this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
482 points (93.3% liked)
The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk
701 readers
484 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Rules:
- Be civil and no bigotry of any kind.
- No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
- No genocide denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion. For a more general community [email protected] is recommended.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You seem to misunderstand what the "means of production" entails.
Why don't you explain why a private firefighting company isn't actually capitalist?
I didn't say a private firefighting company isn't capitalist; I said a public firefighting company isn't socialist.
How so?
Capitalism is, by the loosest definition, private ownership of firms; by a stricter, more academic definition, the implementation of limited liability corporations and joint stock companies in firms in a market system. A private firefighter company certainly fits the former, and potentially fits the latter.
Socialism is still worker ownership of the means of production. A private firefighting firm is capitalist, but that does not make a public firefighting firm socialist. Socialism, as an idea, is based around the thought that economic power dictates social power; that workers must gain the power from their economic output to have true control over their social and political future.
The Roman Empire running the public firefighting service in Rome was not socialist simply because it was a public utility. Nor are modern firefighting services socialist when a socialist party is in power. At best, public firefighting services run by their firefighters would be an example of mutual aid, which is generally regarded well (and often essential) by socialists (and especially anarchists), but is not, itself, socialism.
You state it's not socialist, but you don't say why. What's your argument?
I've said it multiple times now.
Everything is government owned, check.
Firefighters are paid and have control over their social and political futures, check.
You're not looking at socialism at a social level, which is where the ideology operates.
What do you mean by "social level"? We're talking about the political and economic theory called socialism, right?
I mean individuals being paid doesn't give them power over their social and political futures, because such questions are determined at a larger scale than the individual level. Socialism is about worker control of the means of production, as a class, not as a few lucky individuals.
Firefighters do not operate the means of production; firefighters being paid well does not give workers control over their social and political futures, because firefighters are not a class that is large or influential enough to dictate the flow of their society's political and economic power structures.
You're looking at things in a very individualist way is what I mean, and that's... completely contrary to socialism in both theoretical and practical terms.
Sure they do.
Nor does any worker. That's part of the deal with a society where things are communally owned, you know, socialism. If you want an individual to be influential enough to dictate the flow of their society's political and economic power structures, you're looking for a rich capitalist.
You seem determined to try to come up with a way to pretend that clearly socialist parts of a mixed capitalist/socialist system are not socialist, while maintaining that the parts that are capitalist are still capitalist. You can't have it both ways.
Lord.