Hayek on Socialism

Friedrich Hayek talks about socialism.
For all major works on economic calculation see here
sites.google.com/site/malthus...
For a deeper understanding of Hayek's argument on socialist calculation and the knowledge problem see Individualism and the Economic Order in PDF at
mises.org/book/individualisman...
Also of interest is the book that inspired Hayek arguments: Socialism by Ludwig von Mises in PDF
at
mises.org/books/socialism.pdf
Although a shorter introduction to Mises arguement can be found in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth
here as PDF
mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
here as you tube video
kzbin.info...
As a side note; any viewers who have the objection that what Hayek is talking about is not 'socialism' read pages 33, 34 & 35 of the Road to Serfdom for Hayeks clarification of his use of the term.
Click link for audio of those pages -
• Against Collectivist M...
This is an excerpt from a longer interview which can be found here
www.vimeo.com/4063439

[@emmawyman8973]

"Profit is a signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve people whom we do not know." Gold.

[@R0DisG0D]

If that is true, I ask you what happened with the supposed liberty a free market brings. Is it merely the liberty to abide by the system, to always do the most profitable thing? I'd be interested to know if Hayek ever responded to the Frankfurt School critique of instrumental reason, because it seems quite valid here.

[@foxtrotwhiskeymike]

@Jon Dhoe profit for weapons is a problem with corrupt government, the only reason there is profit for weapons is because governments decide to go to war, if they didn't there would be no one to serve the weapons too and there would be no profits, profits from oil tells us that there is an extremely high demand for oil in society, people need oil for their fuel, for plastics, for fabrics etc... profits tell us what people want, no one said what people want is necessarily good, that is a flaw with people, but if you think those flaws don't extend to the central planners who will take control of the economy in the case of socialism, I think you're mistaken.

[@ibrahimkante6022]

@@foxtrotwhiskeymike how can a society work without a central planner? If everything is based around profit, would the rich people not limit the cost of production thus giving little to no salary to workers? Wouldn't kids be forced to work since they can help make profit? Wouldn't slaves exist :the perfect tool for a capitalist (0 cost = more profit). Liberal economists have interesting theories: they think that where the market rules everything, there wouldn't be any monopoly and it would regulate itself. But I actually think that monopolies are created by free market since the objective of a company in free market is to increase is profit by getting as big as possible to get much more market shares.

[@ibrahimkante6022]

@@foxtrotwhiskeymike I think liberal ideas are very good but they only work in theory. The economics doesn't work mathematically. Thus these theories should stay theories

[@SuiSSe-Torture-Prisonniers-CH]

Today even the Police do "Policing 4 Profit"; total intel on the system in video series " The Swiss Beast - Home of the Devil" in three parts.

[@EriPages]

Wow...Hayek single-handedly destroyed Socialism from the inside out in less than 3 minutes...and he did it with calm, coolness and style. Milton Friedman has been my economic idol for some time, him along with Thomas Sowell & Walter E. Williams....Hayek has certainly joined their ranks, and he did it with ease.

[@chloeagnew1]

I feel so happy that all of a sudden, the great name Friedrich Hayek came into my world.

[@SebastianSastre]

He is so cute that makes me want to hug him :)

[@nthperson]

The right response to socialism, or communism, or anarchy, or fascism, or monopoly privilege (i.e., what we too easy refer to as "capitalism") is found in the writings of Henry George. Remove all monopoly privileges from the systems of law and taxation and the result is cooperative individualism: full equality of opportunity, full individual liberty, within a cooperative social framework. To paraphrase Adam Smith, the role of government is to ensure that a fair field with no favors exists. Markets operate efficiently and fairly when none of the participants enjoys privilege. Few understood better than Henry George the true nature of privilege and what must be done to remove all forms of privilege from our socio-political arrangements and institutions. Of these, he counted "rentier" (i.e., landed) privilege as the most destructive to the promise of democracy. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

[@attguy98]

"Profit, is a signal, which tells us what we must do to serve people who we do not know." -- brilliant

[@-Aurumn-]

"Profit is the signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve people whom we do not know." This is one of the most brilliant statements I've ever heard.

