You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
I agree, the most logical solution to end gov corruption and crony capitalism, is to shift to an economy that is controlled democratically. Worker coops is the best example of such an economy.
There is nothing inevitable about this logic friend - what makes you believe that you have to control an economy at all? The idea that one way or another our economies have to be controlled necessitates our need for controllers. This necessitates the need for a theory of best control. This necessitates agreement on the 'good' regarding human economic activity. All of this necessitates authoritarianism, you just pick your favourite flavour - and in your logic, we pick our authority with 'democracy'. But what about the horrors of 'dictatorship of the majority' - how are you going to protect minorities? The problems go on, I won't list them here, they are readily available. Every single one of these 'necessities' is problematic and contended, the answers are not obvious or logical. The 'good' for me is not necessarily the 'good' for you regarding economic activity - and there is no reason it should be, we are individuals. Here's what's logical - drop the need to control the output of human activity, let it fall as it will. If you believe that results in crony capitalism, you're wrong - crony capitalism is another effort to control economic output. Same with socialist planning. All any of this does is justify and spread massive centralised governments, who enrich themselves at everyone else's expense - and massive, centralised multinationals and crime cartels and banks - synonyms, and ditto. You want to end government corruption and crony capitalism - eliminate government (as we currently understand it) and cronyism (synonym - directed control of social economic output). Db
No one is talking about controlling the economy. Prof. Wolff is talking about people controlling their energy (their output) as appose to someone at the top controlling it.
i.e. people working for themselves in a group. Which can be done in most countries without changing the system that they are in. We have been programmed to respond to words. Many times the words do not do justice to the concept.
Then we are agreed. The problem was your language - "... shift to an economy that is controlled democratically." Your words needed addressing, so I did, precisely because we are programmed to respond to words, and indeed words never do justice to actual experience - they are a phenomenal compression of it that leaves out the actual life referred to. So when we use words, precision is essential, lest our intended meaning result in attempts to 'democratically control the economy' - which, as you know, always ends in tears. Db
Unfortunately I don't ( and I do not know of anyone who) reads minds, therefore words are all we have to communicate our thoughts. It may take some time before we reach a point were we can agree however reach an agreement we must if we are to live in peace. And words are all we have.
No we have not agreed because it's not my language!
P.S. notice of post here are the pits. 26 days later and would have never seen it if I didn't come back to this post for another reason altogether