The Democrats mostly don't advocate, or benefit from, government ownership of the means of production and distribution in the U. S. economy. The Democrats are more famous for understanding that poverty is actually bad for business, and so take steps to assure that the rich are kept rich, even at their own expense. The Democrats take from the rich, and give to the poor--who then spend and make even more people rich.
"He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich: Shall surely come to ruin:" More or less expresses the sense of an ancient Jewish Proverb. Even Republicans can read all about it: But generally do not. Moses had previously--and as is generally well known, fairly decisively--commanded just measures, just weights, just hins and just ephas, and just whatever the hell they are: During his lifetime. Moses is an original prohet of the Jews and Jews are often alleged to know a thing or two about money and banking(?). The Jewish community has a knack for survival over time.
As opposed to the way that our Modern Ivy League understands it, people with no money--do not make other people rich. There is actually, "injustice" if in fact there is poverty.
I myself am a philosophical anarchist, of a concept of "Widespread Wealth Worldwide,' which plays on the ancient commandments just noted, and more importantly of the pantheon of the Greeks, and their religion of the Pythagoreans. By the time of Jesus, the pantheon deities, and deitresses, had conquered all of Israel not just once, but in fact twice. There was superior technology clearly involved. The Civilization is now called, "Hellenistic," but when Jesus tried to set himself up in the more Hellenistic tradiiton, then the rest became history. On the one hand, a sense of "justice" and "Injustice" could not embrace idolatory, or the foreign religion(s). In fact, the pantheon was more tolerant than the monotheistic tradition. "Ecce Homo" was variously matched with, "Crucify Him!" Jesus had set himself as an idol in heaven at his trial before the Jewish elders. Then it was off to see the gov'ner, the Wonderful Gov'ner of Rome.
The matter of ownership of any means of production or distribution is of less importance, historically, then is the matter of justice versus injustice. The owners come and go, but the concepts and justice injustice tend to pervade all the way through.
Economics is better thought of in terms of justice and injustice, anyone concludes: And for proof there is current events. The rich got richer. The poor got poorer. That appears to not have worked out very well at all.
Now there came calls for public ownership, as opposed to private ownership. No sense of "justice," or "injustice," has been offered or dicussed--Except that Santelli's people don't seem to want to own a load of crap: Even at a commodities exchange.