[@Malthus0]

@Aegius Oh well if it was just Hayek literature you wanted just look in the sidebar there is a link to Individualism and the Economic Order. Also between them The Mises Institute and the IEA have lots of articles and books in pdf.

[@Elutherian23]

This is true. Which is exactly why individuals should be responsible for their own mistakes, instead of holding all of society hostage to the fallibility of the masses.

[@Malthus0]

I put subtitles in. I guess you missed the annotation at the beginning?

[@Malthus0]

@Aegius Captions are now available

[@djmk227]

I think I'm missing something here, I did order his essay on amazon so hopefully that will clear things up. In the mean time, can someone please explain to me how technology does not solve the ECP? If there is a computer (or network of computers) that has data on resource abundance/scarcity, consumer demand, as well as preferable & alternate materials for manufacturing, I would think that it would be able to keep up.

[@robertabalosvideo]

One of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century explaining the importance of profit as a trigger to making business decisions. Brilliant analysis.

[@runarolsen]

@djmk227 - How exactly would you gather information for a database on factors like consumer demand and quantify it? People usually don´t even know themselves to a useful degree what exactly they are going to buy today, tomorrow, next week or next year.

[@Malthus0]

''It would be great if Hayek is alive so that we can show him wikipedia. "Planned economy" and "Socialism" are two separate pages on wikipedia'' If you had read the Road to Serfdom you would know that Hayek is only using socialism as a shorthand for planning. And explicitly accepts that others may have different conceptions. He is not trying to monopolize the word.

[@nocturnezero]

@Nintendomanwill My mistake - not to "set" these prices but to evaluate the indicative price of a good to discourage use if it is ecologically harmful and encourage use if it is what we would call "green," along with having minimized negative externalities.

[@pawlo881012]

@radroatch thank you for your wonderful comments. I agree with most of what you say but I would like to point out a few things. About the unions, I am didn't really made a logical argument about its theoretical or ideological background, rather I pointed out some of their ill effects on society(historically). But my point is that their are quite like the corporations who tend to lobby for their own interest at the expense of the consumer. Although they are not necessarily bad but they like ...

[@Malthus0]

@BygmesterFinnegan The argument holds in any situation where private enterprise & private ownership means of production have been abolished.

[@Malthus0]

@MrIzzyDizzy I intend to critique the RBE idea in a video at length so I will keep my powder dry & give a few cursory replies to your points for now. The equation solving point is (& always was)secondary in every respect. Far more important are the qualitative limits of computing then mere speed. As for social science you probably have something different in mind to Hayek. How do you Isolate variables in a system(Society) where everything is connected to everything else & in constant flux?

[@umadumLib]

@1969lincolnosiris What exactly are you calling for when you say Democracy? Pure Democracy? Just curious.

[@zebart00]

The ultimate respect for human life is to respect our ability to think and choose, remove our ability to decide and you have removed that which seperates us from the oxen and beasts of burden

[@vatoencabronado]

@Nintendomanwill how does one apply your theoretical knowledge so that you can effect whatever type of change it is that you're after? Are you out to impress your friends with the latest book you read, or class you took, or are you trying to spread an ideology that can have a real effect for everyday people? If you think that having a CEO and a corporate board that circle jerk each other with multimillion dollar contracts makes for efficiency in the market, go for it, but that's already failed.

[@Malthus0]

@guillazo Thanks for the heads up, I linked up to the Mises.org PDF & uploaded Dickinson's 1940 review of the book as well.

[@Kareco]

Do you know when this interview was done

[@bane3991]

Before he died

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland I tried to make it clear that I was referring to worker self-management, but I should note that if you are both the sole laborer and the sole owner of a unit of property and nobody is affected by its use, then, in the template of self-management, you are the only one who owns your property. The whole reason for the philosophy of self-management is that 1. property usually demands multiple laborers and coordinators and 2. property usually posits externalities unto third parties.

[@Malthus0]

Who are you aiming that at?

