| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Is ownership of public stock a socialistic concept? |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Brablo |
 Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I read this about Socialism: "Socialism and communism are alike in
that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership
of the means of production and centralized planning."
It truly sounds to me that their use of the term public ownership
equates to the many shareholders of a publicy traded company.
Therefore, the idea of publicly traded stocks and stock ownership is a
social democratic concept. What are your thoughts/ideas about my
opinion? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:57 am |
|
|
|
|
On 21 Nov 2005 08:41:27 -0800, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote:df1c6d7e7d]It truly sounds to me that their use of the term public ownership
equates to the many shareholders of a publicy traded company.
Therefore, the idea of publicly traded stocks and stock ownership is a
social democratic concept. What are your thoughts/ideas about my
opinion?
[/quote:df1c6d7e7d]
Wrong. "Many" holders of very unequal shares is not the same as
everyone holding equal shares.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brablo wrote:
[quote:aabe75b53e]I read this about Socialism: "Socialism and communism are alike in
that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership
of the means of production and centralized planning."
[/quote:aabe75b53e]
In taditional theory, Socialism means any system in which the worker
owns the means of production, this can mean that the State owns all the
means of production, as in State Socialism (what is often wrongly
called "Communism"), it can also mean that each worker and/or company
of workers directly owns the means of production that they employ, as
in Anarchism, or it can mean that the State alows private ownership of
the means of production, but uses Taxation to claw back private incomes
and redistribute them by way of funding public goods and social
programs, as in New Liberalism or Social Democracy.
"Communism" is actually a theoretical statelesss, propertyless society,
which in Marxian theory is identical to Anarchism, however unlike
Anarchists, traditional Marxist believe that "Communism" can not be
achieved directly, but first the workers must seize the State and
initiate a period of State Socialism, at the end of which, the State
would "Wither Away" and leave "Communism" in it's wake.
Thus the social order found in "Communist" countries is not called
"Communism," but rather State Socialism (as in the "Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics"), what makes them "Communist" countries is not
their current society, but the alleged fact that they are supposedly
working towards Communism.
Anarchists dispute this State Socialist phase, and insist that the
Socialist State will never "Wither away", but will instead lead only to
tyranny and only replace the exploitive Landlord and Capitalist Class
with a new Administrative Class that will be even more efficient in
exploiting the worker.
Public stock ownership is a form of private ownership of the means of
production, as stock holders are owners, not workers, thus they are
Capitalists, and the concept is therfore not Socialist at all, although
Social Democratic/New Liberal societies allow it in combination with
tax-based socialisation of the resulting income.
Hope that helps. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Peterson |
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brablo wrote:
[quote:f2a2a3a4fd]I read this about Socialism: "Socialism and communism are alike in
that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership
of the means of production and centralized planning."
[/quote:f2a2a3a4fd]
That is more of a type of state capitalism. Centralized planning isn't
essential to state capitalism.
[quote:f2a2a3a4fd]It truly sounds to me that their use of the term public ownership
equates to the many shareholders of a publicy traded company.
[/quote:f2a2a3a4fd]
That is equivalent to ownership by capital since the managers of a
corportation are legally obligated to maximize the return to capital.
[quote:f2a2a3a4fd]Therefore, the idea of publicly traded stocks and stock ownership is a
social democratic concept. What are your thoughts/ideas about my
opinion?
[/quote:f2a2a3a4fd]
I think the rights of capital trump any democratic aspect. If a
corportation doesn't maximize return to capital, the corporation won't
survive. In addition, any minority shareholder should be able to sue to
recover funds lost through deliberate mismanagement even if it's at the
bequest of the majority of shareholders.
--
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132591287.598000.61970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:8e7b3a1b16]I read this about Socialism: "Socialism and communism are alike in
that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership
of the means of production and centralized planning."
It truly sounds to me that their use of the term public ownership
equates to the many shareholders of a publicy traded company.
Therefore, the idea of publicly traded stocks and stock ownership is a
social democratic concept. What are your thoughts/ideas about my
opinion?
Hi,[/quote:8e7b3a1b16]
Marx assumed a world divided into two "classes": workers and capitalists.
And that was a valid picture in the world of his time and place.
But a given individual could be a worker (income derived from labor) when
young but become a capitalist (income derived from capital--mostly in the
form of stocks, bonds and CD's) when older
In the US the same individual can be a combination of both at the same time
by buying stocks as they work.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/marx.txt
When Marx talked about the "workers owning the means of production" did he
mean in some collective sense? Or did he mean what is happening in the US
now, where individuals work and use some of their income to buy stocks,
until they own enough capital to live from the income it generates?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:11 am
|
|