[002]
StudiodeKadent
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
First, \
to:
First, \\\"State Capitalism\\\" is a contradiction in terms. \\\"Capitalism\\\" is defined here as a free market economy (see the definition on the page itself) and this kind of situation \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' coexist with Statism by definition.
You seem to be definiting systems in terms of intentions, i.e. \\\"something is capitalist if its intention is to enrich an elite.\\\" But this is the YouFailEconomicsForever page and economists care about \\\'\\\'methods\\\'\\\' by which things are allocated, not intentions.
As for \\\"most economists define,\\\" this makes sense because this is a page about economics, and (surprise) economics is studied by economists! Just because most economists are more pro-market than you are, that doesn\\\'t mean they are biased.
Also, if you define \\\"Socialism\\\" as \\\"about replacing price with votes\\\" then maybe you should remember that purchasing a product is in effect voting for it. Although yes, Socialism classically is concerned with capital goods rather than consumer goods, but \\\"planning economic activity via direct democracy\\\" \\\'\\\'inevitably\\\'\\\' collapses into either 1) shocking inefficiency and/or 2) statism. Here\\\'s why; economic conditions change. Rapidly. People\\\'s needs and desires fluctuate on multiple dimensions; their ends are not fixed. So, as such, you can\\\'t have an \\\'\\\'entire population\\\'\\\' vote on what to produce and in what quantities every time these conditions change.
Therefore you\\\'d need to elect a planning board to do the planning. So already direct democracy has been replaced with representative democracy.
Of course, as the scale of an economy grows, things get more and more complex, meaning that you need both 1) more decision makers, and 2) more power for each decision maker (i.e. less accountability to the electorate). This increases bureaucratization.
Thus, for a large-scale modern economy, economic planning via direct democracy is simply going to be \\\'\\\'at the very least\\\'\\\' shockingly inefficient, and more likely is going to collapse into totalitarianism.
Direct democracy in deciding how to economically allocate various means towards ends can work on a very small scale, i.e. a bunch of friends managing their own resources. However, this is a voluntary arrangement and not a statement about how to organize an entire society. If you want more on this, read Hayek\\\'s \\\'\\\'The Road To Serfdom\\\'\\\'; even John Maynard Keynes (a \\\'\\\'centrist\\\'\\\') agreed with the majority of the book.
The simple fact of the matter is that \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the truth came out; that centrally planned economies were not merely innefficient but inevitably totalitarian, the \\\"Socialist\\\" movement whitewashed their intellectual history and began to pretend that they never advocated State ownership of the means of production and instead claimed all they wanted was \\\"economic equality\\\" (and never defined these terms specifically). In doing so, they deliberately abdicated the duty of specifying an actual \\\'\\\'method\\\'\\\' by which to make economic decisions and allocate our limited means amongst various ends. They started defining \\\"Socialism\\\" and \\\"Capitalism\\\" in terms of intentions and feelings rather than \\\'\\\'actual economic systems.\\\'\\\'
I\\\'ll give you an example. In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, the neo-socialists accused the bank bailout of being \\\"Capitalist\\\" because it was \\\"driven by greed.\\\" i.e. if its driven by \\\"greed\\\" it is Capitalist. Here\\\'s another example; some of the extreme left called the recent healthcare laws \\\"Capitalist\\\" because they forced people to buy healthcare from health insurance companies (in this, they are correct that the healthcare reforms \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' a boon to health insurance companies, but that doesn\\\'t make it Capitalism. Capitalism (in the sense of the definition used on this page) is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' about \\\"the state giving benefits to preferred business entities\\\").
And also, please look at the actual definition of Socialism provided. It is clearly stated that many socialists do not believe the State should be the central allocator of resources! Indeed, it is clearly stated that the State need NOT be the central allocator of resources! It simply said you need a decision-making body with de-facto property rights over all the means of production within its jurisdiction. Nothing in this definition states that said decision-making body cannot be democratically elected or that its plans would not have to be ratified by a referendum.
However, most economists, as well as economic history, argue that this kind of situation necessitates Totalitarian Socialism. How often has Socialism been ran, on a \\\'\\\'large scale\\\'\\\', by any other method of allocation? In the real world the vast majority of Socialism has been conducted under a Statist model. The definition on the page clearly states that \\\"this is technically only one variant of Socialism,\\\" and this is true, but until a Socialist can make a \\\'\\\'specific\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'concrete\\\'\\\' description of how an economy can be run in a way that simultaneously manages to involve the means of production being allocated by a body that implements the will of all members of the citizenry equally and accurately \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' avoiding this body being the State, there is simply no alternative economic system with the label \\\"Socialism.\\\"
This is the YouFailEconomicsForever page. Don\\\'t be surprised that this pages uses economic definitions of the terms.