[@1969lincolnosiris]

@god0fgod How does giving the public power over decision making "remove choice" or "force poverty"?

[@arunkumarvikram]

@aluisious Hi can you kindly explain how a group or collection of workers are going to decide what to do with their efforts. I mean how a leaderless body can come upon a consensus ? Do you have any ideas or suggestions how that can be achieved ?

[@Moonshine54321]

They achieve things separately like members of a band do... 5 or 6 experts do their thing, and contribute to a whole. Do experts in DC know how you want to spend your money, what car you want to buy and how much you’re willing to pay for it? With Free Trade, both parties WIN. Each person trades-up... if you sell me a cake for $10, you think you came out ahead... and so do I. Bob the bureaucrat or politician in DC doesn’t know anything about you. Look up Milton Friedman’s 4 Ways To Spend Money.

[@Moonshine54321]

Look up Milton Friedman’s 4 Ways To Spend Money, and share it with leftist idiots.

[@pawlo881012]

@radroatch what are socialist ends? please educate me about your assertion : "You will find that either people do not understand "socialist ends", or are just against socialism" and the type of socialism you advocate with its tenets. So that I may comment properly :)

[@emp0rizzle]

@purpleflyingllamazz did you figure this out all by yourself?

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland What virtue of markets and Participatory Planning, exactly, restrict the enterprises in these economies from engaging in collective ownership? For you to assert that the only allocative system that can accompany collective ownership is one of central planning, you have to negate the alternatives. So what is it about Participatory Planning and markets that bars firms from being collectively owned?

[@eshnajizzle]

Yes, you're right. In essence, he thought of macro - as understood today - as just an extension of micro. I was using the terms as they are used today. Hayek's work mostly relates to system-level issues, making it macro in modern terms. And, yes, he had plenty of micro-level writings as well.

[@blueshade26]

wow that is incredible that there's a video of friederich hayek on youtube. thank god for the information age.

[@Malthus0]

I think you will find that in the context of the first half of the 20th century, and in this video that central planning is exactly what is meant by socialism.

[@rgaleny]

When the workers control the means of production is profit still a factor? When a Nation controls the means of production is profit still a factor? How are surpluses and needs different from profit as an indicator of utility?

[@Malthus0]

Hayek is talking about prices and profits giving signals to economic agents about relative scarcities of goods and services. His point is that without an process of coordinating the different proportions of goods in society in different times/places there is no basis for a modern industrial society based on specialization. As such criticism of the profit system based on the difference between an ideal distribution of utility in society and that apportioned by a capricious market is misplaced. Such a criticism assumes that commerce in society something superficial & replaceable rather then fundamental.

[@rgaleny]

In a barter economy there would be less waste but less surplus, in a market economy of scale, when there are too many pigs that are a drag on prices they kill the pigs to keep them off the market. It's a waste of surplus. I would rather have too much than too little from a system. So, fundamentally, commerce is not the devil in the details. It is the usual corruption, and a lack of sane regulatory boundaries. What do you think?

[@runelord37]

I understand that you sincerely believe that. I use to as well. I have a question for you though. Have you ever read The Road to Serfdom by Hayek?

[@guillazo]

Hey Malthus0! I think that your video and your Socialist Calculation collection is superb!, but you forgot a very important book: "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society" a great contribution by Hoff. Salutes!

[@Malthus0]

@metalgearanarchist It goes back to Mises calculation problem. Which is that there is no method for change in your (& many similar) proposal. A distribution system can not decide between the the infinate technically possible combinations of resources, processes & placements for new production goods(factorys, machines, railwayline ect). Due to the lack of a universal cost standard(money) across the economy, which would be uncoordinated, leading to massive waste & eventual collapse.

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland No, it's not a non sequiter. My entire point is that questions of ownership regard ownership, and questions of markets/planning regard allocation. They are two different questions. I never said it was a good system, but it does exist. It is a theoretical alternative to markets. I didn't praise it as the best system of allocation, just presented it as one that exists as an alternative to markets.

[@Malthus0]

''sure wish i could understand what he was saying'' Accent or content?

