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 1 week ago
This I can agree with! Doesn’t mean it’s = Socialism
josephc@lemmy.ml 1 week 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.