A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The goals of most non-personal dictatorships is the growth of the economy.

How do you have a non-personal dictatorship? Even the junta in Argentina had a personal component. Being supported by an elite in your position of power doesn't make it non-personal.

Juntas typically treat the government like a corporation, rotating the head of government, with other members retiring, etc. Juntas are like the Board of Directors, and they have shown themselves more than willing to replace "CEO." Pinochet and Strosser were somewhat anachronistic in South America, harkening back to the days of the caudillo (personal strongman, like Somoza) while also trying to corporatize their governments. Not all juntas do, though. Nigerian juntas have typically been little more than various groups of thugs fleecing the state, until replaced by an alternative set of thugs, who then fleece the state.

This shouldn't be meant to diminish the impact of indiviudal people in positions of power. Just as Clinton and Bush are very different presidents, even though they represent the same class of people, Videla and Galtieri had different styles of ruling Argentina (the former was a screaming anti-Semite who believed that Jews were going to betray Argentina to the USSR). But just as Reagan and Clinton didn't necessarily run the government for their own personal benefit, neither do these managerial dictators (and I'd put most of the socialist dictators in this catagory) run their own countries for their own personal benefit. Some do, most didn't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Juntas typically treat the government like a corporation, rotating the head of government, with other members retiring, etc. Juntas are like the Board of Directors, and they have shown themselves more than willing to replace "CEO."

Then wouldn't that be an oligarchy rather than dicatatorship?

neither do these managerial dictators (and I'd put most of the socialist dictators in this catagory) run their own countries for their own personal benefit.

Not speaking monetary benefit, but rather implimenting their own world view of how a country should look like. It echos the desire of the dictator for how country A should be governed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Juntas typically treat the government like a corporation, rotating the head of government, with other members retiring, etc. Juntas are like the Board of Directors, and they have shown themselves more than willing to replace "CEO."

Then wouldn't that be an oligarchy rather than dicatatorship?

Technically, perhaps.

neither do these managerial dictators (and I'd put most of the socialist dictators in this catagory) run their own countries for their own personal benefit.

Not speaking monetary benefit, but rather implimenting their own world view of how a country should look like. It echos the desire of the dictator for how country A should be governed.

[/q]

Given the meager success rates of these states even by this measure, we'd still have to conclude that a dictaorship is a massively inefficient form of government.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

We are talking about democratic govt.

No, we are talking the efficiency of a democratic government system as a governmental system. Look back on Page 1, before you came into the picture. Dictatorship is also a governmental system.

I would have pulled all of your teeth by now, so I'm not going to contribute anymore to your threadjack.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given the meager success rates of these states even by this measure, we'd still have to conclude that a dictaorship is a massively inefficient form of government.

Depends on who it is for. For the dictator, I'd imagine it'd be fairly efficient. He can get his policies enacted in a day or less. Compare that with how long and how bastardized laws are passed in the US.

[Agathon]

I think someone has, once again, confused self interest with selfishness. A self interested individual is not one who would want a society where you could rip people off and get away with it easily, because that can easily impact him as well.

For god's sake, how many times do you have to be told that this is a ****ing collective action problem. It's the same reason why competition works to set prices.

I get sick of explaining this basic point to you lot. This must be the 1000th time.

[Kidlicious]

There isn't even any difference between selfish and self-interest. A selfish person will not want to be ripped off either, but if he has the advantage over others he will be able to do the ripping off without being ripped off.

[Agathon]

The only difference is if you construe it as the distinction between being interested in what benefits yourself and having any kind of interest.

No one, least of all me, is saying that people are completely selfish. I've argued against this in previous threads. But market behaviour is virtually all self interested because that is what makes markets work to the extent that they do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
The only difference is if you construe it as the distinction between being interested in what benefits yourself and having any kind of interest.

Are you saying that being selfish can mean to have any kind of interest or being interested in your own benefit? One is economic rational the other is not. To me both terms mean economic rational. There is no difference in meaning. Conservatives just prefer the term self-interest.

[Agathon]

No, only that followers of Ayn Rand often make the fallacious inference from "everything I do, I do because of an interest of mine" to "everything I do is self interested".

The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years.

[Kuciwalker]

The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years.

How do you define welfare? Certainly everyone acts in their self-interest in that they take the course of action that they believe will maximize their happiness. Either that or they're insane (in fact, the definition of a rational agent is one that attempts to maximize its utility function).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
No, only that followers of Ayn Rand often make the fallacious inference from "everything I do, I do because of an interest of mine" to "everything I do is self interested".

The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years.

Your not clear with the distintion. I'm not getting you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years.

How do you define welfare? Certainly everyone acts in their self-interest in that they take the course of action that they believe will maximize their happiness. Either that or they're insane (in fact, the definition of a rational agent is one that attempts to maximize its utility function).

You can actually make yourself happy by making a sacrifice for someone. The idea of people acting in their own self-interest is simply an assumption that is made to make policy. I can chose to get gas on one side of the street because the price is lower and I can give to charity. As far as an economist is concerned I'm a rational agent and policy makers can rely on me acting so.

[Sikander]

Wow, this got boring fast.

[Kuciwalker]

You can actually make yourself happy by making a sacrifice for someone.

So? You're still acting to maximize your utility function (your happiness), so it's self-interested.

The idea of people acting in their own self-interest is simply an assumption that is made to make policy.

No, it's the definition of a rational agent. Only (some) insane people do not act in their perceived self-interest. This does not necessarily mean maximizing one's money.