In reality, the aim is that EVERYONE becomes a “Capitalist”, that the artist figures out how to paint full time, the car mechanic the way to open his or her own shop, the entrepreneur funds his own venture, etc. The triumph of large business, of the large multinational corporations is a symptom of economic illiberalism. It is the outcome of socialist policies which make the hurdles to saving money and opening ones own business insuperable for all but the most insanely determined. It is vastly easier even now to start a new business in America than virtually anywhere in the world. A just, fair, liberal order is in fact a “nation of shopkeepers”. I will note that Napoleon, who intended that as an insult of the British, founded his own reign on aggressive imperialistic wars, mass theft, mass murder, open and pervasive rape, and caused the deaths of millions. And for this, they erected a monument to him. Such are the French. Such is the lack of principle, of decency, of moral clarity, which we see in the modern world.
If one can rationalize the Arc de Triomphe, WHY NOT the murder of a hundred million by Communists? Napoleon and Pol Pot no doubt both meant well.
The point I intended to make, though–I am here following a long path of not following a path–is that one can easily make the following accurate juxtapositions:
Economic Liberalism aims to generalize and increase wealth; Socialism aims to freeze wealth creation, and spread around what already exists.
Economic Liberalism seeks to foster structural economic investment; Socialism seeks to punish it through regulation and taxes.
Economic Liberalism seeks to harness the power of self interest on the part of those capable of creating wealth; Socialism harnesses the power of self interest solely of government bureaucrats, who are capable only of destroying wealth.
Economic Liberalism seeks to foster innovation and efficiency; Socialism seeks a permanent social hierarchy consisting of the ruled and the rulers. Witness Cuba. North Korea. “Social democracy” is merely a slower version of this same process. It maintains the illusion much longer.
In my own view, OF COURSE it is bad that massive corporations have in large measure corrupted our election process. But who made it such a rich prize? In what respect does increasing the power of government not make the process of corruption that much more tempting, that much more lucrative? If we make it largely economically irrelevant who the President is, who is in Congress, then the money will leave politics all on its own. Passing laws won’t do shit. Smart people will find ways around any laws we might pass. The problem is the temptation. Drugs are illegal too.