictatorships where the people DON’T vote for a leader. They are assigned one and the people have to hope they aren’t lazy, corrupt, or self serving. The people don’t get a voice - just like your ideal work environment.
It’s wild that the parallel of democracy was brought up too and you also then say democracy ain’t feasible. It’s like admitting to being a fascist without saying the words - the belief that people can’t be trusted is there and all that needs to be done to capitalize on that belief is an antagonist culture or people.
Do you think countries that currently run services like trains or healthcare or utilities in the ownership of collective trend towards totalitarianism?
Because while I don’t have any imperial data, it seems to me that corruption and totalitarianism is much more common in capitalist ventures where a small group of people with questionable ethics ha e full control over it and almost always abuse the position for their own benefit.
Because while I don’t have any imperial data, it seems to me that corruption and totalitarianism is much more common in capitalist ventures where a small group of people with questionable ethics ha e full control over it and almost always abuse the position for their own benefit.
I hadn’t read this point when I replied before. This doesn’t sound right to me, could you give me some examples of capitalist ventures that you’re talking about?
I think everything is corruptible, so I think it’s best for the people to be ready to start their own private businesses to open up the market. Don’t like Pet Smart ethics? Well I live in a corporate society in which private business owners tried opening up more ethical pet stores, but pet stores aren’t wildly profitable. It’s a business of passion. They went out of business because only massive corporations can afford business and property taxes.
Pretty much any major company has had a corruption scandal at some point. But to give you some examples. Goldmine sachs, Wells forgot, fifa, Siemens, amazon, Microsoft etc. Etc.
Each of those are publicly traded corporations. Meaning they’re not privately owned. I know it’s confusing, because people call them capitalist all the time, but they’re wrong. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and those businesses are not privately owned. Capitalism cannot take responsibility for their corruption any more than socialism. Corporatism is the problem there
I’ve heard A LOT of BS defenses for capitalism over the years but “publicly traded companies are not capitalist” really taked the cake.
At risk of taking the bait: those companies are still privately owned by their shareholders, just that ownership is traded freely among the capitalist class.
Like just think for a second. Most property is traded publicly on the market, but does that mean you don’t privately own your own home? Of course not, it’s still your private property regardless if everyone had the same chance to buy it.
Houses don’t have shares though, those companies have shares. A share to a company is a piece of ownership. Microsoft for example, is not owned by one private individual. It’s collectively owned by Vanguard, BlackRock, Steve Ballmer, and Bill Gates. And those 4 together only own 20%, the rest are apportioned to the general public. Only 2 have more than 5%. 80% of their shareholders hold less than a fraction of ownership.
Put all those together, can you honestly say Microsoft is privately owned by a private unit? It would be mental gymnastics not to say this is public ownership.
Now, you might have the urge to insist that someone’s share is privately owned, but that doesn’t dispute the company itself. The companies ownership is split into a collective.
I just went to google, and I typed “is Microsoft a private company” and the response was “Microsoft moved its headquarters from Bellevue to Redmond, Washington, on February 26, 1986, and went public on March 13”. In fact, it’s hard to find a source claiming it’s private, I’ve yet to.
can you honestly say Microsoft is privately owned by a private unit?
Yes. Because it is. There is no grey area here, no “but akshually”, no little technicality. It is a privately owned company. End of story, no exception. The fact that many people own a part of it doesn’t make a difference
You are mixing up publically OWNED companies and publically TRADED companies. I’m guessing because publically traded companies are usually just called public companies. Microsoft is privately ownership that is publically traded.
Like you HAVE to understand that your are legitimately and unironically saying that every major publically traded company is collectively owned and therefore socialist, right? And you know how just utterly insane that argument is, right?
Or how about you define where the line is for collective ownership? Is 2 people owning a 50% stake in a company make it publicly owned? No? How about 5? Or 10? 100? Where is the line?
