[umanwizard]

The vast majority of countries are neoliberal/capitalist so that’s simply not how it works. Your pay is a function of the market price for your talents, not of how much your boss is making.

[MontyCarloHall]

So, ironically, in that regard, the US tech labor market is far more socialist than its European counterpart.

[umanwizard]

Not really. They are both neoliberal, just with different market conditions.

[MontyCarloHall]

Workers getting a large share of a company’s revenue, much of which is in the form of fractional ownership of the company sure sounds quasi-socialist to me! It doesn’t matter that market conditions led to this compensation scheme (as opposed to direct political intervention); what matters is the end result.

[s1artibartfast]

That's not what the terms socialism and capitalism mean. They describe the process, not end result.

You can have full blown worker coops in the capitalist system, the question is if they are state mandated or not.

The definition of socialism isn't any sytem with a good outcome for workers.

[qwytw]

So are you saying that socialism can only exist if it's imposed and maintained by the state? (i.e. no democratic society can be socialist by definition?)

[umanwizard]

All states impose things on their citizens, including democratic ones. That’s what law is.

[s1artibartfast]

>So are you saying that socialism can only exist if it's imposed and maintained by the state?

I 'm not sure I understand the question? Socialism is a political philosophy on how the state should operate and what it should permit. It IS a description of the states behavior.

Democracy has nothing to do with it. You can have a socialist country with a king, or with direct democracy and no leader.

You can't have a socialist state without socialist laws and rules.