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland That doesn't really relate to the discussion. We were talking about whether central planning is a necessary component of worker self-management, not whether worker self-management exists in the context of private enterprise. Even if all enterprises today happened to be owned by the workers, it would only prove my point because they'd exist that way outside the context of central planning.

[@Malthus0]

@MrIzzyDizzy You misunderstand the technical meaning that Hayek(& others) gives to 'Socialism'. Which is roughly the abolishment of private property & markets in the means of production & its replacement with conscious control &/or comprehensive plan. Hayek states explicitly that Swedish policy is not socialism but welfarism.

[@CurtHowland]

@nocturnezero "That doesn't really relate to the discussion. We were talking about whether central planning is a necessary component of worker self-management, not whether worker self-management exists in the context of private enterprise." Again, non sequiter. If "worker self-management exists in the context of private enterprise", then it does not require central planning because it exists without the context of central planning. QED.

[@Vdrummer182]

Thank u so much for posting. In short, socialism wants just distribution, wants everyone to be equal and to have the same opportunities. But, to achieve that someone has to do the distribution. Like Hayek said, he/she must have all the information about everyone to do that. Since he/she cannot get it all, just distribution is not possible. So, to offer people opportunities, society can let people develop by producing and working so they can offer chances to others who can't do it by themselves.

[@dr.floydmillen4736]

Hayek's influence on Margaret Thatcher was phenomenal. My book "Thatcherism Hayek & the Political Economics of the Conservative Party" looks at this

[@benji4608]

Yes and that is exactly Hayeks point and the reason that prices are so important, they signal what is scarce, what is in demand etc. much better than anyone person or group of person can ever figure out precisely because the world is so extremely complex. Humans thirve under cooperation and altruism is a natural part of humanity, we don't need the government to plan the economy for us and neither do we need their "regulations" which is in reality a relationship between govt and business.

[@Malthus0]

@MrIzzyDizzy ''its total evaluation of all resources and it effiencys'' The calculation & knowledge problems are not about (& never was) technical efficiency. It goes deeper than that, it is about the nature of organisational structures, & the nature & limits of knowledge.

[@waterhead001]

@cabgt I'm not disagreeing with you. But what do you thin of a country like Cuba or Venezuala. There are people who say these countries are successful. In areas like healthcare education housing etc. Just asking because I cant seem to find any objective imformation. Thanks.

[@Tyyyyuru]

so when you see that meme about having the resources to feed everyone on the planet, the problem isn't scarcity, it is lack of planning. Greed is the only driving force which can create a natural network of distribution.

[@psiwarinc]

+Jamison Leonard The meme you're referring to is likely a quote by Buckminster Fuller, whose economic approach was more rooted in systems theory than socialism, or any common economic school, to be clear. That quote is specifically a critique of a centralized or hierarchical (top-down) market economy (which is what Hayek critiques here as well). In a way he criticizes both planning (central planning at least) and scarcity (the economic concept of scarcity merely being a miscalculation concerning knowledge of optimal uses of resources). Greed doesn't seem to be a force in much of anything, aside from adolescent egotism and neuroticism. Optimization is the force within systems that drives individual and collective actions to abundance and structural efficiency. Hayek put forward the term 'catalaxy', which is the same phenomena systems theorists refer to as stigmergy, or swarm intelligence (also what radical capitalists call spontaneous order). These principles are truly crucial in securing optimal and natural networks. Not greed. Greed is a statist / corporatist approach and we know how well it's turned out for us.

[@TCBliss]

+Jamison Leonard Not greed, but self-interest. Also the main problem is that many countries cannot feed themselves for whatever reason and are not on a trajectory to feeding themselves any time in the near future.

[@HammerheadGuitar]

Capitalism and free trade is the natural network of distribution. Using soldiers to cease wealth from one group and giving it to another is unnatural. Extreme poverty is the natural state of all humans, but when other countries implement capitalism and allow free and fair trade they will develop and eventually be able to produce enough food or wealth to feed themselves. Greed is the only driving force that advances human civilization. I do not produce for your benefit, I do it for my own personal benefit and the result is that I get some money and you have a product in the store.