Or how about the fact that this logic would reduce the definition of the “the collective” to the capitalist class and completely ignores the proletariat, because they typically don’t own shares of companies. Like if everyone owned a share of Microsoft, you would have a point. But most people don’t, typically because they are not part of the capitalist class and/or don’t have savings in a managed investment fund.
Okay I would love to explain my thoughts on this to you, I really would. But please take an honest look at the way you’re talking to me right now. It’s not that I’m horribly insulted by your rudeness, it’s that I’m actually not getting anything out of you in the realest sense, and I doubt anything I’m saying is connecting either. For that reason, I’m sure this is a waste of time, and I know I’m about to do way more typing than I should, but I want to show you what I mean.
When I described the corporate structure and collective ownership, I rhetorically asked if you could honestly describe that as privately owned. You took it literally, said nothing to refute that Microsoft is structured in the collective way I described, and answered the question like this:
Yes. Because it is. There is no grey area here, no “but akshually”, no little technicality. It is a privately owned company. End of story, no exception. The fact that many people own a part of it doesn’t make a difference
You assert your point with no elaboration. You reduce my argument to “but akshually”, call it a technicality, still with no argument as to why. Then you call it end of story, no exception, as if to suggest the truth should be accepted as what you say it is, again without question or reason. Then, after all of that, you tell me that a lot of people being part of a collective doesn’t make a difference in whether it’s a collective. Your confidence in your response heavily outweighs the actual contents. You gave me no new information, nothing to think about.
You are mixing up publicly OWNED companies and publicly TRADED companies. I’m guessing because publicly traded companies are usually just called public companies. Microsoft is privately ownership that is publicly traded.
This is funny to me because this has already been clarified, but you just didn’t notice I guess? I said those companies were publicly traded, because that typically means they’ve gone fully public and their shares are up for grabs. You pointed out that technically houses can be traded publicly and still be privately owned. That’s why I switched to talking about shares, because that’s less ambiguous and makes it clear I’m referring to that actual portions of ownership. You have completely missed that nuance in an effort to scope in on the right words to win rhetorically, which is wholly unproductive as a conversational tactic in and of itself. As a result, you are the one conflating anything I say that’s related to the idea of public as publicly trade, even though I’m saying different words that mean different things. You are now the one conflating the terms, not me.
Like you HAVE to understand that your are legitimately and unironically saying that every major publicly traded company is collectively owned and therefore socialist, right? And you know how just utterly insane that argument is, right?
I didn’t say this, you did in your head. You’re also trying extremely hard to use as many adverbs as you can to show just how amazingly crazy that conclusion you made is, without any effort to elaborate on why. If you really think you have something to tell me here, why don’t you? Why are you using all of this filler speech to assert how crazy that is, instead of applying your knowledge and showing me where I went wrong?
Read a few comments back from me, I distinguish capitalism from corporatism. I did not use the word socialism. I figured this would be a good way to reach a middle ground you might like, because most people (especially on Lemmy) hate corporations. More importantly, it’s true that there’s a distinct difference in the operations of a private business and a large corporate collective. You ignored this clarification and avoided the chance to reach common ground.
Or how about you define where the line is for collective ownership? Is 2 people owning a 50% stake in a company make it publicly owned? No? How about 5? Or 10? 100? Where is the line?
Okay this one is actually answerable, even though I know it’s rhetorical. Yes, if a private family unit or individual owns 50% of the stakes of a company, I think we can safely say it’s privately controlled, at the very least. That said, there would still be 50% owned by shareholders, so it’s still collectively owned to a degree. Ownership and control are different but equally important aspects. Looks like there’s nuance here, hey? This is actually something I’ve thought about a LOT, because the line seems blurry, because it seems like it might be possible to have a degree of private and collective ownership. Thus, defining the line of where it’s one or the other is difficult, like defining when someone is tall. Seeing as how you have demonstrated that you care about the topic, you should genuinely try to think of an answer for this too, instead of asking it in a way that makes it seem silly.
