[geysersam]

I mean why do you say that large tax evading organizations, operating in an extremely capitalist environment, steered by a small, unfathomably rich, group of people with uncommon and often ultra liberal ideologies, are more socialist than typical manufacturing companies with a largely unionized workforce?

[satvikpendem]

Unions aren't socialist, the employees don't own the means of production while engineers for example at Google literally own shares of the company and can vote. Don't confuse your screed with the literal definition of the word.

[geysersam]

What fraction of Google is owned by the engineers at Google? 5%? That's nothing compared to the bargaining power obtained by organized labor, actual socialist organization.

[satvikpendem]

You are misunderstanding me, I never said it was good or bad or better or worse than unions, just that unions are explicitly not socialist by the definition of the word as they are an external organization, not internal to the company. It is true that a tech company issuing voting shares like Google is explicitly more socialist than any union simply because shares are ownership of the means of production. As I said, I am arguing as to the definition of the word itself because most people get it wrong and think any labor movement is socialism which is wrong, it has a very specific definition.