[@CurtHowland]

@nocturnezero "You didn't actually prove your claim" If you don't like the word "central planning", how about "collective planning"? As far as I am concerned they mean the same thing, so can you tell me why collective ownership does not imply collective planning?

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland Certainly! Collective ownership is a system of property ownership, and can work in the context of a free market (this is the philosophy of Market Socialists). Collective ownership can also work in the context of the system called Participatory Planning, where each individual economic agent cooperates with others until the equilibrium of supply and demand is achieved between consumers and producers.

[@vatoencabronado]

@selfrealizedexile I sincerely appreciate your comments.

[@Malthus0]

''he didn't specify, therefore, it was a strawman'', Context in this context (lol) means being able to infer meaning from surronding text or background. Hayek did not need to specify. He is responding to a question which contains the background ''in a technical sense''. To someone in the know as both interviewer & interviewee are this refers to economic theory. Particularly in relation to the socialist calculation debates. The arguement should not be about strawmen but applicability.

[@thefinnishsocialist4816]

ECP argument is appealing for those who are unaware of LTV. There is a value system in a socialist planned economy, which boils down to socially necessary labor time. This data is used in the planning of production and distribution. Example: 1.) Planning Let us assume that central planners have planned that an X amount of steel of Q quality are to be produced in a T amount of time. According to gathered data from soviets, 1 unit of Q steel requires V amount of socially necessary labor time to produce. In other words: 1 unit of Q steel has the value of V. The amount of labor power (P) required to produce X amount of Q steel in T time is XV/T. 2.) Production Central planners hand out new labor quotas for an amount of workers that total a social value of P. These workers are given an incentive to fulfill said quotas. Workers are expected to produce an X amount of Q steel in T time. 3.) Distribution When the quotas have been fulfilled, each worker receives payment in accordance to the quantity and quality produced by the worker i.e. a worker receives in accordance how much value he contributed for the society.

[@thefinnishsocialist4816]

Not to even mention the existence of more decentralized administrative structures: soviets. These decentralized soviets can pick up the tab for many things, namely the consumer sector. So the following is just a strawman: _"socialism assumes that all the available knowledge can be used by a single central authority"._

[@joemahony4198]

We saw how well that worked in the USSR . The lower any decision can be made the better. I am also skeptical of the terms just, fair , equal,distribution.

[@VeniVidiVid]

3 minutes and 22 seconds of deeply profound insights expressed succinctly!

[@Malthus0]

Hayek in the passage where he says we would have a ''duty to aim at the just distribution'' is comparing the neoclassical socialist position of Schumpeter & others to reality. Their opinion was that socialism was at least as good as capitalism because equilibrium theory could be applied to both. If true you could break the link between value & reward without consequence meaning Hayek would have no broadly utilitarian objection to equality which he accepts a 'just' for the sake of argument.

[@Malthus0]

Words are not platonic forms perfect & complete in the ether. They have different meanings in different contexts. The challenge is working out whether disagreement is just semantics or something deeper. Hayek here is taking about economic planning. 'Socialism' is a shorthand as he makes clear in The Road to Serfdom chapter 3. In this case I know it is semantics because once we focus on the argument & concepts & not the word the problem dissolves.

[@waterhead001]

@Guillhez No problem. I have checked it out. You are right about Castro and Chavez. Good information is hard to come by. But thanks for your comment and I appreciate your input.

[@Malthus0]

So the guy whose latest video upload is titled "Olivia Wilde Sexy" has a better understanding of Hayek then the guy with the youtube channel dedicated to him? If you think that Hayek only about 'constitutions' then you have missed out the entire first half of his career as an academic economist. A large portion of which was spent arguing that the kind of information conveyed by politics was not the same as prices. See Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society & his main influence Mises book Socialism.

[@Malthus0]

If you like Sowell then it is not suprising you like Hayek. Sowell has spent his career on developing some of Hayek's themes such as the Use of Knowledge in Society & The role of the intellectuals in spreading socialism.

