What “Democratic” Socialism Looks Like

Socialism is usually defined as "common ownership of the means of production." Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea, etc, etc.) and always unemployment. ... 

In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.

George Orwell, Why I Write, pg.47-48

I don’t normally have a commentary with citations on this blog, but I posted THIS citation for the sole purpose of commenting about socialism.

Orwell stated he believed in “democratic” socialism, but all that means is that there isn’t an authoritarian running the show, just a government.  In reference to rich people, he said that butlers and “private incomes” are “monstrosities.” His outlook on income was that the government would decide what minimum income would be, and then the richest would not be allowed an income greater than ten times the minimum. With Orwell’s plan he would eliminate the “mere owners who live not by virtue or anything they produce but by the possession of title-deeds and share certificates.”  Of course the fact that said owners worked their way up to owning such production facilities, and often even invented them and built them, doesn’t seem to faze this man who tells us exactly what “democratic socialism” would do to everyone.  He says with State ownership, “nobody shall live without working.” So to his mind, managing production facilities wouldn’t be working. He rightly says resistance to his ideology “will come from the big capitalists, the bankers, the landlords and the idle rich.”  As with all socialists, you can certainly see his envy of those above his status — although I wonder just how much income he derived from the sale of his books; you know, his capitalist engagement.  Farmers will no longer own their land but if they are “competent” they “will continue as a salaried manager.” And if your occupation is as a “money lender,” then your life is “worthless.”

Additionally, he looks to raising the age at which one can leave government schools — obviously to keep them under government indoctrination for as long as possible. And as far Orwell is concerned, “Patriotism has nothing to do with Conservatism.  It is actually the opposite of Conservatism…”. So how does he explain that the vast majority of conservatives in the USA are also very patriotic?

Well, what I see is that socialism, “democratic” or not, is a rank violation of personal right of every sort.  And yet the ignorant people on the LEFT in the USA are demanding that the USA become a socialist nation.