Also, it’s bad faith to act as if I should have preemptively answered this question. It’s fine to think up questions to talk about relating to the nuance of the theory, but you could ask questions for days about any detail. If I did already define that line in my previously comment, it probably would’ve seemed out of place, you probably would not have engaged with it, and then you would’ve pointed out some other important detail implying I should’ve already answered it.
Or how about the fact that this logic would reduce the definition of the “the collective” to the capitalist class and completely ignores the proletariat, because they typically don’t own shares of companies. Like if everyone owned a share of Microsoft, you would have a point. But most people don’t, typically because they are not part of the capitalist class and/or don’t have savings in a managed investment fund.
And this is why I wanted to go over why your responses felt wholly empty to me up until this point. There’s a ton of conversation to be had, just from this paragraph. But it’s buried in tons of bad faith questions with demonstrable overlooking of any of my reasoning. I can’t expect anything I say here to even be read by you, let alone result in any engagement on your part. But you know what? I’m gonna do it anyway lol
So for starters, the term “capitalist class” presumes the point that the ruling class, the oligarchs, the patricians, or whatever group of people you’re referring to, both are primarily capitalistic in nature (which I would refute), and that they hold some sort of monopoly on the concept of private ownership, which I would also refute. It’s also the core of where our disagreement lies, I’m directly telling you that the influence of corporations and the people that run them is better described as corporatism, rather than capitalism. You can’t just presume that’s not true as a premise when that’s what the argument is about
You are correct that the typical wage earner does not hold shares in Microsoft. This does not mean that he’s not a part of the greater collective of citizens. A collective is “of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group.” It’s people acting as a group. The nation is a collective of all of its citizens, Microsoft is a collective of its shareholders. Saying either or both are collective does not ignore any definition of any word. In fact, it’s a more honest application of the definition. For the same reason that you can’t say any group you’re not part of isn’t a group, you can’t say that a citizen not being a shareholder in Microsoft doesn’t mean it’s not a collective. In fact, you’d be the one reducing the definition of a collective by insisting that it can’t be used to describe group ownership of a corporation.
Yes they do, though just answering the question at face value would give you an incorrect impression of the merit of publicly held utilities. Having the government run health care gives the government control over health care. As a Canadian, I have been both grateful for the care I’ve been given and frustrated by the control they have over how I take care of myself.
But as a member if the collective you have power to change that. Whereas in a orivste system you have no say over it and the people running it have more incentive to screw you over.
Canada may not have a perfect healthcsre system but its miles better than the US system.
Communism is a bit more nebulous, so I’ll explain it with socialism if that’s okay. I’m also going to do so from the ground up, because it’s pretty clear if you go step by step, so apologies in advance if it comes off as condescending for that reason.
Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. The means of production refers to whatever creates goods and provides services.
If you think about what falls under the umbrella of goods and services, it’s pretty much everything. Food, water, shelter, health care, all of it should be held in common. You can see totalitarianism emerging already, but I’ll expand a bit further.
What does held in common mean? Well in theory it means that a collective takes ownership and control over something. If a state turns socialist in the purest sense, then that state and the people in it are the collective. The “common” would mean the ruling socialist party, of which everybody is a member.
So how do people get things done? Well, if someone owns a restaurant, they probably hire managers to keep order and give tasks to the workers. If a collective owns a restaurant, someone still has to decide who manages (you find out immediately that you need them if you try without). Since the state is the collective, then the state decides who the managers are. The workers may not like the managers, but instead of having a single owner to deal with, you now have the entire state to deal with.
You might think a union would be the answer to this problem, but unions are both a collective and a service, so if it’s truly socialism it would be of the state as well. The state would have little incentive to act against itself. In socialist countries, it’s common for unions to become agents of the state very quickly, this enacting state level control over how people protest their work conditions
Rinse and repeat with every good and service you can think of, and you have total state control over basically everything.
