Read on Twitter
"To draw up an economic plan in this fashion [i.e. democratically] is even less possible than, for example, successfully to plan a military campaign by democratic procedure […] [I]t would become inevitable to delegate the task to the experts."
- F.A. Hayek
- F.A. Hayek
This is one of his arguments why all attempts at socialism - including attempts at democratic socialism - will inevitably result in rule by a bureaucratic elite
Another reason is that a centrally planned economy cannot allow meaningful autonomy at the local, enterprise, or sectoral
level, as this would disrupt the plan. ( @K_Niemietz)
level, as this would disrupt the plan. ( @K_Niemietz)
In any case, it's hard to envision what a "democratic" economy would mean where I have only a one in, say, 65 million share in the decision making (as one would in a country the size of the UK)
Central plans also require significant restrictions of autonomy otherwise.
Any unexpected behaviour can mess up the plan, especially with no price mechanism to make the necessary adjustments. ( @K_Niemietz, again) https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1254586652015702018?s=19
Any unexpected behaviour can mess up the plan, especially with no price mechanism to make the necessary adjustments. ( @K_Niemietz, again) https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1254586652015702018?s=19
It's also surely intuitive that creating a society where there is no space the individual owns besides the collective, and moreover that the collective (/a bureaucratic elite within it) is authorised to control and plan every major aspect of life, isn't both
intrinsically authoritarian in important respects and also very likely to lead to authoritarianism in other respects
Central planning also requires massive amounts of state capacity:
"In order to achieve their ends the planners must create power – power over men wielded by other
men – of a magnitude never before known" - F.A. Hayek
"In order to achieve their ends the planners must create power – power over men wielded by other
men – of a magnitude never before known" - F.A. Hayek
Human beings are not chess pieces which can be moved around at will, but in order to get a central plan to work we would need to be moved around as if we were chess pieces - hence the need for significant restrictions on autonomy, and "re-education" etc
https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1254589126692782081?s=19
https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1254589126692782081?s=19
Moreover, if one believes in false consciousness and a very high degree of social constructionism, it would be surprising if one did *not* believe in re-education camps, state control of the media, and lots of coercive intervention into society.
You believe that people aren't free anyway, so by coercing them you're not reducing their freedom.
And you're in fact liberating them from their brainwashing and oppressive social conditioning.
And you're in fact liberating them from their brainwashing and oppressive social conditioning.
And if socialism doesn't work, that's because either the brainwashing hasn't yet successfully been beaten, or because we haven't yet successfully created "new woman/man".
With a high degree of social constructionism, humans can be made any way we like -
With a high degree of social constructionism, humans can be made any way we like -
it's just a matter of forcibly restructuring society and/or recalcitrant individuals so that we are perfected, rather than the vulgar and selfish human beings past social structures have produced.
Scepticism of the extent of false consciousness and of social constructionism is the biggest roadblock to would be tyrants - whether with the best intentions or (more likely) selfish intentions, whether the most competent or (more likely) those skilled/unscrupulous at politicking
Likewise, for those who view all intermediaries (formal and informal) between the individual and the state with suspicion - as repositories of irrationality, unfreedom, and inequality - it should be no surprise that they often end up creating authoritarian societies.
The "little platoons" of civil society serve as roadblocks to those who would seek to remake society in their own image, impose their preferences (whether selfless and competent or not) upon it.
It shouldn't surprise that "intellectuals" tend to believe in a high degree of social constructionism and false consciousness, are sceptical of intermediaries between individual and state, and like central planning - it supports their own power and status https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1226524759602663428?s=19
In light of this - https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1254591957092962304?s=19 - the seeming hypocrisy of "tankies" shouldn't be surprising.
Most of us who oppose US imperialism do so because we don't believe anyone should hold this degree of coercive power over anyone else.
Most of us who oppose US imperialism do so because we don't believe anyone should hold this degree of coercive power over anyone else.
Whereas tankies oppose it because it's not the right people wielding it for the right ends.
Furthermore, even if a truly "democratic socialism" were possible, why would it avoid the economic problems which plagued authoritarian socialist countries?
Elaborating on the idea here - https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1256212253554151424?s=19 - we often assume that when the state does something, "at least it will be for the common good rather than for selfish ends".
But why should we assume that the people comprising the state will be benevolent?
But why should we assume that the people comprising the state will be benevolent?
Or that the state would select for competence rather than, say, politicking and unscrupulousness?
And even if we could somehow staff the state with angels, why would it remain staffed as such?
And even if we could somehow staff the state with angels, why would it remain staffed as such?
And even if we could ensure that it remains staffed by angels, who decides on what the common good is? https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1255148065683435526?s=19
Out of all of the reasons socialism is / is likely to end up authoritarian I have given here, I think this is the most important: https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1254589985736527873?s=19
If there is no sphere where the individual is free from the state / "collective",
If there is no sphere where the individual is free from the state / "collective",
or where individuals can voluntary associate with one another on their own terms - no realm where the individual is sovereign in their own castle - then a free society is already a foregone conclusion. https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1249687516850028544?s=19
Other important points are that, ideally in the market, your private interests are aligned with social interest; and that, in a market with relatively egalitarian distribution, power would be far more dispersed than in the hands of the state.
"Disagreement is endemic to any open, democratic society. Implementing a comprehensive economic plan requires that we agree on far more topics than such a society generally can, which means it can only be done through [authoritarianism]."
– @kvallier explicating Hayek
– @kvallier explicating Hayek
Another thread on this topic: https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1232068445417680899?s=19
When economic advancement is based on political allyship, as in a state-run economy, it shouldn't be surprising that corruption, oligarchy, state abuse of power, etc become norms
