Why I'm Still a Socialist

Wikipedia, accessed 4/10/2018

I was inspired to explain myself as to why I am still, after much observation and confrontation, a Socialist in heart and mind. I honestly know that when people are made to feel a buy-in to a company or organization, they become more productive and effective as employees than if they are simply going through the motions for someone elses' ultimate benefit. This is apparent to anyone who has ever worked in a professional organization, and have experienced working on different teams with different styles of management and ownership. When people are able to feel a sense of self-ownership of a product, and are aware of how their choices affect themselves and the people near them, they tend to work more effectively than those who honestly don't feel any ownership or loyalty to an organization beyond a paycheck. This is one way I know that an economy of companies and organizations that are owned in a Socialist umbrella will work better economically than our current Capitalist framework, all other things remaining equal. We can also look at the evidence from real-life worker-owned companies operating in the global economy, if you're still not convinced.

Please note that Socialism is defined here as an economic system of defining ownership and property rights that enables decentralized collective ownership of companies by the people who work and operate those companies. This is in opposition to Capitalism, where a company is owned entirely by an individual or group of individuals who are not directly, if actually, producing the products that the companies make. This does not refer to Communism (in which the government and its officials own all the means of production), nor is it productive for me to argue with people who will attempt to pigeon-hole what I stand for with that system of ownership. The 20th century Communist countries are more like the United States under Capitalism and the Capitalists than anything else. Both have an illusion of accountability for the leadership, both are controlled by outside groups with no interest or accountability to the general public, and both centrally own/ed most of the wealth in their society at the real expense of the rest of the population. The Soviet Union was about as Socialistic as the United States is currently democratic under Capitalism: in theory only. If you, dear reader, are not willing to face or acknowledge those facts about the Soviet Union and our current condition in the US, then you're not someone who I can help, because you apparently have your own layers of cognitive dissonance and preferred biases to maybe sort through or not.  Not intending to be rude, just stating facts in a way that gets your attention.

Moving on for those who are still willing....

If human behavior provides us with any clues, is that we generally like feeling a sense of belonging somewhere. Having fellow employees have real share of a company, where your work is valued socially and financially seems like a no-brainer method for achieving this effect. Yet Capitalism's ownership structure (which is what I am focusing on, since it's the defining trait of a Capitalist economy, and the primary way to differentiate between different economic systems and their outcomes), is unable to accomplish this same effect as easily, or as consistently as Socialist, worker-owned companies. This is most likely because it activates and enables the purely small-selfish impulses of human beings that erode social well-being and connection. Studies indicate that when people have asymmetric power over others, they become less inhibited and less caring of others' needs and conditions. If one is trying to create genuine buy-in for an organization or purpose, a Capitalist ownership model falls flat in comparison to a Socialist ownership model, because of that lack of real connection to the purpose of the organization.

So why do Capitalist companies still exist so prevalently, and why isn't there as much talk about worker-owned companies in academic and policymaking circles? My guess is that, thanks to the pesky fact that we started under a Capitalist model of ownership in Western Europe, that that's simply the way we've grown and developed (at considerable cost to the environment and any other society Western Europeans encountered). The Capitalists have indeed replaced the medieval aristocracy, and Capitalism has become the almighty Church doctrine of the world. It is, in short, an archaic remnant of a less informed and aware era, and something that will likely continuously be challenged until it and its adherents are subdued (much like the medieval aristocracy and Church were subdued in those Western European societies who evolved beyond the old, less functional paradigms). I see no other real reason for Socialism to fail along the lines I've defined, nor do I see how Capitalism will do better than Socialism all things being equal. We have the power to make a choice at this juncture between the old and demonstrably sub-optimal, and the new demonstrably more optimal. Let the experiments begin again, as they did when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the cathedral. We've done this before. May we skip past the conflict and violence to simply arrive at what is needed and appropriate? Or is your heart being hardened like Pharaoh's was during the Exodus story?