Couldn’t the workers decide who manages the restaurant? And get rid of them if they don’t like them? I don’t get what you mean by “the state decides who the managers are”.
The ownership of the restaurant is held in common, so if it comes down to a vote everybody in the state would have just as much a right to it as everyone else, so it wouldn’t inherently fall to the workers. If it did, it would be at the behest of the state; that’s true in both cases actually. It just isn’t a natural outcome for the workers to vote for their own manager: if it existed, it would only exist as long as the state allows it or chooses things to work that way.
Also, should workers be choosing their own supervisors? I would argue, regardless of whatever ism you subscribe to, without considering the political climate whatever work is sitting in, I would never see it as a good idea to let workers decide who supervises them. Managers are there to help workers who don’t know what to do, are unwilling to do what they need without supervision, or are just generally unorganized. If someone is in need of a manager, chances are they would also not know the qualities needed for management. In the best case, it’s because there’s some expertise they didn’t know was required for the job that they didn’t know about, in the worst case, I can imagine teenage me voting for the person I liked who didn’t give a fuck
In any case, it wouldn’t take long for some restaurant somewhere to choose a manager that appeases their laziness, stupidity, or whatever out of a desire to escape discipline and/or hard work. People are selfish, it’ll happen. As soon as it does, those in control of the state will decide it’s best to have a process in which they decide who manages their workers on your behalf. You can’t have a full direct democratic vote for every decision, it’s just not feasible, so the alternative is the party that you represent and represents you back and makes decisions on your behalf.
It’s also very easy for those in control of the state to see potential gains in changing the process to give themselves more power, that can and will just happen spontaneously out of a desire to strengthen the party
So your point is people are too selfish and egoistical to have a real saying on how work is organized? Then why are people responsible enough to vote for the right politicians every four or so years? Where is the line? Following your argumentations it seems best if someone in charge makes all the decisions without the majority having any saying. That cannot be what you want.
Your desire to have a ruling party and then “all the others” is telling. Managers should absolutely be elected by the workers. Not all workers are lazy - in fact 20% of the employees create 80% of the issues. The other majority of folks want to work and want to be a part of a team. It’s how democracy works too - one of the people is voted on by all the others to be in charge for a short time. This arrangement doesn’t seem to have resulted in any democracy being less productive than a more authoritative state. In fact, looking at the least economically productive states, all of them are dictatorships where the people DON’T vote for a leader. They are assigned one and the people have to hope they aren’t lazy, corrupt, or self serving. The people don’t get a voice - just like your ideal work environment.
It’s wild that the parallel of democracy was brought up too and you also then say democracy ain’t feasible. It’s like admitting to being a fascist without saying the words - the belief that people can’t be trusted is there and all that needs to be done to capitalize on that belief is an antagonist culture or people.
deleted by creator
I don’t even know what part of my comment you think you’re refuting
deleted by creator
Do you think countries that currently run services like trains or healthcare or utilities in the ownership of collective trend towards totalitarianism?
Because while I don’t have any imperial data, it seems to me that corruption and totalitarianism is much more common in capitalist ventures where a small group of people with questionable ethics ha e full control over it and almost always abuse the position for their own benefit.
I hadn’t read this point when I replied before. This doesn’t sound right to me, could you give me some examples of capitalist ventures that you’re talking about?
I think everything is corruptible, so I think it’s best for the people to be ready to start their own private businesses to open up the market. Don’t like Pet Smart ethics? Well I live in a corporate society in which private business owners tried opening up more ethical pet stores, but pet stores aren’t wildly profitable. It’s a business of passion. They went out of business because only massive corporations can afford business and property taxes.
Pretty much any major company has had a corruption scandal at some point. But to give you some examples. Goldmine sachs, Wells forgot, fifa, Siemens, amazon, Microsoft etc. Etc.
