You theoretical model still has one major flaw. What makes you think material incentives are the only motivating force for people?
They most certainly aren't.
In a real world application while 80% of the people might go quietly into the darkness, i.e. submit to your brand of slavery, the 20% left will do everything in their power to not allow it. Hence my reference to your brand of slavery.
In the real world in order to deal with people like me you would have three options: A. Imprisonment B. Reeducation C: Disposal. The fact that the 20/80 rule will constantly apply means that eventually the idilic model will eventually give way to a dictatorship of one or a dictatorship by councel in order to maintain and exert control.
Black market and other criminal activities would be rampant also undercutting market control leading to even more state control. The state, not the people will control as has been proven time and again.
Thanks, no thanks.
Mere assertions of such are nowhere near equivalent to actual arguments or evidence that would support such a claim. However, I haven't advocated forcible incorporation of unwilling participants into collective organization, and support the provision of whatever possessive property that individualists with to claim to them. It's simply unlikely that individualists would undermine collective organization, due to the proven efficiency benefits of workers' ownership and management. Moreover, since I advocate stateless socialism, you'll have to elaborate on the topic of where this "state control" might emanate from.
How can I own the means of production if the same are subjected to government rules and regulations which can be enforced by violent means?!?!?!?!!?!?!?
All government functions are enforced by violent means, and all public management functions must ultimately be enforced by violent means to some degree. What is necessary is an appropriate strategy of calibrating the violent means utilized so as to promote the most desirable consequences, which would involve harm reduction.
But the more pertinent issue that you should focus on is that the capitalist economy is not meritocratic in nature, since individuals are not allowed to rise and fall on their own merits. Rather, the constrictions of social mobility create fundamental inequalities of opportunity that are far more authoritarian in nature than the necessary interventionism that the nature of capitalism requires.
"To make Americans feel good about what was happening, Roosevelt did his best to convince them that they werenÂ’t really abandoning the economic system of their ancestors but instead actually saving it. In actuality the New Deal was rooted in the same philosophy and ideas on which MussoliniÂ’s fascist system in Italy and StalinÂ’s and HitlerÂ’s socialist systems in the Soviet Union and Germany were based. One of the best books to read along this line is Three New Deals: Reflections on RooseveltÂ’s America, MussoliniÂ’s Italy, and HitlerÂ’s GermanyÂ’s 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Shivelbush."
This is among the most moronic, asinine, and economically ignorant comments I have ever had the misfortune to read, misidentifying not one, not two, but three distinct political economic structures as "socialist" in nature. Firstly, the New Deal was designed to maintain an arrangement wherein the means of production are privately owned, thus rendering it capitalist in nature. It did not even muster Keynesianism, let alone "socialism." Secondly, the nature of fascism was also capitalist in nature, particularly in Nazi Germany, where the fixture of private property was regarded as an important means of sustaining efficiency and collusion between state and corporate power was substantial. Thirdly, I have explained several times why the Soviet Union was not a socialist country despite the common misconception that it was; the public ownership and management of the means of production were not legitimate elements of the command economy, but were merely purported to be such.
Mixed my ass. REad about Albert Speer(SP) sometime. The supposedly private sector either did exactly what the hell the Nazis told them to or the Nazis would cheerfully replace them and give them a room mate named Goldman if they got argumentative.
That's entirely wrong, as noted by the aforementioned Buchheim and Scherner. As noted:
Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.
There was collusion between state and corporate authorities, but not substantial coercion of private enterprises by the Nazi regime in the industrial sector, because they regarded that as an exercise in futility that would ultimately have the effect of undermining efficiency.
Again the primary difference between a socialist and a communist is that socialists are generally not idealists, having long since figured out that any government sufficiently large and intrusive enough to manage from each according to his means to each according to his needs isn't going anywhere, not under it's own power any way.
Communism is a variant of socialism, so there's little "difference" to identify accept between communists and other types of socialists. That said, communism is stateless in nature, so your reference to "government" is probably related to some misconception about state capitalism, as so much of the content in this thread has been.
I think that's because in practice, a true, purely socialist society can't exist without some authority or head that manages it, and they end up claiming the lion's share for them/him/herself, and you're left with communism, which for all intents and purposes is usually a fascist government with a socialist economy... if that makes sense.
Your references to "socialism" and "communism" aren't accurate; the very nature of socialism is entirely contrary to any element of dictatorship, because collective ownership and management is a necessary condition. Your reference is to Leninism and its derivatives, which were pseudo-socialist in nature. As has been mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, legitimate socialists condemned Bolshevism and everything that came from Bolshevism around the time of its origin and never ceased doing so.
May or may not. Socialism is strictly an economic system, not a political system.
There can be no legitimate separation drawn between political and economic arrangements; the two are in many ways one and the same and in other ways substantially interdependent on one another.
IMO it's really more of a pure economic extreme, as is capitalism, and almost any western society will borrow from both.
Your reference to "pure" socialism and capitalism is likely based on the textbook economic spectrum, which ranged from the laissez-faire economy to the command economy and held that actually existing manifestations were only approximations of each. Though true in a sense, it's the case that a political or economic ideology is only as valuable as its actually existing manifestation, and reference to "pure" socialism and capitalism is thus purposeless. Moreover, the mixed economy is not a "combination" of socialism and capitalism; it's a variant of capitalism, with socialism (public ownership/management of the means of production) not playing a role.
