Socialism that leaves money in power, while quelling revolts of the mass, ought to be popular with all billionaires. Socialism was always a devils bargain, but nothing else could have been done in face of the extreme powerful reaction against deeper reform?
For decades, science has shown that ending the need for consumption growth was urgent. Socialism seemed to offer the quickest way to end consumption growth. Socialism hoped that big money would care about such things, and end wage dependence, stop producing as much as possible, and to accept steady dividends as a replacement of appreciation. After a century or so of suppressed revolutions there was little hope that anything other than the consent of big money could stop our destruction of natural systems soon enough.
Without revolution by workers socialism was just buying time. Now, we witness a revolution of nature against capitalist plunder. Socialist ass-kissing was not enough to stop unlimited growth. Rather, socialists agreed with big money that more plunder and more income for everyone would be good economic policy. It was good for a while. Now it's too late for reform or for revolution. We are toast thanks to economic growth mania.
Was "from each according to his ability" a prescription for producing too much once automation increased labor power times X? Would a revolutionary government have stopped our plunder of the planet soon enough?
Barry