So that was the point? That the movement contains so*ialists? One, I am hardly shocked. So*ialism is not a dirty word to me. So*ialism is a very vast array of ideas, actually. It is hardly an exaggeration to say there are about as many kinds of so*ialists as there are so^ialists*ts. Rather few are like Pol Pot, especially around here.
What unites the so*ialiststs I think, if anything does, is the basic notion that ownership rights are not the supreme value for any society, that owners, especially owners of huge great amounts of the economy, should have to let government and other stakeholders (employees, the public) have a say in what they do. And likewise, the surplus (you can think 'profits') do not automatically ALL belong to the owners. As I was saying, there are endless variations and elaborations, some much more radical than others, on these basic ideas.
I'm not very radical at all, I like the enterprise and innovation of good capitalists, and I recognize the stagnation and inefficiency that often plague enterprises that are shielded from competition and market forces. But modern oligarchical capitalism is extremely 'public be damned' in it's attitudes and actions. Unchecked power always goes exploitative and dysfunctional. Read my thread on "
Why Did We Lose Sparta" for an example. Enterprises should have to seek permission of regulators, I say, rather than just decide totally on their own, to take huge-impact actions like closing major plants. The bad results of Phillip's irrational decision (they lost huge amounts of money) show they do not DESERVE unchecked power.
* BTW, have to spell so*ialsm with an * on this board because someone a long time ago coded a thing to insert a ton of ***************** in place of a string of letters contained in so*ialist. It was an anti-spam measure, and now it's sort of hard to fix and management can't be bothered.