The term socialism has been played out and twisted around in this country to the point of becoming one of the poster words for being politically incorrect and almost a dirty word in a way.
In it's core, socialism should describe a state of welfare and a level of unity and determination of society (or at least the majority of the population) to benefit itself. Now, there is nothing wrong with any society to want to prosper and to benefit from thoughts and actions that come from within. One would think that this is an ideal way for a society that prides itself on being democratic and prosperous and where we all are created and treated equally, with same opportunities and consequences. In an attempt to further analyze this statement, one has to ask oneself a question: "Are we all the same?". And, I do not intend to compare different segments of our society and their levels of involvement in being equal to one another. That's a subject of a very different discussion altogether. Here, I want to talk about another phenomenon that is possibly unique to America: a relationship (or coexistence) between two very different parts of our economy, the population and the corporation.
The first part of this relationship is obvious in the fact that we all work somewhere (those of us that have jobs) and we never think of our employer as a real person. Yes, all the companies have all the characteristics of any one of us: need to be organized, prosperous, to grow, to be competitive, to plan it's future etc. But, that's only because we work there and we are the ones who want all those good things, not the company; companies are not people. They are fictional creations, nothing but vehicles to make profits for their owners and share holders. But guess what, that same employer of yours does not see you as a person (with all the needs and wants that you come with) either. It's almost like a “love-hate” relationship: everything is cool as long as it's cool, but at first sight of trouble you are the one to reconsider his future.
This next part of the relationship has nothing to do with you necessarily being employed by a company. It has to do with you actually owning part of it through your stock, mutual fund or your 401k portfolios. You or your stock broker (or fund manager) will buy or sell company stock based on their performance relative to the overall market trends. Well, of course, you with your 100 shares of stock will not even be noticed but think of those powerful mutual funds managers who can move hundreds of thousands of shares at a time. Those guys can definitely make a difference in the blood count of any company out there. Well, this is the kind of relationship where corporations will actually get to like you and even do as you say as long as you keep buying or holding their shares.
Now, let's put these two relationships together for a moment. As an employee your only vested interest with the company is your labor and only vested interest that your employer has is a profit as a result of your work. As an investor your vested interest is in your portfolio and company's is in, you guessed it, in profit, again. If you look at it from this perspective people are actually both the work force and the investors; companies are neither, they only serve people's need to have jobs and to create progress through profit. Very interesting.
There is also a third party to this relationship: the government. Their role in the rest of developed world out there is to balance out relationships between citizens and corporations keeping in mind that the country is ultimately about the well being and prosperity of it's citizens. American government (“...of the people, by the people, for the people...”) and the whole economy with the underlying social structure of this country has gone in different direction: what ultimately matters is the well being of a corporation. One would say: “why not, if we are both the work force and the capital owners, our government should protect our jobs and our investments”. For an answer go back to the first paragraph and think about socialism for a second. The only reason our government does not like that word is because socialism is suppose to take care of the people who are the only ones that have the know-how and the ability to create goods, services, profits and losses, not the fictional entities whose only purpose is to serve as channels for accomplishing those goals.
So, what we have here is the situation where people own companies through invested labor and money and, after those companies get mismanaged, people will first of all loose their money invested in shares of stock. The next thing that will happen is people will loose their jobs and consequently their ability to make the living. And if our government decides to bail out some of those mismanaged companies, guess who's paying for it: yes, the people. And the cycle continues. Socialism does exist in America, only in it's reversed form: it is socialism for employers but it's capitalism for employees. In short: socialism = fiction and capitalism = reality.
Now, go back to work (if you still have your job).
