- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Not true.
Examples: Venezuela worker-owned cooperatives. Communal councils where government enterprises and government funds are controlled democratically. Communal banks.
Cuba's UBPC's where state land is controlled by those who toil on it through cooperative manners.
Israel some of the kibbutzs
Mexico, the Zapatista coffee cooperatives
Yugoslavia's economy was mainly dominated by worker self managed enterprises
Argentinas cooperative movement.
The government did not own the means of production in Nazi Germany. And your premise is flawed. Socialists call for social ownership (which can come in many different forms). The state simply owning the means of production is not socialism. Take for example:
"Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one. Nationalization in itself has nothing particularly to do with socialism and has existed under non-socialist and anti-socialist regimes. Kautsky in 1891 pointed out that a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ could not be the result of the ‘general nationalization of all industries’ unless there was a change in ‘the character of the state’.. The Socialist International at its meeting in Frankfurt in 1951 rejected rejected the idea of total public ownership and called for decentralized economic power where that was compatible with planning" https://books.google.com/books?id=o...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
"State ownership of the means of production is not necessarily social ownership and state ownership can hinder efficiency."
https://books.google.com/books?id=y...PAhXCxYMKHbbVD-sQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q&f=false
"Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society – i.e. every individual equally – owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs." https://books.google.com/books?id=i...PAhUV0IMKHX1dCNwQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
"The economic activity of the modern state is the natural starting point of the development that leads to the Co-operative Commonwealth. It does not, however, follow that every nationalization of an economic function or of an industry is a step towards the Co-operative Commonwealth, and that the latter could be the result of a general nationalization of all industries without any change in the character of the state." https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch04.htm
Uh no. As I provided several times here the Nazis actually reprivatized many state owned companies.
:roll:
Not even close.