[@MacbookProWizard]

@Malthus0 Absolutely. The argument is not that profits aggregate available data which could otherwise be derived through other channels. The argument is that profits are the ONLY way to determine how resources should be allocated to best suit the demands of the market. The amount of data contained in profit indexes, data that is exchanged every second of every day, is simply staggering.

[@dangold71]

Michael Mauboussin explains in "More Than you Know" that a complex adaptive system fails under centralized control

[@Malthus0]

@purpleflyingllamazz I don't quibble over semantics, if you want to call that socialism then fine, just know it is different from more classic definitions. Since I am not interested in going into anticipating deficiencies of your particular vision I will just point out that Hayek's critique in this video applies as much to partial visions of socialism as to full blown collectivisation, in fact to any interference with price signals & the discovery function of the entrepreneur.

[@Malthus0]

Stock control does =/= central planning. The comprehensive central plan is one that replaces all the separate plans of independent economic actors. Whatever Walmart does is just part of an ordinary plan. In any case stock control may make a non market distribution more efficient but it can not coordinate investment in response to changing conditions of the whole economy. (Which is the main point since no one ever argued that a socialist distribution of consumer goods was impossible)

[@Malthus0]

@Strawberria Hayek is making no mistake. The word 'socialism' had different popular connotations today then when Hayek was writing. In any case he made clear what he was talking about in the Road to Serfdom. See my video 'The Road to Serfdom & the meaning of Socialism' & the links to Hayek material from that video.

[@newdimensionfilms]

The dedication actually proves me exactly right.

[@theoharvey9236]

A clear demonstration of the poverty of individualism

[@johnnynick3621]

What does that mean Theo? Explain what "poverty of individualism" is.

[@Salvysahagun]

What would Keynes say about the Nordic Countries

[@Malthus0]

@UDSS Hayek's critique while focusing on central planning was fundamentally about what GR Steele calls non factor market socialism. Central planning was not originally an end in itself but a means of bringing about a society with no exchangeable property rights in production. This is the goal of the socialism Hayek is discussing. If the socialist wants this end & to avoid central planning he must find a way of discovering relative scarcities without market exchange ratio's offering a guide.

[@kentclark9812]

Thank you, great thinker and prophet Hayek, your various thoughts are my enlightenment

[@pawlo881012]

@radroatch he studied socialism, he is not really against the "socialist ends" but is against the means that are necessary to employ those ends.

[@Malthus0]

3 -Of course More useful then a left right axis is a left right/up down axis. The political compass has developed the most useful one I have seen. Although still simplified it at least allows virtually all major idealogical positions to be differentiated & mapped. Which others frameworks often do not.

[@spanieaj]

Happy birthday, Frederick!

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland Nothing you say shows that Collectivism and Central Planning have any inherent, unbreakable connection. As I'm sure you know, Central Planning is a means of allocating goods, services, and the distribution of jobs and income by a central board of economic planners who send down commands to economic agents. Collectivism means the workers democratically own their workplace. With my and your personal views on these systems aside, what feature of the two makes them mutually inclusive?

[@Malthus0]

Hayek here is arguing (with reference to the 1930's calculation debate) against comprehensive economic planning, & the principle of economic planning. It doesn't sound like you disagree. I'm not sure how a markets, capitalism distinction is relevant to that. (although it would be to Marxists & some types of market anarchist for other reasons). And is it really naive to associate planning with socialism when when every self described socialist you have ever met, read or debated is a 'planner'.

[@Malthus0]

Yes the means of production. Personal ownership is not what we are talking about because it has little relation to the social coordination mechanism. For Marx the 'anarchy of production' meant total means of production divided into different ownership groups coordinating their efforts through indirect means. A coop that has rights to a factory & trades with other coops for inputs is not social ownership but the private ownership of the coop members.

[@Malthus0]

Hayek would not disagree that the word Socialism has different meanings. He says so directly in the Road to Serfdom. He also makes clear that he uses the word to mean central planning as was common at the time. See my videos 'The Road to Serfdom and the Meaning of Socialism', & or 'Against Collectivist Means, Not Socialist Ends' which is an audio reading of pages 33, 34 and 35 of the Road to Serfdom. Where he defines what he means.

