Opinion of Socialism

[Gustaf]

Like capitalism, it is a terrible idea when brought to all its logical conclusions, and a very good one when conceived with some pragmatism.

You still don't understand what socialism is.

Here I was going to say that he doesn't understand what capitalism is. Capitalism doesn't really have "logical conclusions."

[Gustaf]

Voted FI assuming we're talking about the principles behind it - public ownership, greater social equality, redistribution of wealth etc.

You are missing the most important part of the principle, democratic control of production which is probably the most Freedom part of the Ideology.

Are we talking about actual Socialism and not some American GOP boogeyman? Well in that case, then while some Socialist parties around the world are good, from an economic standpoint, it's hard not to see it as discredited.

Explain how democratic control of production is discredited?

If by 'democratic control' you mean central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

[Gustaf]

...central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks. I understand that might be discrediting from your point of view, since you like the poor to starve and get shot, but not to most people.

Politicus, that a model has never even been tried is not a major strike in its favour.

[Gustaf]

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks.

Yes, nearly everyone, like you, believes that about the social order.  Looks rather like propaganda viewed from the bottom up though, n'est-ce pas?

If one were to ask my grandmother, who's sister died at childbirth, who never got to attend university and had to spend most of her life washing and cleaning by hand whether life got better over the last century I don't think she would consider it propaganda.

Your worldview is only possible to believe from a very privileged position (actually, not even then, since it requires severe delusion as well).

[Gustaf]

...central planning and/or abolition of private property...really? How is it not discredited?

Conversely, how is it that private privilege and control of others through 'property' not discredited?  We see the carnage all around us.

Oh, that might be the biggest increase in public welfare and the greatest eradication of poverty the world has ever seen which is playing its tricks. I understand that might be discrediting from your point of view, since you like the poor to starve and get shot, but not to most people.

Politicus, that a model has never even been tried is not a major strike in its favour.

No, thats obvious. But you cant say that it has been discredited.

Elements of it has been implemented in Israel - espcially in the 50s and 60s.
The whole concept of a decentralised Socialist market economy is interesting. It is remarkable  that the Left has mostly stopped advocating an alternative to capitalism (as opposed to market economy) after the collapse of the Soviet model, without trying to develop viable alternatives. 

I would say that organizational experience in general pretty much discredits it, as does the reorganizing of production in general over the last couple of centuries.

[Gustaf]

Like I said earlier there are numerous potential problems associated with the concept, like how to benefit from economy of scale without destroying the democratic element, how to fire unnecessary/redundant workers and how to compensate public employees, who doesnt directly "produce" anything, that can be sold on a market.
But it is still surprising, that so few left wingers are working with the development of an alternative economic model.

Anyway it would be interesting if you could elaborate a bit on your two points. Too much guess-work when you present them in such an ultra short form.

Essentially, I think it's pretty clear that a lot of production requires quite a bit of hierarchy as well as clearly defined property rights.

I don't know if you're familiar with the old libertarian "Pen" thing where you analyze how many people contribute to making a pen. I think there is a youtube clip where Friedman talks about it. The point (no pun intended) of that is to demonstrate that production in the modern world is extremely complex. You have to combine hundreds of people to create the goods we use every day. Thus, these people have to be coordinated. The market has turned out to do a pretty good job of that - the oft-ridiculed invisible hand works quite well at coordinating people via prices into efficient production and cooperation.

Planned economies have turned out to do so much less effectively. It seems to me that it would be very unfeasible, under most circumstances, to produce things without either state imperatives or price mechanisms.

I think that what people like you envision is something like 10 people working on a field. But the global economy is extremely interconnected. The production chain of any normal good would include hundreds, if not thousands, of people spread all over the globe. They can't form a collective for production.