You seem to be definiting systems in terms of intentions, i.e. \\\"something is capitalist if its intention is to enrich an elite.\\\" But this is the YouFailEconomicsForever page and economists care about \\\'\\\'methods\\\'\\\' by which things are allocated, not intentions.
As for \\\"most economists define,\\\" this makes sense because this is a page about economics, and (surprise) economics is studied by economists! Just because most economists are more pro-market than you are, that doesn\\\'t mean they are biased.
Also, if you define \\\"Socialism\\\" as \\\"about replacing price with votes\\\" then maybe you should remember that purchasing a product is in effect voting for it. Although yes, Socialism classically is concerned with capital goods rather than consumer goods, but \\\"planning economic activity via direct democracy\\\" \\\'\\\'inevitably\\\'\\\' collapses into either 1) shocking inefficiency and/or 2) statism. Here\\\'s why; economic conditions change. Rapidly. People\\\'s needs and desires fluctuate on multiple dimensions; their ends are not fixed. So, as such, you can\\\'t have an \\\'\\\'entire population\\\'\\\' vote on what to produce and in what quantities every time these conditions change.
Therefore you\\\'d need to elect a planning board to do the planning. So already direct democracy has been replaced with representative democracy.
Of course, as the scale of an economy grows, things get more and more complex, meaning that you need both 1) more decision makers, and 2) more power for each decision maker (i.e. less accountability to the electorate). This increases bureaucratization.
Thus, for a large-scale modern economy, economic planning via direct democracy is simply going to be \\\'\\\'at the very least\\\'\\\' shockingly inefficient, and more likely is going to collapse into totalitarianism.
Direct democracy in deciding how to economically allocate various means towards ends can work on a very small scale, i.e. a bunch of friends managing their own resources. However, this is a voluntary arrangement and not a statement about how to organize an entire society. If you want more on this, read Hayek\\\'s \\\'\\\'The Road To Serfdom\\\'\\\'; even John Maynard Keynes (a \\\'\\\'centrist\\\'\\\') agreed with the majority of the book.
The simple fact of the matter is that \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the truth came out; that centrally planned economies were not merely innefficient but inevitably totalitarian, the \\\"Socialist\\\" movement whitewashed their intellectual history and began to pretend that they never advocated State ownership of the means of production and instead claimed all they wanted was \\\"economic equality\\\" (and never defined these terms specifically). In doing so, they deliberately abdicated the duty of specifying an actual \\\'\\\'method\\\'\\\' by which to make economic decisions and allocate our limited means amongst various ends. They started defining \\\"Socialism\\\" and \\\"Capitalism\\\" in terms of intentions and feelings rather than \\\'\\\'actual economic systems.\\\'\\\'
I\\\'ll give you an example. In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, the neo-socialists accused the bank bailout of being \\\"Capitalist\\\" because it was \\\"driven by greed.\\\" i.e. if its driven by \\\"greed\\\" it is Capitalist. Here\\\'s another example; some of the extreme left called the recent healthcare laws \\\"Capitalist\\\" because they forced people to buy healthcare from health insurance companies (in this, they are correct that the healthcare reforms \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' a boon to health insurance companies, but that doesn\\\'t make it Capitalism. Capitalism (in the sense of the definition used on this page) is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' about \\\"the state giving benefits to preferred business entities\\\").
And also, please look at the actual definition of Socialism provided. It is clearly stated that many socialists do not believe the State should be the central allocator of resources! Indeed, it is clearly stated that the State need NOT be the central allocator of resources! It simply said you need a decision-making body with de-facto property rights over all the means of production within its jurisdiction. Nothing in this definition states that said decision-making body cannot be democratically elected or that its plans would not have to be ratified by a referendum.
However, most economists, as well as economic history, argue that this kind of situation necessitates Totalitarian Socialism. How often has Socialism been ran, on a \\\'\\\'large scale\\\'\\\', by any other method of allocation? In the real world the vast majority of Socialism has been conducted under a Statist model. The definition on the page clearly states that \\\"this is technically only one variant of Socialism,\\\" and this is true, but until a Socialist can make a \\\'\\\'specific\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'concrete\\\'\\\' description of how an economy can be run in a way that simultaneously manages to involve the means of production being allocated by a body that implements the will of all members of the citizenry equally and accurately \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' avoiding this body being the State, there is simply no alternative economic system with the label \\\"Socialism.\\\"
This is the YouFailEconomicsForever page. Don\\\'t be surprised that this pages uses economic definitions of the terms.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
First, \
to:
First, \\\"State Capitalism\\\" is a contradiction in terms. \\\"Capitalism\\\" is defined here as a free market economy (see the definition on the page itself) and this kind of situation \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' coexist with Statism by definition.