Statism, ie, socialism is a socio-economic system - it is impossible to have socialism and not a dictatorship.
This is fallacious nonsense. On the contrary, socialism and dictatorship are incompatible, because of the nature of socialism as
"a social system in which the means of producing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." The most widely accepted forms of modern socialism are typically explicitly libertarian in nature, for that matter, and anarchism remains one of the longest-lasting and ideologically pure forms of socialism in existence.
It's ironic that you would refer to statism while expressing support for capitalism, however, since capitalism requires such a substantial state presence to function properly. That's why ideologically pure libertarians support minarchist or anarchist variants of socialism.
Pareto Principle, essentially yes, (actually had to look it up, I'd never heard it called that before)
Simply that? Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of Pareto optimality either? I'd hope not; it's integral to a proper comprehension of efficiency.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. If every iota of property was privately owned, destabilization and eventual collapse would be inevitable conditions.
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting manÂ’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of manÂ’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
This is a laughably fallacious defense of capitalism, and one that fails to note its authoritarian nature. Rather, as I've previously noted, the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. In visually pleasing terms:
Moreover, capitalism is necessarily antithetical to freedom. The hierarchical organization of the capitalist firm (a necessary demand of the financial and coordinator classes), necessitates the subordination of workers under bosses and higher-level employers, depriving them of the right to democratically manage a major aspect of their own lives. Nor is answering "you can simply change jobs" a sufficient response to this criticism, because just as the right to migrate between an island chain of kingdoms but not outside of them would not free one from monarchy, neither can the right to select specific masters in a capitalist economy free one from that tyranny.
Nor are external economic conditions based on freedom, so long as privileged and elite segments of the population (namely the financial class, as they have more dominance than the coordinator class outside of the internal structure of the firm), to make decisions that affect the rest of the population without their democratic input. After the unjust consolidation of the means of production and the resulting power that comes as a result of it during a stage of primitive accumulation (the state had a major role in class creation), the financial class, characterized by a small and elite segment of the population is thereby able to use their control over the means of production to drastically affect the vast majority of the population in whatever way they please, which is obviously a significant rationale for collectivizing the means of production, decentralizing them, and subjecting them to direct democratic management.
In our present state of affairs, this private ownership of the means of production permits the aforementioned utilization of wage labor, which is a critical element in the coercive nature of capitalism. Since the means of production are privately owned, large components of the public have no alternative but to subordinate themselves under an employer. The best way to illustrate this form of authoritarianism is to use David Ellerman's "robbery analogy." If a person were to be violently tackled by an assailant and have his/her valuables torn out of his/her pockets, we would accurately call this a robbery. Now, if the assailant were to instead point a gun at the victim and demand that the valuables be surrendered, we would still call this a robbery, as coercion was used to gain the valuables, if not outright physical violence. The fact that the victim technically "consented" to surrender his/her valuables is not pertinent, since it was consent yielded while under duress.
The former example represents the direct tyranny of statism, often blunt, direct, and brutal, whereas the latter represents the more subtle tyranny of capitalism, specifically wage labor, in which a person technically "consents" to work for an employer, but does this only because he/she has no other alternative for sustenance.
Incorrect, the US government no longer recognize individual rights. We have become a welfare/warfare state and the only rights that we are allowed to exercise are those that do not yet conflict with that entity.
No government can recognize individual rights sufficiently, which is why the principled libertarian will reject government altogether. That said, the U.S. government has always utilized substantial protectionist/interventionist methods, typically as a component of strategic trade policy, as it developed various industries through the utilization of protectionist state measures such as tariff impositions. Protectionism/interventionism is necessary now because of the role of the welfare state and public good provisions in augmenting efficiency in the capitalist economy. Unemployment benefit, for instance, is typically referred to in terms of the morality of "giving people a leg up," but more importantly for economic purposes, it's able to ensure more extensive and thorough job search, which consequently provides for more appropriate skill set matches and thereby reduces underemployment, which is a form of static inefficiency. We thus have an example of a state welfare program contributing to tangible efficiency increases in the economy.
With that in mind, it's not surprising that countries that rely on heavy utilization of welfare state policies (such as the Scandinavian social democracies) are not only able to rival more economically rightist countries in the policy goals that they pursue, but also attain their own goals, such as reduced unemployment (and unemployment is of course also a form of static inefficiency). That aptly underscores the irony of referring to social democratic capitalism as "socialist" in nature when the policies it entails in fact strengthen efficiency in the capitalist economy, thereby strengthening capitalist economic structure as a whole.
and what of Hitler's "national socialism"?
What of the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic? Disingenuous self-descriptions intended to appeal to popular sentiments didn't validate that country as legitimately democratic (the same could be said for the "People's Republic" of China), and the Nazis' usage of the term "socialist," which was similarly intended to appeal to popular sentiments in the earlier years of the party (though most major left-leaning Nazis were eliminated on the Night of the Long Knives) does not validate their ideology as legitimately socialist in nature either.
