I don't really need to point out that you're actually just being really rude and lashing out at someone who's challenged your beliefs, I don't think anyone could read your comment and see anything different whether they agree with you or not. But, I'm still happy to reason out why exactly a public corporation is not private. I don't mind taking the time to go over the facts and leave a few references, even if I don't really expect you to read any of it in good faith. You just should know that everything I said actually can be directly reasoned from respected sources.

For starters, would you dispute my definition of capitalism? "The private ownership and/or control of the means of production". Not only is this from Marx himself, but you'd be hard pressed to find any capitalists who would describe it any other way. It's widely accepted all across the isle.

I think that's a pretty strong start in knowing what capitalism is. I guess what might be left for debate is what can rightfully be called "private".

Private Ownership:

the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled "define private ownership")
Private companies are owned by those who establish them and those invited to invest in them. The public-at-large cannot buy shares or otherwise invest in private companies at their own discretion.

Public Ownership:

A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company's assets and profits. (Same source)
ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled "define public ownership")

So, if it's owned by the government, or has shares available for purchase by any public body, then it is public. If it's not owned by the state or public body, it's private.

Johnson & Johnson, just like all public corporations, has its shares available for purchase for the public. Therefor, it is public, not private. Honestly, the more you go into it, the harder it is to get away from the simple fact that private means private, and public means public.

Corporation, specific legal form of organization of persons and material resources, chartered by the state, for the purpose of conducting business.

As contrasted with the other two major forms of business ownership, the sole proprietorship and the partnership, the corporation is distinguished by a number of characteristics that make it a more-flexible instrument for large-scale economic activity, particularly for the purpose of raising large sums of capital for investment. Chief among these features are: (1) limited liability, meaning that capital suppliers are not subject to losses greater than the amount of their investment; (2) transferability of shares, whereby voting and other rights in the enterprise may be transferred readily from one investor to another without reconstituting the organization under law; (3) juridical personality, meaning that the corporation itself as a fictive “person” has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, may make contracts, and may hold property in a common name; and (4) indefinite duration, whereby the life of the corporation may extend beyond the participation of any of its incorporators. The owners of the corporation in a legal sense are the shareholders, who purchase with their investment of capital a share in the proceeds of the enterprise and who are nominally entitled to a measure of control over the financial management of the corporation. Corporation

[–] TheBeege@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, the definitions change based on context.

When we're talking about political and broad economic systems, private means non-government organizations. Public means government.

When we're talking about a company's status, public means its equity is traded on a public stock exchange. Private is everything else. So a ma and pop shop is a private company and a private organization. Microsoft is a public company but a private organization.

The rest of you commenters are assholes for talking to HardNut like this. They clearly don't know these definitions, and rather than educate, you criticize to inflate your own egos and display some bogus superiority. Instead, explain the terms so constructive conversation can happen. Cue the "well it's not my responsibility" crowd. If you want to promote your own ideas, education is a better method than mockery when it comes to those who aren't clearly and steadfastly directly opposed to you. And even for those directly opposed to you, the display of educating wins third parties to your cause.

Good on you, HardNut for trying to Google things and figure them out on your own. The context between these two areas is tricky, and your understanding makes sense without the additional context. Sadly, we're terrible at naming things.

[–] HardNut@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I appreciate your comment and defense a lot. You seem like a very kind person and you're very straightforward with your words, I like that. I'm telling you that not just because I believe it's true and you deserve to hear it, but also so you don't take it the wrong way when I tell you that, well, I'm sorry but I found your comment a bit condescending too. And I don't blame you for it! Truly, I get it. You are referencing the fact that I'm on the hunt for the truth on Google, and it's fair enough that it paints the picture in your head of a young, maybe naive, person on the hunt for the truth of this nebulous area of private and public ownership. I guess it's not really far from the truth either lol. But, the context I haven't shared is that I actually am very educated on this. I studied economics, history, philosophy and political science in post-secondary for two years before graduating (with a different major) and a minor in philosophy. Outside of school I've actually read heaps of books pertaining to the general theories the revolve around the distinction between public and private, from anarcho-capitalists to totalitarian-communists and everything in between.

