@Eredhel: I understand your concerns. Unfortunately, socialism can be corrupted in just as many ways (and perhaps more, though it's hard to say) as other political systems.
@0x3000027E : sorry: that's communism you're describing there.
I would look Bernie's policies, and not let the "Socialism" label cloud your judgement. Fox news called Obama a socialist and he would be considered right of center in most countries.
To be fair, Obamacare is a socialist idea. It is, however, just one idea. I can't say under which president firefighters became a public service rather than privatized unit(s), but that act in itself didn't make the president a socialist.
I got to agree that for the most part, Obama was centrist/right (to European norms...just because there's someone further on the right doesn't mean "center" means left).
Your descriptions of Socialism and Capitalism is weird. It makes it seem like the Baker still owns the Bread after I buy it in Socialism. Its like me buying a Video game and Capcom still claims ownership, and 20 years after they come and take all my Capcom games because they say its mine I own it not you.
Okay...I can see why you're confused, but I thank you not to take your own interpretation as truth, let alone something I say.
Lemme elaborate with your example: yes, at the time a video game is created, it is owned by capcom. Well...all capcom employees to the degree they worked on it, but you get the point. If copies are then sold, they change owner just like normal. The exception is the very strict, dystopian version that I dubbed "fox news socialism": there whatever is created is owned by
everyone, not just capcom. It's the sort of situation Richard Stallman is trying to achieve: the idea that once software is written, it should be public property and the source code released. But again: not many pursue that political style.
The confusion is probably because of the description of capitalism. In theory, you could say that if you make something, you own it. But capitalism (to an extreme degree, but all the examples are clichés) assumes that everything has a price, and therefore is owned by the person wanting to pay the most for it.
Its like digital copies is like Socialism and Physical copies are Capitalism with his description. With digital games Sony claims ownership/Soicalism of those digital copies and can choose to close the digital store whenever they want, and once the store closes down you can no longer download the games. With capitalism physical game copies are yours to own and Sony can no longer shut down the store and prevent access to that game.
Again: you're totally wrong. Okay, okay: it's probably the same thinking mistake you made earlier, but it's still wrong. Software is just that: a good. How and when it is purchased and who owns it depends on the system, yes, but you're totally missing the analogy.
If a company wishes to maintain ownership of their software, that's mostly a liberal decision. It would have been a socialist idea if the game was still owned by the company (e.g. like free to play games) AND the decision to alter things were shared by every employee that work on the game.