That's partially because like many other words and names (just consider Isis, an important goddess of ancient egypt), "socialism" to most people means the type of absolute control that communist countries usually feature. But of course, as a word/concept, socialism is just the application of socialist policies, not even remotely alluding to some absolute end goal or so. And naturally as a part of society except a tiny minority at the top, most people would benefit from more socialist policies.
Socialism isn't really as simple as "socialist policies." Such a character classification into binaries like "Capitalist policies" and "Socialist policies" doesn't make much sense, Capitalism and Socialism describe much larger systems and what drives an economy. Social programs are good, yes, and Socialism is a good thing too, but they aren't the same.
It can definitely be argued that capitalists themselves fucking hate capitalism.
That was a brilliant read.
I appreciated the nuance, and it even added a lot of perspective to the notion that Adam Smith's "capitalism" concept was not the evil and inhuman machine we experience today.
I've noticed this move to "technofeudalism" everywhere but didn't have a name for it. It's exhausting seeing how many services, products, businesses, whatever, all simply want to coast on monthly payments and lock-ins for what amounts to merely keeping the lights on.
The PetsMart thing was insidious. This surely solidifies the definition of "human resources": Seeking to control people as "assets" that generate profits like (proprietary) batteries.
It seems it should be a priority goal to undermine the corporate and wealthy's dominion over "assets." They'd be terrified of this, as they might actually have to do something besides acquire everyone else's hard work for a change!
Strong "I can fix him" energy out there.