Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver
The restructuring is a good idea, the attempts to restructure have always been ruined by the rich. You can run the idea by them from a safe distance if you like, make sure someone knows where you're going. You see the ultra rich as a symptom of poor structure and they know the structure that they built is just fine. I don't think you have enough respect for money Machjo. You think socialism has to cost too much, even in the face of the biggest economic debacle ever observed engineered by the rich capitalist class. How is that possible. We don't need money and they can't exist without it. I see a cure in the near future, there is hope for change.
It's not that I think socialism is too expensive; if we really wanted it, we could afford it. It's that I think socialism is too inefficient. Through restructuring of the free market itself, we could essentially ensure that money naturally stops flowing from poor to rich, as the concrete example above showed. Most socialists though, as well-intentioned as they are (and please understand that I do admire the NDP for its good intentions even if I do disagree with its policies), would ignore the structural problem (which is the root cause of the issue itself) and instead focus on just increasing the taxes of the rich and transfering the money back to the poor through a large and inefficient bureaucracy, increasing the risk of corruption along the way, money getting lost just as words do in a game of telephone tag.
If we look at the NDP platform, there is little analysis of the free market system itself. It's simply assumed that the free market system is corrupt and can never be changed and so there is no point in even trying to restructure it. Instead, they just forucus on increasing taxes and trying as best they can to redistribute it through a large bureaucracy.
Now if we acknowledge that a less confrontational approach between socialists and capitalists is possible, then we could restructure the free market system itself, which would certainly require government invovlement in the initial stages, but could be taken over by the private sectore later, thus not making us dependent on the government eternally.
Again, going back to the examples above, without restructuring, all thegovernment can do is forever tax the rich and try to give to the poor, leading to endless debates, election after election, as to how much to tax and how much to give.
But if we restructure, as with the language example above, though the government would need to promote it initially, once the new language becomes well established in the private sector, it would no longer need government support as it would be rooted already. That's what I mean by radical restructuring. Afterwards, once it's established,there woud be no more debate on this issue, so that the government could then move on to another part of the private sector to be restructured in the same way. And again, a part that once restructured, naturally entrenches itself into the private sector itself and thus need not have any more government intervention either. Would that not be more efficient that socialism. Essentially, it would be a marriage between capitalism and socialism rather than confrontation as socialists love all too much.