Discussion in 'Economy' started by Agnapostate, Jan 7, 2009.
I'd like to conduct a little experiment here.
State a few.
I'll need to know what definition of Socialism you're referring to before I can determine if I have any objections and what they might be.
The collective ownership of the means of production.
Who gets to decide how the means are allocated and how the products are distributed?
It's an economic system that runs counter to basic human nature.
It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.
On what basis do you make this claim? Could you elaborate?
It may create a "class" of "democratic diceders" that end up actually owning the means of production. If this class of "democratic deciders" is the same as the politicians, we would soon get a dangerous concentration of political and economic power.
Kind of like what we have today.
Centralized planning of an entire economy generally turns out badly.
If the central planners make a mistake it's often a real disaster.
Capitalist non centralized planning spreads our the investments such that while some things fail, others thrive.
Centralized planning ends up badly for societies for the same reason that huge asset inequities leads to problems for society.
The end game for unregulated capitalism is capital monopoly.
The end game for socialist society is socialist monopoly.
Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism are therefore, I think, very good systems.
LOL. A terrible thing that you suggest there, Editec. Pragmatism does not please either side. Much easier to see all the world in black and white.
Separate names with a comma.