Capitalism is, by the loosest definition, private ownership of firms; by a stricter, more academic definition, the implementation of limited liability corporations and joint stock companies in firms in a market system. A private firefighter company certainly fits the former, and potentially fits the latter.
Socialism is still worker ownership of the means of production. A private firefighting firm is capitalist, but that does not make a public firefighting firm socialist. Socialism, as an idea, is based around the thought that economic power dictates social power; that workers must gain the power from their economic output to have true control over their social and political future.
The Roman Empire running the public firefighting service in Rome was not socialist simply because it was a public utility. Nor are modern firefighting services socialist when a socialist party is in power. At best, public firefighting services run by their firefighters would be an example of mutual aid, which is generally regarded well (and often essential) by socialists (and especially anarchists), but is not, itself, socialism.
I mean individuals being paid doesn’t give them power over their social and political futures, because such questions are determined at a larger scale than the individual level. Socialism is about worker control of the means of production, as a class, not as a few lucky individuals.
Firefighters do not operate the means of production; firefighters being paid well does not give workers control over their social and political futures, because firefighters are not a class that is large or influential enough to dictate the flow of their society’s political and economic power structures.
You’re looking at things in a very individualist way is what I mean, and that’s… completely contrary to socialism in both theoretical and practical terms.
Firefighters do not operate the means of production
Sure they do.
firefighters being paid well does not give workers control over their social and political futures, because firefighters are not a class that is large or influential enough to dictate the flow of their society’s political and economic power structures.
Nor does any worker. That’s part of the deal with a society where things are communally owned, you know, socialism. If you want an individual to be influential enough to dictate the flow of their society’s political and economic power structures, you’re looking for a rich capitalist.
You seem determined to try to come up with a way to pretend that clearly socialist parts of a mixed capitalist/socialist system are not socialist, while maintaining that the parts that are capitalist are still capitalist. You can’t have it both ways.
How so?
Capitalism is, by the loosest definition, private ownership of firms; by a stricter, more academic definition, the implementation of limited liability corporations and joint stock companies in firms in a market system. A private firefighter company certainly fits the former, and potentially fits the latter.
Socialism is still worker ownership of the means of production. A private firefighting firm is capitalist, but that does not make a public firefighting firm socialist. Socialism, as an idea, is based around the thought that economic power dictates social power; that workers must gain the power from their economic output to have true control over their social and political future.
The Roman Empire running the public firefighting service in Rome was not socialist simply because it was a public utility. Nor are modern firefighting services socialist when a socialist party is in power. At best, public firefighting services run by their firefighters would be an example of mutual aid, which is generally regarded well (and often essential) by socialists (and especially anarchists), but is not, itself, socialism.
You state it’s not socialist, but you don’t say why. What’s your argument?
I’ve said it multiple times now.
Everything is government owned, check.
Firefighters are paid and have control over their social and political futures, check.
You’re not looking at socialism at a social level, which is where the ideology operates.
What do you mean by “social level”? We’re talking about the political and economic theory called socialism, right?
I mean individuals being paid doesn’t give them power over their social and political futures, because such questions are determined at a larger scale than the individual level. Socialism is about worker control of the means of production, as a class, not as a few lucky individuals.
Firefighters do not operate the means of production; firefighters being paid well does not give workers control over their social and political futures, because firefighters are not a class that is large or influential enough to dictate the flow of their society’s political and economic power structures.
You’re looking at things in a very individualist way is what I mean, and that’s… completely contrary to socialism in both theoretical and practical terms.
Sure they do.
Nor does any worker. That’s part of the deal with a society where things are communally owned, you know, socialism. If you want an individual to be influential enough to dictate the flow of their society’s political and economic power structures, you’re looking for a rich capitalist.
You seem determined to try to come up with a way to pretend that clearly socialist parts of a mixed capitalist/socialist system are not socialist, while maintaining that the parts that are capitalist are still capitalist. You can’t have it both ways.