You seem to be definiting systems in terms of intentions, i.e. \\\"something is capitalist if its intention is to enrich an elite.\\\" But this is the YouFailEconomicsForever page and economists care about \\\'\\\'methods\\\'\\\' by which things are allocated, not intentions.
As for \\\"most economists define,\\\" this makes sense because this is a page about economics, and (surprise) economics is studied by economists! Just because most economists are more pro-market than you are, that doesn\\\'t mean they are biased.
Also, if you define \\\"Socialism\\\" as \\\"about replacing price with votes\\\" then maybe you should remember that purchasing a product is in effect voting for it. Although yes, Socialism classically is concerned with capital goods rather than consumer goods, but \\\"planning economic activity via direct democracy\\\" \\\'\\\'inevitably\\\'\\\' collapses into either 1) shocking inefficiency or 2) statism. Here\\\'s why; economic conditions change. Rapidly. People\\\'s needs and desires fluctuate on multiple dimensions; their ends are not fixed. So, as such, you can\\\'t have an \\\'\\\'entire population\\\'\\\' vote on what to produce and in what quantities every time these conditions change.
Therefore you\\\'d need to elect a planning board to do the planning. So already direct democracy has been replaced with representative democracy.
Of course, as the scale of an economy grows, things get more and more complex, meaning that you need both 1) more decision makers, and 2) more power for each decision maker (i.e. less accountability to the electorate). This increases bureaucratization.
Thus, for a large-scale modern economy, economic planning via direct democracy is simply going to be \\\'\\\'at the very least\\\'\\\' shockingly inefficient, and more likely is going to collapse into totalitarianism.
Direct democracy in deciding how to economically allocate various means towards ends can work on a very small scale, i.e. a bunch of friends managing their own resources. However, this is a voluntary arrangement and not a statement about how to organize an entire society. If you want more on this, read Hayek\\\'s \\\'\\\'The Road To Serfdom\\\'\\\'; even John Maynard Keynes (a \\\'\\\'centrist\\\'\\\') agreed with the majority of the book.
The simple fact of the matter is that \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the truth came out; that centrally planned economies were not merely innefficient but inevitably totalitarian, the \\\"Socialist\\\" movement whitewashed their intellectual history and began to pretend that they never advocated State ownership of the means of production and instead claimed all they wanted was \\\"economic equality\\\" (and never defined these terms specifically). In doing so, they deliberately abdicated the duty of specifying an actual \\\'\\\'method\\\'\\\' by which to make economic decisions and allocate our limited means amongst various ends. They started defining \\\"Socialism\\\" and \\\"Capitalism\\\" in terms of intentions and feelings rather than \\\'\\\'actual economic systems.\\\'\\\'
I\\\'ll give you an example. In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, the neo-socialists accused the bank bailout of being \\\"Capitalist\\\" because it was \\\"driven by greed.\\\" i.e. if its driven by \\\"greed\\\" it is Capitalist. Here\\\'s another example; some of the extreme left called the recent healthcare laws \\\"Capitalist\\\" because they forced people to buy healthcare from health insurance companies (in this, they are correct that the healthcare reforms \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' a boon to health insurance companies, but that doesn\\\'t make it Capitalism. Capitalism (in the sense of the definition used on this page) is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' about \\\"the state giving benefits to preferred business entities\\\").
And also, please look at the actual definition of Socialism provided. It is clearly stated that many socialists do not believe the State should be the central allocator of resources! Indeed, it is clearly stated that the State need NOT be the central allocator of resources! It simply said you need a decision-making body with de-facto property rights over all the means of production within its jurisdiction. Nothing in this definition states that said decision-making body cannot be democratically elected or that its plans would not have to be ratified by a referendum.
However, most economists, as well as economic history, argue that this kind of situation necessitates Totalitarian Socialism. How often has Socialism been ran, on a \\\'\\\'large scale\\\'\\\', by any other method of allocation? In the real world the vast majority of Socialism has been conducted under a Statist model. The definition on the page clearly states that \\\"this is technically only one variant of Socialism,\\\" and this is true, but until a Socialist can make a \\\'\\\'specific\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'concrete\\\'\\\' description of how an economy can be run in a way that simultaneously manages to involve the means of production being allocated by a body that implements the will of all members of the citizenry equally and accurately \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' avoiding this body being the State, there is simply no alternative economic system with the label \\\"Socialism.\\\"
This is the YouFailEconomicsForever page. Don\\\'t be surprised that this pages uses economic definitions of the terms.
