Those are details that can be organised on a company by company basis. It could be built into the original encorperation contract. I’d expect an automatic union would be created amd get some portion of the company over time based on milestones or simply time. It can done countless ways.
Well, I see. And it sounds great.
Unfortunately, I really don’t see it ever being a viable system to foster the development of products in the likes of YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, Facebook etc because no one would want to put in the work it takes to get of the ground to begin with, just for it to be forced out of your hands when it finally starts growing.
The innovative brain, the skills (like programming for example), the business mind, the pure motivation, everything needed to create the foundation for such massive corporations, why does anyone else deserve a piece of the payoff just for being an employee?
You say that on a social media platform built by volenteers, doing it for donations. People do things for lots of reasons, money is only one of them. And not even the strongest for most people.
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 then 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.
Bratosch@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Divided how? Does Gates give away half his company when he hires his first employee?
Steve@communick.news 2 months ago
Those are details that can be organised on a company by company basis. It could be built into the original encorperation contract. I’d expect an automatic union would be created amd get some portion of the company over time based on milestones or simply time. It can done countless ways.
Bratosch@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Well, I see. And it sounds great. Unfortunately, I really don’t see it ever being a viable system to foster the development of products in the likes of YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, Facebook etc because no one would want to put in the work it takes to get of the ground to begin with, just for it to be forced out of your hands when it finally starts growing. The innovative brain, the skills (like programming for example), the business mind, the pure motivation, everything needed to create the foundation for such massive corporations, why does anyone else deserve a piece of the payoff just for being an employee?
Steve@communick.news 2 months ago
You say that on a social media platform built by volenteers, doing it for donations. People do things for lots of reasons, money is only one of them. And not even the strongest for most people.
josephc@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
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 then 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.
Bratosch@lemmy.world 2 months ago
This I can agree with! Doesn’t mean it’s = Socialism
josephc@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
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.