Very interesting, D Rider! What comes to mind is the difference between slaves and employees. Slaves are completely controlled, but the owner must provide food, clothing and shelter and has an incentive to do so. Employees are “free,” but must suffer the consequences of downturns in the economy, etc. and the employer has no incentive to make sure the individual employee survives. If I understand what you’re saying, fascism would be happy with the slave situation as long as the government get its cut. Socialism, on the other hand, would like to arrange things so that the employers have more incentive to care for the employees, so they will all work harder and the government will get it’s cut.....
The original meaning of socialism according to Marx was the end stage of history in which human inequality would disapear. As presently used it generally means “moderate communism.” Which I think is more accurately called “squeamish communism.”
Under true socialism (original sense of the word) there would be no employers or employees. All would work for the good of all without any need for governments or money.
In its present sense of the word socialism means essentially welfare state capitalism. I think under such conditions employers, who still exist, have even less reason to care about any individual worker, as the state will take care of everybody.
Actually, Fascism is Socialism, as the government controls all actions. In the more direct form of socialism the government is itself is both the controller and the employer.
Socialists governments do not have a very good record of caring for individual people. Take a look at socialist healthcare, just hope your not old, or can get treatment before your cancer kills you.