The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

Socialism is when capitalism

Ah, you mean the elite, wealthy, oligarch class, Xi Jinping.

The People's™ Absolute monarchy

Seriously it's insane how people can unironically lie to themselves. Thy literally said "socialism is not for the workers" lmfaoo

Law firms are so so so not socialist.

Partnerships only involve a few select attorneys at a firm, associate attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants, and every other role is not part of the partnership, and has no stake other than their vested interest in getting their paycheck (the same as any employee).

"Big Law" firms have thousands of employees excluded from any partnerships including billable (associates, paralegals) and non billable (legal assistants, HR, IT) staff, the partnership is more of a private ownership club where people are accepted mostly on vibes and sometimes, rarely, on merit.

The partnership structure is pretty antithetical to socialism, since it's structured in a way to exclude people deemed not worthy of receiving profits (But still somehow needed to make the profits??).

TL;DR: a small group of owner operators within a larger company is decidedly capitalist.

karl marx only invented socialism for rich people, read theory shitlib

Social democratic welfare states re-distribute some of the surplus value extracted from the labor of workers back to them, but the fundamental functioning of the economy remains decision-making in firms owned and run by capitalist investors rather than workers.

Because a welfare state is irrelevant to worker controlled/owned means of production and worker ownership is the defining characteristic of socialism.

A welfare state is just a welfare state.

For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.

That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.

Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.

"Does socialism really MEAN anything? "

Really showing the libs, I see.

Maybe the pirate ship system would work well.

Every man got the same share except the captain (2x) and quartermaster (1.5x) and the doctor (1.5x) any of that position can be replaced anytime by a vote

The socialist democratically owned company would still elect a CEO or something like it to make those kinds of decisions, and if they don't make good decisions they can be recalled by the employees to be replaced with someone else. The way I look at it it would be like how companies are currently but with all employees owning shares of the company rather then outside investors or the owner of the company. Atleast that's how I interpret it but there's probably a million different ways you could set it up while still having it be much more democratic then the modern structure.