Each of those are publicly traded corporations. Meaning they’re not privately owned. I know it’s confusing, because people call them capitalist all the time, but they’re wrong. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and those businesses are not privately owned. Capitalism cannot take responsibility for their corruption any more than socialism. Corporatism is the problem there
Lmao wtf, that’s some Olympic level mental gymnastics you’re doing here.
I’ve heard A LOT of BS defenses for capitalism over the years but “publicly traded companies are not capitalist” really taked the cake.
At risk of taking the bait: those companies are still privately owned by their shareholders, just that ownership is traded freely among the capitalist class.
Like just think for a second. Most property is traded publicly on the market, but does that mean you don’t privately own your own home? Of course not, it’s still your private property regardless if everyone had the same chance to buy it.
Houses don’t have shares though, those companies have shares. A share to a company is a piece of ownership. Microsoft for example, is not owned by one private individual. It’s collectively owned by Vanguard, BlackRock, Steve Ballmer, and Bill Gates. And those 4 together only own 20%, the rest are apportioned to the general public. Only 2 have more than 5%. 80% of their shareholders hold less than a fraction of ownership.
Put all those together, can you honestly say Microsoft is privately owned by a private unit? It would be mental gymnastics not to say this is public ownership.
Now, you might have the urge to insist that someone’s share is privately owned, but that doesn’t dispute the company itself. The companies ownership is split into a collective.
I just went to google, and I typed “is Microsoft a private company” and the response was “Microsoft moved its headquarters from Bellevue to Redmond, Washington, on February 26, 1986, and went public on March 13”. In fact, it’s hard to find a source claiming it’s private, I’ve yet to.
Yes. Because it is. There is no grey area here, no “but akshually”, no little technicality. It is a privately owned company. End of story, no exception. The fact that many people own a part of it doesn’t make a difference
You are mixing up publically OWNED companies and publically TRADED companies. I’m guessing because publically traded companies are usually just called public companies. Microsoft is privately ownership that is publically traded.
Like you HAVE to understand that your are legitimately and unironically saying that every major publically traded company is collectively owned and therefore socialist, right? And you know how just utterly insane that argument is, right?
Or how about you define where the line is for collective ownership? Is 2 people owning a 50% stake in a company make it publicly owned? No? How about 5? Or 10? 100? Where is the line?
Or how about the fact that this logic would reduce the definition of the “the collective” to the capitalist class and completely ignores the proletariat, because they typically don’t own shares of companies. Like if everyone owned a share of Microsoft, you would have a point. But most people don’t, typically because they are not part of the capitalist class and/or don’t have savings in a managed investment fund.
Okay I would love to explain my thoughts on this to you, I really would. But please take an honest look at the way you’re talking to me right now. It’s not that I’m horribly insulted by your rudeness, it’s that I’m actually not getting anything out of you in the realest sense, and I doubt anything I’m saying is connecting either. For that reason, I’m sure this is a waste of time, and I know I’m about to do way more typing than I should, but I want to show you what I mean.
When I described the corporate structure and collective ownership, I rhetorically asked if you could honestly describe that as privately owned. You took it literally, said nothing to refute that Microsoft is structured in the collective way I described, and answered the question like this:
You assert your point with no elaboration. You reduce my argument to “but akshually”, call it a technicality, still with no argument as to why. Then you call it end of story, no exception, as if to suggest the truth should be accepted as what you say it is, again without question or reason. Then, after all of that, you tell me that a lot of people being part of a collective doesn’t make a difference in whether it’s a collective. Your confidence in your response heavily outweighs the actual contents. You gave me no new information, nothing to think about.
