By TI Comrade Member @Auhl
Socialism. That ideology where cause and consequence are regularly mistaken, both voluntarily and involuntarily. What is the aim of socialism? It appears to be that of empowering the working classes and establishing a centralised society. That is generally understood. Socialism aims to empower the poorer spectrum of the society and create a nation based on the egalitarian development of social services and human experience. This is where the misunderstanding begins.
Let's clarify that the proletariat, the working classes that support the revolution are initially in a situation of poverty and decadence in many countries. However, socialism does not aim to maintain that condition. Instead, it strives to develop a strong, national industry to provide the basis for the economy to succeed at all levels.
It is wrong to assume that socialism, according to how it targets the working classes to pursue the revolution, is actually seeking the establishment of an authoritarian system where, apart from the bureaucrats, the people are subdued – effectively continuing their historically unfortunate situation while making them support that system. What I have just described is fascism.
It may seem wrong, and it should, to be able to extract a fascist view from a socialist premise, only because of an apparently unimportant mistake: mixing up cause and consequence. Was that confusion really that transcendent? Apparently, yes. The capitalistic notion that socialism means equality in poverty instead of equality in wealth comes from that specific reasoning, although, of course, when capitalist politicians state this, it is safe to assume that it was on purpose. Furthermore, this satisfies the important feat of associating fascism and socialism to prevent the latter from succeeding in a capitalist environment.
The reality, however, is quite different. The government, controlled directly by the proletariat, defends the development of industry and primary resources from a genuinely economic point of view. The main difference is that the state itself has the responsibility to control the economy to develop society, and particularly to have the sufficient tools to control technology. This is the main reason why, in a capitalist country, if oil is discovered (and the country does not own a nationalised oil company), the only way to generate wealth and employment would be to grant the area to private enterprises. This, of course, results in lower benefits for the working classes and, in fact, for everyone apart from the select few that own or organise the business. In a socialist country, natural resources would be exploited by state-owned enterprises. This generates just as much total wealth as it would in a capitalist country.
However, there is a fundamental difference: the wealth will be distributed according to government plans. This does not mean that the administrator and the CEO will earn nothing. That is nonsense. Their job is necessary, as much as that of a technician that operates the machinery. They'll earn money, probably even more than most of the workers (their work does require preparation). Two main differences: they will definitely earn much less than in a capitalist country and the working classes will nonetheless have a fabulous social backup in terms of education, health, insurance and overall welfare.
Socialism targets the working class to significantly improve their situation, not to fetishise poverty and to impetuously worsen their condition.