a reply to: Dfairlite
If you give me a minute here I will try to explain the picture as I see it.
I agree with what you suggest above, that yes there is a movement to do what you have have pointed out, but that is not socialism. What I think is
important here is just how you and so many others have come to believe that these pushes to ''socialize'' the economy as you call it, is socialism. It
is not , at least from the scale of economic systems I learned.
Capitalism. We have capitalism where a guy can own a company and employ people and reap the profits from that company while paying the workers enough
money to live. But if the company thrives it is the owner that reaps the wealth while in most cases the workers keep working within the range of
salaries that they began in.
In socialism, those companies are owned by the workers themselves and they reap the profit and the wealth from their own labor. If the company fails
they fail. If the company is a success, they are a success. This stimulates the workers to work well, sharp because they are invested in their own
What you see is not this, nor, is it what I see either.
So why is what we both see called socialism?
Because under a capitalist system, where one person can own a huge monolith of a corporation there is and has been a big fear that a socialist system
would take away their private ownership and hand that ownership over to the workers themselves. The private owners did and do not want this. This
fear grew out of the Russian Revolution where this happened. But not quite.
What happened there was that when the factories and manufacturing centers and farms were taken by the new government, the government kept control of
it all. This was a supposed ''intermediary'' step on the way to socialism..but that next step was never achieved. Why? Well, Stalin for one, a self
serving megalomaniac if ever there was one...kept them all in the hands of the government and the workers themselves never achieved ownership for
Poof,,, good by socialism hello government owned and run everything, a thing that neither of us want or would fight for.
So when I say in that earlier post that socialism has lost and capitalism has won it is because ''real''socialism was never let onto the field.
So just what is this current sense of ''socialism''. What we see is an attempt by certain aspects of the capitalist system to work it in such a way as
to keep it running. Capitalism needs consumers and consumers need money.If too many people fall below a low level of monetary power, they revolt and
cause havoc within the system. These capitalists want to insure that they do not. These capitalists are battling with other capitalists who just don't
give a good God damn. Those capitalists are the skimmers and the ''take it allers'' with no desire to help anyone else except their immediate selves,
families and circles, and the rest be damned. ''I got mine and you didn't and quit your crying peasant " type capitalists.
And the thing about capitalism is that it has within it's own philosophical system no regulations to keep this from happening, to keep all the wealth
from cycling to the top of the ownership pyramid. There is a mystical ''hidden hand'' that is supposed to take care of this, where competition and
innovation and productivity are supposed to balance all of that out but it hasn't by what we can see today. It's all rising to the top where they do
not give a crap about anyone but themselves. Gee, that sounds a lot like the ''socialism'' the we are suppose to fear so much.