(Original post by When you see it...)
Does anyone here have an opinion on:
I think it would be good for certain industries and sections of the economy (i.e. factories, manufacturing if you get me - would stop profiteering and keep workers motivated) but not so good for other things (can't think of an example now but I had a good idea the other day).
Anyway, more generally, do you think we should have one system that determines how the entire economy is treated (or not treated) or do you think it would be better if you took bits from different systems and applied them to different scenarios as appropriate. It seems silly to try to make a future-proof economic policy as it would inevitably become outdated and if you tried to cling on to it, however useful it was in the past, it just can't work for everything forever.
I don't know much about economics, so I could be talking out my arse, but something tells me I am correct. How can the same approach work for everything all the time? Surely we need to be open minded about these things.
Finally, what are your opinions on entrepreneurs/inventors/etc.
Capitalists would argue that the current system (or even a more laissez-faire version of the current system) is best for delivering innovation because such people are motivated by the promise of wealth if there ideas can make it into the real world. However, I think that the reason why the free market is better for this is not because of the potential money that people like Bill Gates are promised, but because of the freedom that they get to think how they want. In a planned economy, aren't such people told what to invent and stuff like that? This harms innovation.
What if a socialist enterprise was set up that gave its innovators freedom (within reasonable limits) to do what they want and persue ventures that they feel will be good, without having to appease these 'wealth creators' (as they are often called) with money. Give them a standard wage, but more autonomy than unskilled workers. Does anyone see what I'm saying? I identify a lot with socialism, but I have a problem with the idea of a planned economy because it seems like it could slow progress (if that makes sense). Rather than coming up with a system which is a compromise between socialism and capitalism, why can't we come up with ways (not necessarily an entire system for reasons I mentioned before) to combine the best aspects of both, rather than sacrificing some of the equal opportunity (which itself increases the chances of innovation surely? As more people will have been given the education/means to implement their ideas, so more good ideas are implemented) of socialism and some of the intellectual freedom (which is wasted in pure capitalism because of the lack of equal opportunity, which benefits innovation as explained above) of capitalism. If the two things were somehow made to co-exist, surely it would be better than any compromise between the two? I don't think I am being very clear in what I am suggesting (should be revising anyway, so maybe I am distracted), but I hope some people on here can either point me to some theories (or thriving organisations) similar to what I have suggested, give some constructive criticism or some encouragement to explore these ideas further.
BTW one example of where fair wealth distribution and autonomy coexist is in academic scientific research. The scientists work in academia because they are given more autonomy than in industry, despite companies presumanly offering them more money. It is for this reason I think that we don't have to appease the wealth-creators/innovators with money, but instead provide them with freedom to persue whatever projects they want, which I believe will deliver more postive change to the world than pure capitalism, pure socialism or any compromise between the two.
I do however think that a capitalist 'option' should always still exist (similar to how industrial scientific research still happens despite the success of academia). This is because, if people are still wanting to work for a company, then why should we stop them? Compliance with this particular facet of socialism should be 'opt-in' IMO. I guess I just believe in the free market really, just not in capitalism (if that makes any sense to you at all). Also, for some aspects of the economy (can't think of any from the top of my head), surely a capitalist approach would be better? I mean, it has worked well for like 150-200 years, whereas socialist economies seem to not have done, so surely there must be some aspects of it that are good, or at least better than the socialist alternative.
Sorry for the long post (am procrastinating revision atm, so took my time with this). I posted this here because libertarian socialism is the ideology that I agree most with (I kind of refuse to label myself with any one thing though as my opinions are always changing and the day I take my opinions/beliefs for granted is the day my brain dies) so I think I will get the best debate here.
Now just to gain the attention of some people:
I'm curious as to your take on this.
Hello. Never seen you on TSR befor but you've posted here so surely you have an opinion?
Why are/were people even debating the meaning of the term 'libertarian'? Given that it's pretty obvous what libertarian socialism means, it seems quite pedantic and doesn't really matter. Sorry, I was just replying to the content of your post, which I have now replaced with an x.
Ressurecting your thread (hopefully).
The content of this post seems relevant to what I've been saying, so maybe you have a perspetive on this?
Any opinions on council communism specifically?