You seem to be definiting systems in terms of intentions, i.e. \\\"something is capitalist if its intention is to enrich an elite.\\\" But this is the YouFailEconomicsForever page and economists care about \\\'\\\'methods\\\'\\\' by which things are allocated, not intentions.
As for \\\"most economists define,\\\" this makes sense because this is a page about economics, and (surprise) economics is studied by economists! Just because most economists are more pro-market than you are, that doesn\\\'t mean they are biased.
Also, if you define \\\"Socialism\\\" as \\\"about replacing price with votes\\\" then maybe you should remember that purchasing a product is in effect voting for it. Although yes, Socialism classically is concerned with capital goods rather than consumer goods, but \\\"planning economic activity via direct democracy\\\" \\\'\\\'inevitably\\\'\\\' collapses into either 1) shocking inefficiency or 2) statism. Here\\\'s why; economic conditions change. Rapidly. People\\\'s needs and desires fluctuate on multiple dimensions; their ends are not fixed. So, as such, you can\\\'t have an \\\'\\\'entire population\\\'\\\' vote on what to produce and in what quantities every time these conditions change.
Therefore you\\\'d need to elect a planning board to do the planning. So already direct democracy has been replaced with representative democracy.
Of course, as the scale of an economy grows, things get more and more complex, meaning that you need both 1) more decision makers, and 2) more power for each decision maker (i.e. less accountability to the electorate). This increases bureaucratization.
Thus, for a large-scale modern economy, economic planning via direct democracy is simply going to be \\\'\\\'at the very least\\\'\\\' shockingly inefficient, and more likely is going to collapse into totalitarianism.
Direct democracy in deciding how to economically allocate various means towards ends can work on a very small scale, i.e. a bunch of friends managing their own resources. However, this is a voluntary arrangement and not a statement about how to organize an entire society. If you want more on this, read Hayek\\\'s \\\'\\\'The Road To Serfdom\\\'\\\'; even John Maynard Keynes (a \\\'\\\'centrist\\\'\\\') agreed with the majority of the book.
The simple fact of the matter is that \\\'\\\'after\\\'\\\' the truth came out; that centrally planned economies were not merely innefficient but inevitably totalitarian, the \\\"Socialist\\\" movement whitewashed their intellectual history and began to pretend that they never advocated State ownership of the means of production and instead claimed all they wanted was \\\"economic equality\\\" (and never defined these terms specifically). In doing so, they deliberately abdicated the duty of specifying an actual \\\'\\\'method\\\'\\\' by which to make economic decisions and allocate our limited means amongst various ends. They started defining \\\"Socialism\\\" and \\\"Capitalism\\\" in terms of intentions and feelings rather than \\\'\\\'actual economic systems.\\\'\\\'
I\\\'ll give you an example. In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, the neo-socialists accused the bank bailout of being \\\"Capitalist\\\" because it was \\\"driven by greed.\\\" i.e. if its driven by \\\"greed\\\" it is Capitalist. Here\\\'s another example; some of the extreme left called the recent healthcare laws \\\"Capitalist\\\" because they forced people to buy healthcare from health insurance companies (in this, they are correct that the healthcare reforms \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' a boon to health insurance companies, but that doesn\\\'t make it Capitalism. Capitalism (in the sense of the definition used on this page) is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' about \\\"the state giving benefits to preferred business entities\\\").
And also, please look at the actual definition of Socialism provided. It is clearly stated that many socialists do not believe the State should be the central allocator of resources! Indeed, it is clearly stated that the State need NOT be the central allocator of resources! It simply said you need a decision-making body with de-facto property rights over all the means of production within its jurisdiction. Nothing in this definition states that said decision-making body cannot be democratically elected or that its plans would not have to be ratified by a referendum.
However, most economists, as well as economic history, argue that this kind of situation necessitates Totalitarian Socialism. How often has Socialism been ran, on a \\\'\\\'large scale\\\'\\\', by any other method of allocation? In the real world the vast majority of Socialism has been conducted under a Statist model. The definition on the page clearly states that \\\"this is technically only one variant of Socialism,\\\" and this is true, but until a Socialist can make a \\\'\\\'specific\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'concrete\\\'\\\' description of how an economy can be run in a way that simultaneously manages to involve the means of production being allocated by a body that implements the will of all members of the citizenry equally and accurately \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' avoiding this body being the State, there is simply no alternative economic system with the label \\\"Socialism.\\\"
This is the YouFailEconomicsForever page. Don\\\'t be surprised that this pages uses economic definitions of the terms.
