12

a very short "summary" of two opposing views. but why is this even up for debate and where is the actually socialist perspective here- that's government ownership not workers' ownership-

Yes. In practice, socialist governments have seized the means of production and directed the economy through central planning. “The government owning part of Intel is, on some level, socialism. It’s at least socialism-ish!” Robby Soave writes for The Hill.

No. The United States has a long history of getting involved in company ownership for the purpose of staying competitive with rival nations. “When America faced an international communist threat sponsored by Moscow, conservatives knew absolute devotion to free markets was self-defeating,” Daniel McCarthy writes for The Daily Signal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] apis@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago

Only if words no longer have meaning, or one is speaking without a wit in one's head, or one is speaking with intent to deceive.

There are many good reasons why a nation might seek ownership of a strategic resource. There are also many bad reasons, and there are corrupt reasons. None of which relate greatly to the efficacy of any given purchase, and all of which are wholly separate as to the economic system at play.

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10884 readers
86 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS