Communist Manifesto in 8's or less - Day III

The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!


********************************************************************************

Chapter II - Proletarians and Communists, Marx and Engle

How are Communists and proletarians different? There are only 2 differences. 1.) Only in that Communists acknowlege no individuality in nations or persons: The common interest of the working class is it's only concern 2.) Communists always represent the intests of the "whole" of proletarians - not individual proletariat from one region, locale or nation. The communists then are better than the proletarians because they work for the good of the entire group only - no self interest. Because the constant struggle is always one of securing capital (through wage-labor or currency) and this causes the clash of the classes the Communist seeks only this: "The abolition of private property." Said again, "Property in it's present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor." Looking at both sides we see that capital is not personal, it is instead social, power. Since the recipient of capital will seek to pay his laborer the least amount in minimum wage, the laborer will not be able to acquire property but only subsist. Communists want to "do away" with this. You are "horrified" that we wish to do away with private property. We believe that private property is already done away with for 90% of the population. You shun us because we intend to take away your property and in fact that is what we intend to do! Communism does not remove the ability to power to allocate products in a society, it only removes the ability to utilize the labor of others in order to move those products. You say if we do this then all work will stop and laziness will be the norm. We say no. We believe that if this were so the bourgeois society would have died out long ago.

What we believe for product and goods we also believe to be true for intellectual property. You don't like these thoughts only because you have been indoctrinated by the system that tells you that all these 'products' are good. In fact the culture is a great problem because the creation of even family itself is generated so that that unit of living can get more. This is selfishness. Therefore we are all for the "Abolition of the Family." This is because we cannot allow patriarchs to exploit the children in their family. Charge us with the crime of wanting to stop the exploitation of kids? We "plead guilty". You are appalled that we destroy this sacred institution. Poppy-cock. All language of the culture to justify exploitation of kids.

As for Mothers and wives, they too are merely tools that perpetuate production by facilitating the domestic lives of their husbands. Get rid of them. Create a "community of women". It has always been this way anyway. The rich and mighty steal each others wives, not to mention buy other women through prostitution. What is this but the community of women? All we wish to do is replace the illusion of "family" with what is really going on already anyway. We want to legalize the community of women and quit abusing them through this sham and hypocrisy. Call it what it is!

Of course, because we see no preferences we also wish to abolish countries and nationalities. We will get rid of these tensions all together. Give the working class the opportunity and they will choose this very quickly. If people are no longer exploited, then nations will no longer exploit and we have perfection. As this antagonism due to wage-labor producing capital goes away between individuals it will also go away between nations.

We won't even give religious or philosophical arguments the time of day in this book because they don't deserve "serious examination". Man's consciousness will change if his material conditions and social relations change, as Communism seeks to do. We've seen this time and time again. You argue that Communism abolishes all truth even the eternal ones, re-writing them and you further argue that this contradicts history. Never has man been able to abolish the eternal truths. To this we say, of course it's not gone away...you are all trained up in the system and he system perpetuates these eternal truths! Communism is the most radical of ideas and its application will result in the crashing of all "traditional ideas". We've just not been able to see Communism done correctly. So let's be done with these objections!

Here's how it is done. First, let's bring the working class to the position of "ruling class" through democracy. They will take all the capital from the 'ruling class' and give it over to the state....that is...the 'working class'. This will increase the working class, which is now infused with all those that used to be the 'ruling class'. Of course to do this we (working class) must be "despotic" in regards to the old ideas about property and production in ways that will seem unacceptable...but this is revolution and the pain will be worth the result. The actions taken will be different for different countries. But we can list 10 procedures: Abolish property; heavy taxes; no inheritance; take property; centralize banking (to the state); centralize communication; grow government business, land of all kinds; equal work for all;combine agriculture and manufacturing and get rid of towns, counties and country sovereignty, disperse population equally throughout; Free education to kids in public schools only-get rid of child labor in factories-while combining education with industrial production.

When all this is done then there will be no individuality and therefore no "political character". Political power simply put is one class exploiting another. If the proletariat can do all these things they will have abolished the need for class antagonisms (because no class no exists). It will even have abolished it's own supremacy as a class. In the place of the old we will have one big group association where the free development of each is required and in so doing we will have the "free development of all".

Communist Manifesto in 8p's or Less - Day II

The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. Conservative talking heads tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!

********************************************************************************

After Engle wrote the introduction which we outlined last post, he then begins to write in the voice of both Marx and Engle. He has a sort of Preface II section where he establishes through a by-line including both himself and Marx. We start with his Preface II (my term) below and then the first of four "chapters" follow:

Manifesto of the Communist Party
by Marx and Engel

Communism is, in a vague but consistent form alive and well in Europe and the government of our times are aligned to fight it. The result is 2 things: First, it (communism) is being acknowleged by all those fighting it to be alive, legitimate and powerful. Second, it is time that we publish their views for all to see in a document for all to see. We propose to do this, and publish it in muliple languages.

Chapter I
Bourgeois and Proletarians

All history relating to social interaction is a history of class struggle. Oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other in one form or another. Sometimes hidden, sometimes openly but always present. Look at history and see this. rome, Middle ages, no matter...class struggle always exists between a 'ruler' and the 'ruled'. Our society today has not done away with this class struggle. We simply have a new face to replace the old one. The struggle and teh fight remains. Even though we now have markets and commerce these are ruled by wealthy industrial citizens that are the new 'ruling class'. (the bourgeois) America and it's founding has "paved" the way for this. The wealthy 'ruling class' of today is itself a product of a series of revolutions in the way we produce and exchange goods.

Each stage in the development of our current bourgeoisie also including a simultaneous political power grab by that 'ruling class'. This 'ruling class' has replaced a specific social order of man and his "natural superiors" with no other bond than blatant self interest. This has "drowned" religion, family, enthusiasm, personal worth and emotion as a sacrifice for man's ability to out-win the next guy and get his share. There are no more 'professionals' (doctors, lawyer, priest, poet, etc.) because these once respected professions are now merely paid laborer's. The 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) must always be changing/improving the tools of production and in doing this change the way we relate to each other socially. The run the "globe" looking for new and 'better' ways, talking, meeting, networking "everywhere". This destroys industry as we know it and replaces them with something new, constantly. Interaction and transactions around the world becomes greater and greater. This 'ruling class' (bourgeoises) draws everyone into the fold. Everyone and "Everywhere". Not only this but they make it fashionable to produce and consume. Since everyone is learning and re-creating what works there is no room for a unique national 'way'. It even forces oppressive forces to seek their way. (ref "Chinese" Gov't) These nations economies must follow or they will die. This 'ruling class' has created town and enormous cities. This forces consolidation of resources. (material and human) And with consolidation comes centralization not only of resources but of politics. In the last 100 years this has resulted in more production than the production of all history prior to this time combined. Labor does the work and the 'bourgeoises' benefit, this is derivative of post-modern feudal societies. This system becomes an uncontrollable force that not even the 'ruling class' can manage and so in their place comes "free competition" along with social and political systems.

This is what is happening today. In fact the productive forces no longer further the development of the 'ruling class' property, but rather the break down of this social order brings chaos and disorder which endangers the very idea of property. This system is not strong enough to operationally manage the power that such a system can generate. So what does the 'ruling class' do? They create progressively greater crisis and remove the constraints that are in place to prevent the crisis in the first place. So the system risks extinction by the very forces that brought it into being. This system has also brought into existence the modern working class whose only commodity to sell is it's time to increase other's wealth and can earn only so long as 'the ruling class' are confident in labor's productivity toward profit. This means labor is a victim to the lack of profitability of the 'ruling class' to live on other's productivity. These laborers don't realize that the more productive they make the 'ruling class' the more embittered they will become at injustice. This process of earning works it's way all through the purchasing process. The lower social structure, micro-business owner, shopkeepers, retired folks, carpenters, small family farmer's all sink into the working class because they don't have the cash reserves to become a part of the bourgeois class. While their skill eventually becomes worthless because of new means of productivity.

The proletariat also go through various stages of development, like the bourgeois. First work is done by one-off individual contractors. Then the job is moved to a factory floor or process. Then it is done by specific operatives of a single specialized trade. They eventually rebel against not the 'ruling class', but against the tools the 'ruling class' give them to produce. They seek to destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, "smash" machinery, burn factories and try to restore through violence the workman as he 'used to be'. At this stage they are not co-ordinated other than locally. Yet these things are not their enemies. They should be fighting the system set up by the bourgeois. Doing what they (proletariat) are doing they unwittingly win battles for the bourgeois.

What the proletariat also see is they are becoming larger and larger in concentrated numbers because the means of production is becoming more and more centralized. They begin to form associations with one another. ("Trade Unions") This improves communication and begins to centralize the revolt spoken of earlier so that a "national struggle" is possible. This is the national struggle between classes. We see it once again. This group will struggle and compete against itself but each struggle will only make it stronger and more united. It will pass bills and legislation for it's' class. This benefits the proletariat position by causing certain sectors of the bourgeoises to conflict, which then requires political action and, then results in entire sections of the 'ruling class' being pushed down into the proletariat.

"Finally," when tensions get too great and it seems that the whole of society will break up a small section of the "ruling class" will cut itself free and join a revolutionary class, this new class becoming the one that holds the future process "in it's hands." Since these classes get smaller and smaller going through this process, again, and a again...the 'ruling class' getting smaller and smaller each time and the 'proletariot' getting larger and larger...we see the proletariot are the only class that is a "special and essential product." Since this class has nothing, (no property) they cannot become masters of prodcutive forces so their natural recourse will be to destroy the property and property protections of all others. This is a national struggle. Remember, all history is a history of the clash of classes.

The essential ingredient for the existence of the 'ruling class' (bourgeois) is the accessibility of capital; the condition which creates capital is wage-labor. Labor, unwittingly is the key. What the 'ruling class' is producing therefore, is it's own "grave-diggers". The fall of the bourgeois and the victory of the proletariat will be the final result of this system in all scenerios.

Communist Manifesto - In 8 paragraphs a Day

The following entries represent an interpretation of The Communist Manifesto. All italicized text is a direct interpretation from the book itself. I will reserve comment and comparison until the end. Might be of interest to anyone that is concerned with the direction that our country is headed. While the conservative talk shows tout a return to communism. One wonders, is it propaganda or is it true? Some may not know that this document was written by 2 individuals together, Marx and Engel. While Marx get's most of the face time, new readers should be familiar with Engel who seems to have done most of the writing. Engle adds at one point that Marx forms the nucleus for the "fundemental proposition". What follows is a primer on what Karl Marx and Freidrich Engel delivered to us as The Communist Manisfesto in what will be a 6 part series. Please note that the following is a precis' of the work, NOT an endorsement!

*****************************************************************************
Communist Manifesto
Preface
by Fredrick Engels

This Manifesto was written for a group that was originally called the "Communist League" which was the late 1800's version of a modern day union. This union started locally in Germany and then spread International. The movement was forced underground because of a lack of openess to it's tenents in the late 1800's. (1847) Marx and Engel agreed to put the ideas down on paper so as to have and official document establishing the group. (political party)

There was an uprising (meaning internal conflict boardering on war) in Paris a few years later in 1830 and the working man was pummelled at their attempt to revolt. After that revolt, the only groups of people (called classes) involved in decision making for society were those that had property in varying degrees (called Bourgeoisie). Non-propertied individuals (proletariat) were considered non-decision makers and had no impact on the political dialogue. When the working class started to make gains, the propertied class would hunt them down using their enforcement power to silence descent. The main leaders for this group (the Communist League) spent 2 years in jail. They weren't given a trial until 18 months after they were tracked down and put in jail. After finally being tried and convicted, 7 of the leaders of the group were given an additional 3 to 6 years in a "fortress". Which is to say an ugly, cold dark prison. After these men were given their official sentence the "dissolved" the group. No one, including the broken leaders, believed it would ever return.

After a while though, the European working class had taken a break from "revolution" and, in the context of them times been beaten down so the ideas came back to the forefront. This time, however, the European and American working class seem to be working together. It required something less specific, broad enough to be able to cross the vast cultural and political differences between the US and Europe. What they found is that the group (thousands of men, if not millions) was very different now from what it was when it first started. They even found that "socialism" was a word that was being spoken in large political gatherings.

So the Manifesto came back into public discourse around 1872 in English in New York in what to us would seem an obscure Weekly Newpaper, but was at the time quite successful. Then the french copied this into an American published French Newsletter in New York. This was followed by no less than 12 reprints in a host of different languages being proclaimed (by Engle, at least) as the most widespread of all socialist literature reaching from "Siberia to California".

It could not, at the time been called a "socialist" manifesto. Socialists at the time were a dying "sect" and were considered in the mainstream to be "quacks". Trying to solve problems without considering the impact on "profit" or money. They relied instead upon the "educated" classes (propertied classes) for support. Instead, those working people that grew weary of mere attempted and unsuccessful political change called themselves communists. Socialism was a middle class movement, Communism a working class movement at this time. It was socially acceptable to be a socialist, but not so for the Communists. (working class)

The foundation for this work is mostly Marx's. And this is it: history proves that in every cycle there is a history of class struggle between those that are exploiting and those that are exploited. That is those that rule and those that are ruled. And it has reached a degree that requires freeing the entire working class from constraint by the ruling class. This will do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology.


Engle then concludes with evidence of his support for this doctrine and that it is as valid as he writes it as it was when it was conceived. Also says that they cannot change the doctrine now because it has become a historical document "which we no longer have any right to alter".


Friedrich Engle, London
January 30, 1888

Banking in America - 2009

We have been told that this is the worst economy since the great depression.  So should we run for the banks and hide our money under a mattress?  Let me offer some insight.  Now, I am no financial guru as anyone in the "know" could clearly observe, but I can offer the following.  During the great depression the citizens of the United States ran to their banks to pull money out, then watched as 9000 banks went under.  FAILED.  

Fastforward 2009.  We now have a back up system which is the FDIC,  rightly or wrongly, that guarantees that our funds will be available.  This means that when confidence wains, and folks run to get their cash (ala' the run on George Bailey's bank in "It's a Wonderful Life") it is always available long enough to calm fears, and allow folks to get the cash back in the bank.  So far in 2009, under this "crisis" we have lost a grand total of 52 banks.  If we add 2008 totals to that we get a whopping 57 banks.  In fact, if we go all the way back to 2000 we get a total of less than 80 banks that have failed on us.  (see 'em all here)  Now, the banks on the brink right now are admittedly big, big, BIG banks.  But I have to wonder, why don't we simply let them go?  Won't we be better off?  We have over 6,000 banks in the US that are opting out of the government guarantees.  Why?  Because there are thousands of profitable banks that are realizing the cost of this money is too great.  

My suspicion is that hundreds of banks will realize soon enough that this program is going to lead them exactly the same place that CRA led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Insolvency.  Stick with community banks.  They seem to know how to make it work.  Welcome the old axiom:  "They'll only lend money to people who don't need it?"  The people who "don't need it" are also the people with a proven propensity to create and sustain jobs for the rest of us.  

Common Obama Refrain? "Bush did it first..."

Will this be a common refrain by our new President?  It very well may be.  President Obama has taken my concern first articulated about the Bush Administration's Patriot Act to a level well beyond the concern I mentioned in 2005.  

I'm no prognosticator.  In fact to date I have been anything BUT a prognosticator.   One may notice from reading my opinions that they tend to be non-specific and non-judgmental in most cases. I typically "wonder" about things, speculate at best, and formulate opinions with the full realization that it is highly possible that I am wrong.  This is why I try to at link you to the facts.  This, because I've lived long enough to realize that I'm not one blessed with the gift of telling the future.  Perhaps my thoughts, plus your thoughts, plus the facts will result in some modicum of an accurate perspective.  We shall see.    

What I do have some understanding for is human nature, and  like the founders of our country I understand and believe that absolute power corrupts, absolutely.  This phrase, while being first attributed to Lord Acton in the 1800's was previously understood by the fathers of our country and resulted in the establishment of a three tier  system(commonly called 'branches') of government.  Each power endowed tier, is reliant upon the other to get something accomplished in a way that is enforcable by law.  In fact, this system was designed to act as a "check" for bad ideas.  Amazingly, it sometimes fails.  Which I guess offers credence to Winston Churchill's statement that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." 

In my limited view, The Patriot Act in it's current form was a bad idea.  We can thank GW Bush for that.  The government infusing trillions of dollars into private banking was a bad idea. We can thank GW Bush for that.  The drone will go on with President Obama and his task will be much easier because of the precedent set by his republican predecessor.   I expect that we will see a great deal of support for Mr. President Obama's methodology by examining the power grab's established in the Bush administration.    And the President is not being subtle about it.  Yesterday the New York Times asked the President if he was "...a socialist..." and his response was indicative of a refrain I suspect we will hear frequently, to wit:  "...I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks.  It wasn't on my watch. "  I imagine that there will be a whole bunch more of that justification process coming down the pike.  The defense itself, unfortunately, I suspect will be accurate all too often.

We saw a mild tryanny under Bush, watch out for an exponential increase in these tendencies from our new President.

May God Bless our President with wise counsel to avert this tendency.    

 

Lady O

The first lady of the United States. Elegant, beautiful, Jackie O incarnate. The world and the press all seem to agree. Could Michelle Obama be, in a word, Lady O?

I hope and pray she emulates Jackie Kennedy in every conceivable way. I most specifically hope and pray that she stays out of policy as did Jackie Kennedy. That her legacy would be one of babies, redecorating, social diplomacy and elegant parties and style known the world over. The Obama's have clearly been upping the ante in the social arena, Wednesday evening social hours and entertainment would indicate that parties might just be the ticket for Michelle Obama. I suspect it will not be.

In our first Lady O early indications suggest that her kitchen table chat along the lines of policy with the President will not reflect mainstream cultural values but a hard left social policy that will line up nicely with some of the economic policy we now see coming out of the Whitehouse.

Remember her famous Milwaukee stump speech....for the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American? I'd like to hope that was simply a misspoken line. That the work of the civil rights movement, the work of Martin Luther King, the specific call for the end of communism and the subsequent falling of the Berlin wall was proudly received by our new First Lady. The trillions of dollars of assistance to third world nations and a nation of people that always represent the first line of support and resource to catastrophe around the world might inspire her with American pride. What does the evidence suggest?

All we have for answers is her life and work to judge. Otherwise we shall see as history unfolds before our very eyes. Her life and work suggests that she will be very engaged because she always has been. The quintessential working Mom. Most recently involved as a community outreach coordinator for the University of Chicago, she was very involved in affecting public poilcy. When she met the President she worked one of the most prominent civil rights law firms in the country, Sidley Austin and before that she attended Princeton. Even at Princeton she used language and perspective in her final thesis entitled "Princeton Educated Blacks and the black Community", and would seem to suggest a discriminate disposition toward her white fellow citizens as well as a sense of resignation that she'll need to be like them, or fail. (Read it here.)

Please First Lady Obama, give us Lady O.

The Audacity of Hope - gone Wild

HOPE: it is the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best. What a tremendous opportunity this crisis seems to have afforded the new administration. In spite of my best hopes, I have to admit that it seems the Obama administration knows exactly what it is doing. You see, if they were just "figuring it out" then there would be the audacity of hope that they might expand their view, ask more questions. Perhaps, understand their false history. Secure additional advice, new ideas, new perspectives on history. The audacity to hope that they are inadvertently driving the market down, down, down. Inadvertently, creating fear, hopelessness and predicting unprecedented disaster. I suspect now, that it is all too intentional. And in that sense there is no hope of a learning curve. It is their philosophical foundation. We are looking now at a federal government budget that will be 100% bigger in 10 years, than the cumulative budgets of every administration starting from 1789 all the way through the Bush administration. 10 years from now we will spend more money as a government- that is "we the people"- than the combined total of our forefathers. Two times larger than the budgets of every adminstration from George Washington to Bush. The Wall Street Journal suggests that Obama propose's a budget that seeks to not only "expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back..." What we are seeing is the audacity of hope gone wild.

Is this the change we have been believed in? Even those of us that voted haltingly for McCain want the US to succeed. Leveraging words and tactics and strategy to always be right? Sounds like actions and attitudes in direct line with criticisms of the previous administration. Even some democrats are understanding the ambiguity of the situation. Take for example President Obama's exhortation that we move quickly on a "stimulus" bill. Do what I am suggesting he says, or we will "turn a crisis into a catastrophe." (see at 6:13) Never mind the exaggeration about this being the "worst recession since the great depression". A stretch rivaling some of the most significant stretches of the previous democratic administration. Focus for now on the President's procession after the threat to set wishy-washy benchmarks by indicating that his "stimulusproposal will "save" or create up to 4 million jobs. Not noting for us, of course, that there is no way for us to check his efficacy in "saving" even a single job, let alone millions of jobs. It is a tactic with which even some democrats seem frustrated. "You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus, told the US Treasury Chief.

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

As Obama's chief of staff has indicated they are ginning up a whole bunch of administration "wins" on the backs of US citizens by exploiting the fear and nervousness this crisis affords. "Never waste a good crisis." And this administration has taken that strategy to a whole new level. It is breath-taking how effectively this is being done and how we are taking the bait.

Simply Breath-taking.

Smarter than WE?

Are they smarter than WE THE PEOPLE? In the course of the 2008 political campaign no enthusiasm was hidden by this author for the political and oratory skills of our our now President of the United States: Barack Obama. What an amazing ride we took. To think that less than 4 and a half years ago this man was the junior senator for the state of Illinois. After spending less than 12 months in congress Senator Obama began the process even he seemed unconvinced was possible. Running for President of the United States of America. And now he leads this great country with the brains and talent that brought him to us through our political process. What have we to show for his 'Change we can Believe In'?

• a 'stimulus' package that is almost a trillion dollars
• we have an equity market that has plunged more than 2000 pts since he took office Jan 20
• we have the worst "crisis" since the great depression
• we have rhetoric that is making the situation even worse
• and a chief of staff to the President not afraid to use crisis to further a political agenda
  

Is this the change that we can believe in? I am hopeful...but not convinced. We have a president that we risk criticizing for fear of being spun back as racists, and an administration that appears to be headed down the exact same road that FDR took us down so a many years ago. In the mid-1920's Herbert Hoover flooded the market with dollars, just like George Bush's federal reserve did last year. De ja vu all over again. After Hoover FDR, a smart fellow, came along and offered us make work programs, just like Obama now. The great depression extended 10 more years into the late 1930's. I am hoping against hope that this group knows what they are doing. Hoping against hope that they are smarter than we. The logical conclusion, in my view, to all of this is that the socialist tendencies that we saw in Barack Obama are coming home to roost right before our very eyes. The largest businesses in the US are looking for 'help' from the government. Our banks (CITI, AIG, etc). Our manufacturers(GM, Chrysler, etc). How can we remain a capitalist nation if the means of production (our companies) and the capital that supports that production (our banks) are beholden to, (or worse yet, owned by) the government?

Socialism: a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Does the populace know that the 'change we can believe in' is called Socialism? Do we care?