Which is surprising because up here in Canada, the socialism started with the farmers. And it’s still going on with coop feed and grain silos and harvester sharing. Farmers don’t let other farmers starve, in Canada.
That’s not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.
I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.
A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
I’ve already addressed how this absolutism doesn’t track with logic, I just hope people stop repeating it so we can get some actual socialism in this world.
It’s the opposite of absolutism, actually. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, where large firms are held in public control, and smaller firms that aren’t are often formed in cooperative structures. A cooperative in a Socialist economy exists in a different context than a cooperative in a Capitalist economy.
Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency. As firms grow to large sizes, it becomes more efficient to publicly own and plan them.
Which is surprising because up here in Canada, the socialism started with the farmers. And it’s still going on with coop feed and grain silos and harvester sharing. Farmers don’t let other farmers starve, in Canada.
That’s not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.
I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.
I’ve already addressed how this absolutism doesn’t track with logic, I just hope people stop repeating it so we can get some actual socialism in this world.
It’s the opposite of absolutism, actually. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, where large firms are held in public control, and smaller firms that aren’t are often formed in cooperative structures. A cooperative in a Socialist economy exists in a different context than a cooperative in a Capitalist economy.
Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency. As firms grow to large sizes, it becomes more efficient to publicly own and plan them.
That’s not what socialism is. Socialism didn’t “start with the farmers”. That’s a ridiculous thing to say