Everyone (well, almost everyone) agrees central planning has been discredited, but a model with workers ownership - either alone or combined with community ownership (municipalities, cooperatives etc.) - has not. There are numerous potential problems with such a model, but since it hasn't been tried full scale in a whole society, you cant say it has been discredited.
Anarcho-syndicalism? Considering that that's not at all what most people (even most socialists) think of when they hear "Socialism..."Anarcho-syndicalism is usually the first or second thing I think of first when I hear "communism," but I am actually pretty sympathetic to what Politicus has talking about here.
For instance, if you'll pardon me rambling for a few moments, the sort of socialism I've got in mind is not about nationalization or even having a bunch of parastatal industries. Instead I'd like to see cooperatives owned by their workers, and run either by those same people or by administrators and/or managers they elect, compete with one another in moderately regulated markets, while a social democratic welfare regime exists not to massively redistribute assets from the rich to poor for the sake of "equality of outcomes" so much as to guarantee a basic - not necessarily comfortable, much less lavish - level of human dignity, make certain strategic, long-term investments that the cooperatives themselves are unlikely to make out of rational self-interest (i.e. take externalities into account), and aim for increasing equality of
opportunity so people who want to work hard can more readily do so, flourish from it, and in the process enrich society as a whole.
Meaningful human development - that which benefits and can be enjoyed by all without having to wait for new privileges to slowly "trickle down" - demands a fairer competitive environment. Also, I would want to mold a widespread
perception of classlessness amongst the people (despite our inherent inequality) as part of a larger, secular approach to building solidarity and wholesome cultural values that are conducive to preserving a respectable work ethic. But to make it work, there must be incentives for good behavior. The Left must broaden its focus on social justice and caring for the victims of oppression to pragmatically include means of coping with the fact that part of human nature (regardless of ones socioeconomic background) is not exactly coated in sunshine and sprinkles. In a sense, though I'm bound to make many mistakes in my reasoning along the way, I want socialism to put markets to even better use than did liberalism or mercantilism before it. Past experiments have yielded valuable information that can be used for doing better next time.
Some people are probably going to say I am talking about social democracy, the Third Way, or some twisted form of capitalism, but I am more inclined to agree with Mr. Gorbachev, who once said, "The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism." Someday if people really want to tinker with collectivization again that's fine but for the time being I feel socialism - an economic system which as its highest priority is designed to have capital utilized so as to advance the material interests of all people - can best ensure the general welfare, deliver social rights, and provide life-improving opportunities to us by harnessing individualism, and better mediating - not trying to end - forms of conflict for control, and privilege-bestowing use, of capital.
Perhaps I don't make a whole lot of sense when I go on about such things though. I am not exactly known for neatly, concisely (or at times even coherently) expressing complicated thoughts - especially if I don't set aside hours to ruminate about it in advance. Oh well, I'm sure someone well tear me a new one over this tomorrow! O.o
Poll
