this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2026
958 points (97.5% liked)
Work Reform
17615 readers
42 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we're talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, "I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view." Is that "collective ownership" because the land is now held by the state? Is that "socialism?"
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just "socialism is when the government does stuff" with extra steps.
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there's a fire.
So then, you need to amend your definition to "Socialism is when the means of production are either collectively owned or state-owned," which is, again, essentially just saying "socialism is when the government owns stuff." And again, I completely disagree that state ownership inherently has anything to do with socialism. An absolute monarchy is 0% socialist, regardless of any services the king deems fit to grace the peasantry with.