I was reading the latest edition of Liberation, the newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), which I often agree with, and I came across the section of the paper in which the PSL describes who they are and what they stand for. What I found interesting, in this section, was the PSL's (incorrect) definition of "capitalism": "Capitalism—the system in which all wealth and power is held by a tiny group billionaires and their state . . ."
What the PSL is describing, here, is not "capitalism" but "a plutocracy".
I realize that we don't often hear the term "plutocracy" but the term was quite popular during the 1890's, when it was used by the populist movements. And the term "plutocracy" means exactly what the PSL says that it's against: "government by the wealthy".
In my opinion, an organization (like the PSL) should be absolutely certain about what it's against before it begins to rail against it; and I think that any organization should be especially concerned with using the proper definitions of the terms its members will be using in their on-going debates with other peoples.
For example, if you're going to host a conference (as PSL recently did) called: "Capitalism is Organized Crime!", then I think you'd better be absolutely certain that you're using the proper definition of the term "capitalism".
The term "capitalism" means: an economic system in which the people hold private ownership of property and are engaging in free market competition. The term "plutocracy", on the other hand, means: rule by the wealthy (Greek: plutos, meaning wealth; and kratos, meaning: power).
(Perhaps "Plutocracy is Organized Crime!" would simply go over most people's heads?)
As I've said elsewhere, America was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom; therefore advocating socialism, in America at least, is, I think, a lost cause.
I have no problem with people advocating socialism, in fact I have a lot in common with socialists—especially the notion that people are more important than profit—but socialism, as a political ideology, has never been (and never will be) realizable here in the U. S. (If you doubt me, then I suggest that you do your homework, starting here.)
I'm all about building a more just society, but this can't be accomplished by taking away the people's right to own property. And this is exactly what the adoption of socialism, as an economic system, entails. The term "socialism" means: a system in which there is no private ownership of property and the ownership of property belongs to the state (meaning: the federal government).
A socialist economy, wherein the centralized (i.e., federal) government owns and controls all property, is much different from a communist economy, wherein the people—as a collective—own and control all property. In this regard, on a nation level, any nation that adopts a socialistic economy must actually be considered fascist, because it employs a nationalized (i.e., federalized) and centralized governmental control over what becomes a highly regimented economy of a national socialism; whereas communism is considered to be international (or transnational) socialism, because it eschews nationalism all together.
I guess what I'm looking for is a society wherein people have the right to be free from as much governmental interference as is reasonably possible and wherein they have the right to own private property, but wherein they also feel their inherent, God-given, moral obligation not to oppress people.
What I love about socialists is that they care about people. They are able to see the evil the capitalist system has (often) fallen into: that profit is more important than people are. And I respect that. But what they fail to see and appreciate is the freedom people should always be allowed, by their governments, to have, especially the freedom to own property.
The solutions to the problems we've faced—and continue to face—in America, concerning big business and the working class, were not—and are not—of the "either/or" variety (e.g., either capitalism or socialism), rather, they were (and are) of the "both/and" variety (aspects of both capitalism and socialism).
What we're looking for, in solutions, is a tempering of the two extremes of excess which exist in both capitalism and socialism.
During the 1890's, big business and Wall Street bankers were running roughshod over the farmer and the working class, so the farmers and the working class used the power of the federal government to control and regulate their oppressors. Today we have a much worse situation: the federal government is controlled by the big business and Wall Street monied elites and the Washington elitist politicians don't give a damn about the small farmer or the working class.
Neither big business nor the Washington government will help the people now, because they're both in bed with each other; and they're laughing at us . . . all the way to their banks.
If the People want help now, they will have to help themselves.
As I've been saying lately, it's time for the People to rise up against our enemies—that ungodly symbiosis of big business, Wall Street, and the Washington government—and demand change by taking to the streets—non-violently— until we get the real change we so desperately need: an end to wars, an end to special interests and corporate lobbyists, an end to spying on American citizens, an end to the suspension of due process for Americans suspected of being "terrorists", an end to U. S. support of Israel, and an end to the Washington government's cover-up of the 9/11 attacks.