This is funny to me because this has already been clarified, but you just didn’t notice I guess? I said those companies were publicly traded, because that typically means they’ve gone fully public and their shares are up for grabs. You pointed out that technically houses can be traded publicly and still be privately owned. That’s why I switched to talking about shares, because that’s less ambiguous and makes it clear I’m referring to that actual portions of ownership. You have completely missed that nuance in an effort to scope in on the right words to win rhetorically, which is wholly unproductive as a conversational tactic in and of itself. As a result, you are the one conflating anything I say that’s related to the idea of public as publicly trade, even though I’m saying different words that mean different things. You are now the one conflating the terms, not me.
I didn’t say this, you did in your head. You’re also trying extremely hard to use as many adverbs as you can to show just how amazingly crazy that conclusion you made is, without any effort to elaborate on why. If you really think you have something to tell me here, why don’t you? Why are you using all of this filler speech to assert how crazy that is, instead of applying your knowledge and showing me where I went wrong?
Read a few comments back from me, I distinguish capitalism from corporatism. I did not use the word socialism. I figured this would be a good way to reach a middle ground you might like, because most people (especially on Lemmy) hate corporations. More importantly, it’s true that there’s a distinct difference in the operations of a private business and a large corporate collective. You ignored this clarification and avoided the chance to reach common ground.
Okay this one is actually answerable, even though I know it’s rhetorical. Yes, if a private family unit or individual owns 50% of the stakes of a company, I think we can safely say it’s privately controlled, at the very least. That said, there would still be 50% owned by shareholders, so it’s still collectively owned to a degree. Ownership and control are different but equally important aspects. Looks like there’s nuance here, hey? This is actually something I’ve thought about a LOT, because the line seems blurry, because it seems like it might be possible to have a degree of private and collective ownership. Thus, defining the line of where it’s one or the other is difficult, like defining when someone is tall. Seeing as how you have demonstrated that you care about the topic, you should genuinely try to think of an answer for this too, instead of asking it in a way that makes it seem silly.
Also, it’s bad faith to act as if I should have preemptively answered this question. It’s fine to think up questions to talk about relating to the nuance of the theory, but you could ask questions for days about any detail. If I did already define that line in my previously comment, it probably would’ve seemed out of place, you probably would not have engaged with it, and then you would’ve pointed out some other important detail implying I should’ve already answered it.
And this is why I wanted to go over why your responses felt wholly empty to me up until this point. There’s a ton of conversation to be had, just from this paragraph. But it’s buried in tons of bad faith questions with demonstrable overlooking of any of my reasoning. I can’t expect anything I say here to even be read by you, let alone result in any engagement on your part. But you know what? I’m gonna do it anyway lol
So for starters, the term “capitalist class” presumes the point that the ruling class, the oligarchs, the patricians, or whatever group of people you’re referring to, both are primarily capitalistic in nature (which I would refute), and that they hold some sort of monopoly on the concept of private ownership, which I would also refute. It’s also the core of where our disagreement lies, I’m directly telling you that the influence of corporations and the people that run them is better described as corporatism, rather than capitalism. You can’t just presume that’s not true as a premise when that’s what the argument is about
You are correct that the typical wage earner does not hold shares in Microsoft. This does not mean that he’s not a part of the greater collective of citizens. A collective is “of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group.” It’s people acting as a group. The nation is a collective of all of its citizens, Microsoft is a collective of its shareholders. Saying either or both are collective does not ignore any definition of any word. In fact, it’s a more honest application of the definition. For the same reason that you can’t say any group you’re not part of isn’t a group, you can’t say that a citizen not being a shareholder in Microsoft doesn’t mean it’s not a collective. In fact, you’d be the one reducing the definition of a collective by insisting that it can’t be used to describe group ownership of a corporation.
Yes they do, though just answering the question at face value would give you an incorrect impression of the merit of publicly held utilities. Having the government run health care gives the government control over health care. As a Canadian, I have been both grateful for the care I’ve been given and frustrated by the control they have over how I take care of myself.
But as a member if the collective you have power to change that. Whereas in a orivste system you have no say over it and the people running it have more incentive to screw you over.
Canada may not have a perfect healthcsre system but its miles better than the US system.