Does the idea of a publically traded company hint at socialism?

Question

A publically traded company has millions of shares are are owned by millions of different people. Isn't this a form of socialism in the idea that companies are owned by a collective? albeit, you have to buy into this collective, this is still socialism in that the people own the company and not one very wealthy owner. What would be the difference between a IPO and a socialist company, other then government regulation?

Answer 1

You must be thinking of some contemporary form of Socialism.

Socialism grew out of a reaction to the excesses of poverty and inequality in the 19th century, and advocated reforms such as the distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small communities in which private property was to be abolished. Owen and Sain-Simon sought to build socialism on the foundations of planned, utopian communities.

The terms Socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the movement, and the distinctions to me, to this day, are merely semantic. What you describe is something else altogether.

Karl Marx distinguushed themselves as scientific socialists, from the utopian socialists, characterized by state ownership of the means of production. The Soviet Union never claimed that it was a communist society, even though it was ruled by a Communist Party; it was a pure socialist society.

Welfare and "Social" Security are forms of socialism. So is Medicare, and free lunches for kids. Great ideas, until reality meets the pavement and you try to figure who's going to pay for all of these free handouts.

In Latin America, socialism has reemerged in recent years with a nationalist and Populist tinge, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez leading the trend.

Soviet-style socialist economies cannot match the motivation or match the overall information inherent in a market economy or profit-driven economy ran by entrepreneurs. Almost all socialist planned economies have eventually failed, or are nearing failure.

The free medical aid of Canada is doomed, as is our own Social Security, and of course Russia is a good example.

Answer 2

Interesting argument, but no it does not. Socialism is about all people sharing everything equally. In the case of corporations all shareholders are not equal. A greater number of shares provides more voting power, thus more control. Further, shares are not bestowed on shareholders they must be purchased. Corporations fall within the full sphere of capatilism, but like I said an interesting argument none the less.

Answer 3

The primary difference is that you purchase with your own money your shares, if it were socialism the government would have given them to you after taking some from someone else.

Answer 4

In IPO there is dominant shareholders, their vote may worth thousands of votes of other shareholders according to their share size, they can do whatever they want with the company "within law"

Answer 5

You can buy more if you want or sell the ones you already have.

Actually a Public Company is the exact opposite of socialism in my humble opinon.

Top 6 Answerer in this ategory.