The age of neo-socialism

You might hear them talking about “first epoch socialism” and the idea that we can now enter “second epoch socialism.”

There is little doubt that “first epoch” socialism didn’t work out too well. It was based on a straightforward definition: “Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.”

The implementation resulted in ownership under the auspices of the state. This concentrated more wealth and power in the hands of the state.

It was a bad idea.

So now there is a twist to the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

“encompassing a range of economic and social systems”

What is proposed to be tried under second-epoch socialism is different ways to effectuate ownership and control that’s neither private nor statist.

It’s not so clear what that can mean.

* * * *

What’s clear is that private ownership is anathema.

Let’s look at Apple Incorporated. It’s the largest company by “market capitalization value,” worth $2.7 trillion.

It makes gadgets that are popular all over the world. Its decisions affect billions of people (customers, employees, shareholders, communities-of-operation).

To fund its constant expansion and market dominance it issues billions of shares of stock. You might own one or five or ten or fifty. Your ownership lets you participate in the fruits of Apple’s expansion and dominance, but fifty shares (or a hundred or a thousand) don’t give you “controlling interest” (i.e., ownership in the sense of decision-making … like you can decide what color to paint your house when you own your house).

Society doesn’t democratically decide what Apple does. A small group of private owners with the controlling interest makes those decisions. The group consists of private citizens and private entities that can be named. For example, Mr. Arthur Levinson owns over four million shares. So he became Chairman of the Board and he has a lot of decision-making power:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_D._Levinson

This private individual’s decision-making power now influences or has influenced, in addition to Apple, Calico (an Alphabet Inc. venture), Genentech, the Broad Institute (affiliated with MIT and Harvard), Hoffmann-La Roche, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Amyris Biotechnologies, the Industrial Advisory Board of the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, the advisory council for the Princeton University Department of Molecular Biology, and the advisory council for the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics.

Mr. Levinson goes to the bathroom each day just like you and I do. But he is representative of how, under capitalism, some people’s private ideas and private interests hold sway within the economy that we all depend upon.

Socialism knows that this is a bad idea. But socialism can’t yet figure out what the alternative is.

(The answer is contained within the concept implied by one of the Ten Key Values of the Greens: Community-based Economics.)