The limits of socialism

America and Britain were not founded on socialism; but as a polyarchy where the rich are to be preferred as the people who govern. The Constitution of USA was developed over a period of inter-class struggle, dialectically between the law makers and the growing class structure.

What we are seeing now is not socialism; but a perverse form of fascism where the rich elite run the government and tax the people for the errors of the rich. This is "socialism for the rich"; but its not grass-roots, bottom-up socialism as what would be the proper term. Its fascism; and the definition of that is a government that serves the interests of corporations rather than represents the full spectrum of the people of America and Europe.

Naturally, you don't want most things in a country to be under a publically-owned system. There needs to be freedom to create one's own company and independence. However, in times where there are large gaps between rich and poor, and when the free-market is quashed by corporatism that masquerades itself as "government" - we need to have the workers unite. The workers are treated like dirt in America and UK; and people like Obama want to destroy not only the middle-class but also the unions and the industries that are vital to the national security. Obama is doing this through the corporate and banking interests that are connected to his administration; as well as the globalist "free trade" systems.

There is nothing socialist about the economic system where money is created by a private elite of bankers. They only represent themselves; and not the people of the nation. Money needs to be created by an accounted elect; and even state-level currencies could be created by publically owned bodies that do not charge interest or make profit out of money. No more speculation, no more derivatives, no more casino capitalism. It has done no good to the world. No more corporations that run across the seas to exploit cheap labour and have their decisions made purely by monetary interests. No more private ownership of oil and water; which are vital resources that need to be secured by all (create state-level non-profit companies). No more private healthcare system which results in gaps between those who can afford medicines and those who live in regions that have been out-competed. Everybody deserves good healthcare.

I think central government has become a tyranny; too much executive power, too much central over-riding of state-level decisions. Corporations get benefits from their cronies in government; and get their men in government. The problem is not government itself; the problem is that the rich own the government and use it as a system of central tyranny against those who wish to govern their own lives and organise their own methods of co-operation. I think socialism can work at state-levels to ensure that a certain degree of security exists for those who loose out and become used as a commodity in the "market". The "free market" has never existed for many many years; and the rich interests have always risen to control government to stifle competition in the favour of a few select corporate interests.

Ultimately though; we want people to be helped to be independent and free of the need for hand-outs from government. I hate food hand-outs and food-checks that the poor are kept in; and this is not true welfare. True welfare would be local level schemes to help train them for jobs, and then help them in skills to eventually be independent and pursue their own careers. Meanwhile you would create social co-operation to help eradicate poverty in communities, reduce ill-health as well as secure important resources such as land from big corporate interests that want to destroy small farmers.

All this requires people work together; against the interests of big corporations, bankers and big oppressive beuracratic central government. We need government; but we need to represent the people and to help them help each other - not to rob them and control them like animals. Now that to me, is true socialism. But its not an ideology to me; its common sense and compassion. People co-operating in communities to help rebuild infrastucture, solve crime, eradicate poverty through education and co-operative public enterprises, etc. Socialism only becomes an anti-thesis of itself when you have a big centralised power that wishes the federal government owns as much as possible (and the people become serfs of the communist oligarchs). In that case; we don't have socialism - but social dictatorship and control. We don't want big federal companies that control and monopolise huge industries; as this would over-ride the democratic interests of people in certain communities. True socialism is about encouraging co-operation in communities and creating a welfare support network for the labor movement, the poor, the people struggling to keep their homes, the health-stricken, under-educated, etc.

I hate communism and state-planned economies and PLEASE don't reply by accusing me of being one. It shows that you have not read my post properly. I believe in the principle of community, co-operation and interconnectedness as a support network when the faceless markets trample over people.

Some thoughts about the difference between syndicalism (worker-control and ownership with state co-operation and funding) and communism (state-ownership where workers are dictated to by the owners): -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

Naturally I would restrict the extent to which this happens in an economy. Especially given the rights for free enterprise; as long as they do not badly affect social justice.