From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 15:40:59 MST
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 18:03, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/5/2002 7:02:16 PM Central Standard Time,
> charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: I am willing to entertain other
> definitions, as that one doesn't seem to mean all of the things that I have
> commonly heard socialism used to mean. But I can't propose any, as I don't
> have any clear and definite idea. But that definition is clearly one of
> the meanings for which I have heard the term socialism used in other than
> pieces of propaganda.
>
> Charles,
> It seems like you are trying to take some old, old capitalist
> institutions such as partnerships and co-ops and trying to redefine them as
> socialist.
> Ron h.
That's right. These I am considering these institutions to be socialist when
they fall under certain constraints as to who owns them, and who has
effective control. E.g., as I understand things an factory is socialist if
it is a closed corporation where the stock is owned by the present and past
employees. This certainly doesn't make it necessarily egalitarian, but I
haven't gotten a viable meaning of socialism where egalitarianism is a
necessary component.
Note: This would necessarily put a limit on the worth of the stock, as it
could only be sold within the corporation employees. I'm thinking of this as
an extension of the New England skippers who worked their ships on shares.
All crewmen earned a share of the profits of the voyage. I seem to remember
that merchant caravans used to work that way also, though I'd need to look it
up to be sure.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:59 MST