I would argue capitalism is bad in nature, but people confuse free markets as being inherit to capitalism, which it is not.
Capitalism at its core is about ownership, in that those with money own a thing and thus make the decisions. This results in an Oligarchy controlling the market.
Communism in contrast is about collective ownership in that those that produce, own and make the decisions. However in practice, that ownership get usurped by “the state” which basically translates to an oligarchy through control of the market.
This is why I like the term, free market socialism. Ownership should be held by the producers, but the state should not control the market. The role of government in the market should be limited to monopoly prevention.
The state ownership of production is deliberate, and aimed at improving efficiency and allowing forward planning. One (or a few, if you want competition) large factory is more efficient than a bunch of smaller workshops. State ownership can lead to corruption, as you pointed out, but it is a conscious choice and not happenstance.
I would argue that state facilitation is superior to state control.
A small government that does not interfere with the initiative of individuals and groups.
You don’t need central control and orchistration when you have our level of communication technology. That’s only required when your communication channels are limited.
The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.
I trust collective decision making a lot more than central decision making for optimising a system.
I would argue capitalism is bad in nature, but people confuse free markets as being inherit to capitalism, which it is not.
Capitalism at its core is about ownership, in that those with money own a thing and thus make the decisions. This results in an Oligarchy controlling the market.
Communism in contrast is about collective ownership in that those that produce, own and make the decisions. However in practice, that ownership get usurped by “the state” which basically translates to an oligarchy through control of the market.
This is why I like the term, free market socialism. Ownership should be held by the producers, but the state should not control the market. The role of government in the market should be limited to monopoly prevention.
The state ownership of production is deliberate, and aimed at improving efficiency and allowing forward planning. One (or a few, if you want competition) large factory is more efficient than a bunch of smaller workshops. State ownership can lead to corruption, as you pointed out, but it is a conscious choice and not happenstance.
I would argue that state facilitation is superior to state control.
A small government that does not interfere with the initiative of individuals and groups.
You don’t need central control and orchistration when you have our level of communication technology. That’s only required when your communication channels are limited.
The state at national level should be limited to providing facilitation, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy. Independent Local governments should provide the bulk of public services.
I trust collective decision making a lot more than central decision making for optimising a system.