Individualism Is Stupid ( Or Why Libertarianism And Objectivism Is Stupid)

[vulcanlogician]

I think capitalism's greatest strength is that it is "self-correcting"... think of Smith's invisible hand. If a firm is not producing things efficiently, it will be put out of business by a firm that is. If we put the means of production into public hands, how will a public entity "go out of business" if it is inefficient? The right/libertarians have a valid point here.

The idea that a public entity should go out of business seems a bad idea rather then simply fixing it. I don't believe in treating critical things as a for profit notion . Nor do i view the idea of everything being a competition.And i think the privatization of most things is a serious problem .

Yeah, but you're not factoring in corruption. Private companies as well as public entities suffer from it unilaterally. The right harps on this point ad nauseum, but (aside from the fact that they only point it out in the public sphere) they have a point. Desire is a driving force in a communistic economy just like capitalism. If we are going to put goods and services into the hands of the people, then we need efficient institutions. Capitalism does promote an atmosphere of competition (provided the government has antitrust measures in place etc.). This is why I think the public sector needs to play a substantial role in a Marxist economy, at least at first. Even Lenin had to admit this, though I don't think he "admitted it" enough.

Maybe, I'm splitting hairs here. We seem to agree on the main points. I consider myself a Marxist, but I don't chain myself to the "authoritarian parodies of socialism" (as Irving Howe called them). But we can still learn from the mistakes of these failed regimes. Centrally-planned economies fail in a number of ways. IMO it would be best for the Marxist economy to focus on basic needs while allowing the private sector to produce luxuries. When I say "luxuries" I don't just mean Lamborghinis and caviar; I mean simple luxuries, like good coffee. I like sumatra espresso, personally. Centrally planned economies have failed again and again to provide these things for citizens. Check out East Germany's track record here. Russia and China are utter failures because they barely kept their populations fed.

Look at it this way: when capitalism began to fail, governments started to implement socialism as a stop-gap measure, and it kept those economies afloat. Similarly, Marxists need to admit that their system fails and add capitalism until the society more-or-less fulfills its purpose. A marxist society, to me, would be ideal because it is built around the development and advancement of its citizens. If we were to somehow achieve full communism as Marx envisioned it, there would be no barriers to someone who wanted to develop himself through education and culture. He wouldn't "work himself to death" before ever having had a chance to advance himself. Capitalism prioritizes mass produced junk over the development of its citizens. (In fact, the mass produced junk is produced at the expense of ordinary citizens). The problem is that Marxism needs to work or it's no good to anybody. Like capitalism added socialism to fix itself, Marxism needs to be willing to revise itself, adding capitalism, libertarianism, and democracy until it has compensated for its shortcomings.