Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

djdjddhdhdh t1_jdn386x wrote

Ye I guess that’s a good point using pure definition of socialism. But then that would mean that google and Facebook were socialist enterprises since the founders were the original workers and really continued working still, and for a while owned majority of shares. Theoretically every business starts as socialist enterprise then the original workers sell their stake in it, and incoming ones get none or tiny share

2

Charming-Fig-2544 t1_jdnihkc wrote

I mean, yes. Facebook was a "socialistic" enterprise until the IPO. That's not inconsistent with any definitions. Afterwards, Zuckerberg only has around 13.4% of the economic interests, and the other employees have far, far less than that. And what do you know, Facebook's influence and nefariousness have only grown as the corporate ownership becomes less connected to the people that actually work there.

1