Reply #13: You're close

[zipplewrath]

What you seem to be arguing is that as long as the "political" system is "controlled" by the monied classes, you don't have socialism. I understand what you are getting at, because at the root, in order for it to be any form of socialism, the "working class" has to be in control.

I do think though you are stumbling over your own "purity" issue however. What we have is fairly close to "regulated socialism", i.e. the control of production through bureaucratic regulation. This is in opposition to say more direct control and "ownership", at least of primary aspects of production. The recent move towards "deregulation" has been an attempt to move away from that, and therefor supports your assertion that the working classs DOESN'T control the politics of this country.

Problem is, the vast majority of our governmental structures, save at the federal level, are fairly "democratic", so there is a fair amount of "direct control". Yet over our history, and even in times of rampant populism, we've never really seen much in the way of a "workers uprising" or a french revolution style redistribution of wealth. You can try to explain that many different ways, but in the end the reality is that despite many opportunities to do so, we have not. So the suggestion is that the workers DO control the economy, and this is what they have chosen for themselves. The Great Society programs, and the New Deal, as well as historical events from the various land distributions of the west, to the GI bill tend to suggest that when we choose to, we are more than capable of controlling our government and economy.

Again, obviously not "pure" but in the end it would seem it is the "plurality" position.