But how would they buy YouTube in the first place? How would Google even be what it is today without rich shareholders pumping in money for decades? Without harvesting and selling user data?
How far do you want to take this? Companies exist. They still would in a socialist economy.
Nobody is talking about a post scarcity world where money doesn’t exist, and nobody hast to work for a living.
But to answer your question they could get loans to fund the beginning, and once they reach critical size they can monotize the same way YouTube does now. Being employee owned doesn’t mean they can’t harvest data or charge subscriptions.
Who and/or what would drive the company to such a size? You think Bill Gates would put all that work in just to give away the entire company? You think Mark Zuckerberg would sit for hours and hours into the night and nonstop code Facebook, just to not own it?
In fact, for most of American history, neither Zuck or Gates would give away any part of their company. They just need to pay their taxes to give back for the gains afforded them by society.
Do you think either of those folks made their companies on their own? Completely? In a vacuum? Sure, Zuckerberg did a lot of work, but the Internet was made with public funds. It runs on the national electric infrastructure. Employees get there on public roads. The protocols we use are standardized by the federal government. Their employees have public educations. The languages that they use are open source and community maintained.
It doesn’t have to be a cooperative. Even just going back to the way the US worked before Reagan when we had strong social safety nets, lots of public funding, and general social mindedness would be a step towards socialism.
I’m not opposed to some folks being wealthier than others; I’m opposed to people starving because we cannot sate the rich.
I don’t hate money as a tool. I hate systems that maximize it over humanity.
I think it is, at some level. The definition of socialism, especially when not contrasted with social democracy, Democratic socialism, or communism, can be very vague, but the idea that a portion of labor is shared back feels like it’s in line with the spirit.
From Miriam Webster:
“any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
Taxes are just a way of taking some of the value of goods and redistributing them. Governments enforcing taxes are them getting involved with the administration of said goods.
To YouTube still. Which is now owned by all the Google employees.
But how would they buy YouTube in the first place? How would Google even be what it is today without rich shareholders pumping in money for decades? Without harvesting and selling user data?
How far do you want to take this? Companies exist. They still would in a socialist economy.
Nobody is talking about a post scarcity world where money doesn’t exist, and nobody hast to work for a living.
But to answer your question they could get loans to fund the beginning, and once they reach critical size they can monotize the same way YouTube does now. Being employee owned doesn’t mean they can’t harvest data or charge subscriptions.
Who and/or what would drive the company to such a size? You think Bill Gates would put all that work in just to give away the entire company? You think Mark Zuckerberg would sit for hours and hours into the night and nonstop code Facebook, just to not own it?
Yes. They would own it. Along with the rest of their employees.
Divided how? Does Gates give away half his company when he hires his first employee?
There are a lot of options.
In fact, for most of American history, neither Zuck or Gates would give away any part of their company. They just need to pay their taxes to give back for the gains afforded them by society.
Do you think either of those folks made their companies on their own? Completely? In a vacuum? Sure, Zuckerberg did a lot of work, but the Internet was made with public funds. It runs on the national electric infrastructure. Employees get there on public roads. The protocols we use are standardized by the federal government. Their employees have public educations. The languages that they use are open source and community maintained.
It doesn’t have to be a cooperative. Even just going back to the way the US worked before Reagan when we had strong social safety nets, lots of public funding, and general social mindedness would be a step towards socialism.
I’m not opposed to some folks being wealthier than others; I’m opposed to people starving because we cannot sate the rich.
I don’t hate money as a tool. I hate systems that maximize it over humanity.
This I can agree with! Doesn’t mean it’s = Socialism
I think it is, at some level. The definition of socialism, especially when not contrasted with social democracy, Democratic socialism, or communism, can be very vague, but the idea that a portion of labor is shared back feels like it’s in line with the spirit.
From Miriam Webster:
“any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
Taxes are just a way of taking some of the value of goods and redistributing them. Governments enforcing taxes are them getting involved with the administration of said goods.