The reason I don't share this context and why I choose to reference google, is because after all this studying I've come to see that most conclusions drawn by these intellectuals can be demonstrated very easily by using commonly accepted definitions. Most misunderstandings can be contradicted by people's own language or easily accessible sources, so that's what I try to do. It seems a lot more favorable to do a simple "premise -> premise -> conclusion". Besides, it just seems like a waste of time to open up a physical copy of some philosopher and manually re type something to quote them, just to come off as as grand standy, or just get told they don't like who I quoted, or have the comment not even post to begin with because Lemmy has issues with long comments.

I'm sorry, that's enough about my frustrations for one comment lol. I just wanted you to know I don't come from a place of naivety or ignorance on the topic before I respond to your insights, because I think the assumption of ignorance has prevented some people in this thread from reading what I'm saying in good faith. I also do think you're mostly spot on in what you say. The only exception might be that while I am familiar the distinction between public traded and private organization before, I don't think that distinction applies here. After all, you're totally right, things do change based on context :) I'll try and show you what I mean.

My original comment's purpose was to show the flaw in using capitalism as a catch all term, especially when it comes to medicine. The most commonly used definition of capitalism refers to private ownership. You're absolutely right that private can refer to not being publicly traded, but private ownership refers to "being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body".

Regarding the term public, when things are open to the public, they are open to us because we are members of the public. Public places are open to members of the public. We are members of the public, public refers to the state, and we live in a democracy and are thus members of the state. People who are exiled are not free to trade in stocks because they no longer are a member of the state that holds them. Exiled folk are not free in public places because they are no longer a member of their public, and are banned from visitation so they're sent elsewhere.

Recall the definition of Corporation I provided before, specifically that it's "chartered by the state". This means the government and the government alone establishes corporations as legal entities, and sets the parameters by which they can do so. They exist as part of the state, but operate separately from the government, under parameters set by the government. That's the distinction that's made when you call Microsoft a private organization, the business isn't controlled by the state directly, but government and corporations are both part of the state, and they certainly influence each other a lot right now.

This can also be seen in the etymology of the word itself, along with the history of how modern corporations came to be. "Corporation" comes from latin corpus, meaning corpse, or "body". A body that's chartered by the state, a body of the state. The reason the etymology took this path can be seen in how corporations evolved with time. The publicani of Rome is sometimes considered the first corporation to exist, which were independent contractors that performed government services. The Dutch East India Company found the first stock exchange, and was a corporation owned and controlled by the Dutch senate as well as others.

Now, considering where corporations evolved from, and the amount of easily identifiable government-corporate collusion today, I think corporations land far closer to being an independent arm of the state, and publicly owned than representing the private ownership represented by capitalism.

Now, just to nip it in the bud, you might infer that this means that corporations are socialist. Well, kinda, but also no. Characteristics of corporations can be seen all over early modern socialist philosophy, including syndicalism and trade unionism. But, if socialism is the public control of the means of production, and corporations are controlled independently, it doesn't quite fit, right?

The context between these two areas is tricky, and your understanding makes sense without the additional context. Sadly, we’re terrible at naming things.

You and I couldn't agree more. I guess it would really help if people incorporated (heh) the word corporatism into their vocabulary. We could freely disagree on the nature of corporations and their relationship with public and private ownership and control, while still distinguishing companies like Microsoft from ma and pop shops with clearer language.

At the very least, I wonder if you can agree that there's enough reason to take issue with blaming all issues on capitalism alone, when there's so much more to it. Feel free to let me know what you think :) I know it was still a really big comment but, yeah, like I said, there's a lot to it lol I really appreciate it if you've even read this far

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Lmfao why didn't just just google the word capitalism my guy, It quite literally is our current economic system, no if ands or buts.. regardless of your attempted semantics.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Who owns the Post Office? Nobody, because it's a public utility.

Who owns Johnson & Johnson? The shareholders. That's what they're holding. That's what they bought. That's what the money was for. Because being "a public corporation" only means any rando can participate in that textbook fucking definition of capitalism.

It's a joint-stock company! That is what defines the advent of capitalism!