| >are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not This is unsubstantiated in that it posits the "politically powerful" as having nothing but their own interests in mind. Ignoring the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people - reformation would remove a significant monetary interest which is exposed time and time again behind the politically powerful. The drive to be politically powerful is thereby lessened, or at least changed. >The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action. There's plenty of scholarly work both from libertarian socialism, anarchism and defences of socialism from liberal principles; I'd recommend G.A. Cohen on this point. > Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state It's worth questioning to what extent fundamental human desires really are so fundamental, isn't it? I'm also not convinced prestige and power are bad things; arguably, that drive is how we have democracy in the first place, never mind the American revolution. >and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state There's a whole area of philosophical and economic research dedicated to what extent this is a good question - distributive justice and the theory of exploitation. If the only argument is that it's "not necessarily" the case, we'd have just as much of a case against some forms of markets in that they may satisfy consumer preferences as they create those preferences, not to other advantages. > In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure Democracy also allows for failure if the people do not see their will adequately reflected. |
The good old 'those noble and good hearted revolutionaries get to be the politically powerful and the "will" of the plebs better align with theirs, or else...'
In the end, there is only IngSoc!