So you want socialism, but don't want it to be socialism? I just don't know what else to call this. Socialism isn't about taking one person's hard earned stuff away and giving it to someone else just for the lulz. It's about making sure everyone has opportunities, and preventing people's lives from being undeservedly ruined because of some unlucky circumstance or mistake. Even if the wealthy altruistically gave their wealth away to people for this purpose without being asked, they would just be participating in a voluntary form of socialism.
so·cial·ism
socialism pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
com·mu·nism
communism pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4.
communalism.
cap·i·tal·ism
capitalism pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
al·tru·ism
altruism pronunciation [al-troo-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
2.
Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
I love how people automatically think whatever form of economy that isn't capitalism is automatically socialism or communism.
Lagslayer, you would benefit from reading these definitions as well.
I think market regulations isn't going to cut it either. I think we need to fundamentally change the system we operate on. Adam Smith was clear that the more regulations on a free market, the less effective capitalism will be.
I think where we need to change things is the valuation of the property that the individuals hold. Being economically small should give more value to your holdings, while being economically large should give significantly less. We already do this of sorts by taxing the richer higher than the poor. This taken seriously as an economic system and developed further with the concept of altruism as described in the definition above and combined with capitalism as defined in the definition above might lead us down a more economically fruitful path.
Money is ultimately a representation of efforts made by people. Everything takes effort to do, so when you have a collection of wealth, what you really have is a collection of effort from people held in your hands. When you do nothing with it, then it's like sitting that number of people idle until such a time as you decide to do something with it. Sure it's more complicated than that, but doing nothing with wealth, keeping those resources idle, that's a pretty big problem in my mind. A vast majority of those in the 1% don't keep things idle. They have large incomes, but they let that money move. Some of the really wealthy just have so much income coming in that they have no clue how to move the money. If you are making 2 dollars every second of the day, it can be hard to think how to best use it, and currently the system encourages not using it frivolously.
As for the 99% statements...
"Oh, it's just propaganda for fancy slogans", No. No it isn't. If you start speaking out against someone, even if it STARTS as propaganda, it always turns negative. You cannot single a group out if it contains even a single individual who is not part of the problem. This ALWAYS ends badly. It will not be any different with this movement. People are being rallied based on hatred of another group, not an issue. This needs to change before the movement grows much larger or the inevitable conflict will stop being about trying to get the best system we can and start being about cutting off the heads of the most successful people in the country. People are saying they are responsible for the problems of this country, but I don't think they are. The problems would exist without those people. It'd just be a different group of people that fit with the supposed cause. There's a reason I have trouble with those slogans, and this doesn't go away just because it doesn't seem like the protestors are serious. History has shown time and time again that they ARE serious about slogans against minorities. Just because the target seems powerful doesn't mean that the potential for violence inherent in a mob can be ignored.
Plus during the cold war, the US misguided support of dictatorships was at least with the intent of protecting a number of free societies throughout the world. The USSR wasn't protecting any free societies, they were suppressing them throughout their sphere of influence. There's a reason they called it the "free world".
...
No. Just No. The US supported capitalism, the USSR supported communism. Freedom of the society didn't matter to either side.