by Sandy » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:51 am
From a political perspective, attempting to use the term "socialism" or "socialist" as a negative term implying that it is the same thing as Marxist theory or communism is deceptive and misleading. Anyone with a computer and a high school student's knowledge of economics can figure this out, see what it does and decide for themselves.
Like anything else, there are a lot of variables, different models and no guarantees. In some cases, as mentioned in the quote that Rvaughn cited, state ownership or regulation is necessary to make it work. That seems somewhat Keynesian to me Obviously, the reason the American political right doesn't like it is that it spreads out the wealth, which is not to their advantage. For one thing, it means that labor increases in value as employees can own shares of their company and they get more of the profit. For another, if employees have more money, they are spending more money and that is where you have real economic growth. Theoretically, it neutralizes the effect of big money in politics because it increases the dollar amounts that numerous people can give.
There are some American examples of employee-owned businesses and companies, some that succeeded, a few that failed, but models that show this does work, including one steel company, one of the largest in the company, that was purchased by the labor union, saved 8,000 jobs and was actually competitive in the world market for years. Ultimately, because of the way the directorship of the company was structured, the competition was able to step in and buy pieces of the production plant. But you learn from mistakes.