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 seem to misunderstand what the “means of production” entails.
Why don’t you explain why a private firefighting company isn’t actually capitalist?
I didn’t say a private firefighting company isn’t capitalist; I said a public firefighting company isn’t socialist.
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?