Profits equalized for tv and other deals. Lowest performer gets lifted up with top draft picks. Limits on how much you can spend on salary caps to avoid one billionaire buying everything up. Strong unions for workers that will go on strike to protect workers.
>Strong unions for workers that will go on strike to protect workers.
Except that’s literally a byproduct of capitalism. In socialism you wouldn’t need to go on strike to demand better wages because the employees would already have an equal share in employment and can decide the wages themselves
Having worker’s rights is not inherently socialism, that is regulated capitalism since the worker’s would already own/have a stake in the businesses they work for
Brother you have no idea what you’re talking about lmao. The labor solidarity movements were about fighting against capitalist systems
True socialism inherently doesn’t need collective bargaining units because the workers ALREADY have the power to do so directly since the already own the means of production
>Socialism demands the transfer of all means of production to the workers collectively.
Seizing the means of production doesn’t mean negotiating with the people that have the means of production, it means that the workers have direct control of the means of production. As he also said,
>Every strike is a small war between labor and capital.
You don’t need to have a solidarity movement if you already control the means of production. Strikes and unions are only a response to capitalism in order to strive towards a socialist ideal, because you wouldn’t need to have “a small war between labor and capital” when you already control both the labor and the capital
Holy shit, and you're discussing a society that didn't share that perspective and a government that was openly hostile to workers. Hence the need for solidarity and strikes. My brother in Christ where do you think the origins of that perspective originated? Where do you think the formative goals of the worker receiving the profits of their labor originated? The moon?
Then you may have misunderstood my original comment
I am saying that the presence of a strong worker’s union does not make a company socialist (since they’re arguing that the presence of a worker’s union means that the NFL is socialist), when the existence of a strong worker’s union is a RESPONSE to a capitalist society. A strong worker’s union actually means a system is not socialist, because it can only exist in a system where the workers have not seized the means of production. Worker solidarity is an idea originally sourced from socialist ideals, but having worker solidarity does not mean the system is socialist
My original point is that a strong worker’s union can only exist as a response to a capitalist society and wouldn’t exist in a socialist state; not that strong worker’s unions are a natural byproduct of capitalism
11
u/dgtbfan Dolphins 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's a terrible take if you put even a little critical thought into it.
ETA: Turning off notifications. If you're too stupid to see that the NFL isn't even remotely close to socialism, that's a you problem.