[@zarbi10425]

Yes, I know. I said ''slow'' reffering to the direct democraty system.

[@Questfortruth86]

A computer can only record past datum, but the economy requires entrepreneurial speculation, which is inherently forward looking. They take the given data (expressed by prices) and try to anticipate future conditions (consumer preferences are in continuous flux). But even the entrepreneurial failures (those who incorrectly forecast) convey relevant information. It is this dynamic process of trial and error, along with the profit mechanism, that allows for rational economic calculation.

[@EriPages]

It seems you've misread my post because I've made it clear that a Republic is a political form of organization as is Democracy, but it is the Republic's form that allows and guarantees Capitalism (economic form of organization) to thrive with minimal impediment. Having a Capitalist system under the political structure of Democracy is a Road to Serfdom...voting themselves goodies and businesses will buy political favours to thwart competition. Republic is a solid political structure.

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland I never argued that worker self-management required central planning, I argued the exact opposite of that. This might be a result of our alternate definitions of the term self-management, in which case I should rephrase my point again: Collective ownership - that is, Socialism - does not necessitate a system of central planning because collective ownership can exist in the context of alternative means of allocation such as markets or Participatory Planning.

[@TheRacistsMustDie]

Thanks Hayek for at least taking this on in a serious way.

[@Tyrant_13]

@Nintendomanwill @Nintendomanwill I don't know which comment you're replying to, but, after looking back at my comments from 2 months ago, I should say my opinion on externalities has been significantly strengthened after reading Walter Block and Murray Rothbard. You're probably already familiar with their private property argument, but to any reading this and interested, I highly recommend "Economics and Environmentalism: A Reconciliation" advertised and explained in this series of

[@jacktyler7593]

Wow, Mises and Hayek would have never predicted that a global natural law resource based economy based on access abundance, automation, technical efficiency, calculation in kind, sustainability, relevant education, with all the resources including means of production held by all people of earth, in conjunction with open-source, collaborative design interface facilitated by a network of computers linked with industry and providing real-time information of input-output material balance and in line with the regenerative rate of forest consumption would be the most socially responsible method of operating society. Profits to none, service to all.

[@yydd4954]

No it can't Hayek is using epistemology U make many decisions in ur life in a single day but u don't pre plan all of them! So the "mind can't foresee it's own advance". Also it's not just about input and output,how can a computer tell that what product is better or more efficient? How can u know the value of the product? What's the SI unit Also u r interfering people's life, sorry u r actually controlling them! It's absurd to think a computer and can tell about humans. We humans are above computers. Problem with leftists is they think we people are some sort of robots! No feelings,no dreams, no desires, they just reject the human behaviour easily. Also to implement a system like planning u need a totalitarian system and also u can't satisfy everybody with ur scientific methods and u have to choose a single way and that will be decided by dictator on his will. Or an authority in democracy. Not just planning is inefficient system but it is also immoral. Also without pricing the product u can't know it's exact value in society and to let price system work there shouldn't be planning at first place!

[@Malthus0]

You have misunderstood what "spontaneous order" is. It is the generation of higher level regularities & consistent patterns from lower level behaviour not designed or intended to create those things. What it is not is equilibrium, not a state of rest. That a process of ordering might be interrupted does not invalidate it, rather it makes it more important. Dysfunction in Spontaneous Orders are not due to shocks but through problems with the institutional environment from which they emerge.

[@nocturnezero]

@CurtHowland And where central planning necessitates a (usually powerful) interventionist central state to facilitate allocation of resources and distribution of labor, workplaces and productive property can be governed by their workers independent of the existence of a state.

[@mar_veloz]

@Malthus0 The beauty of modern socialism is that it is still an economic system with currency, the only difference is that the government has replaced huge corporations.

[@Malthus0]

''If he truly thinks socialism's goal to be worthy and morally imperative, he should be willing to persevere longer'' But he does not think that equal distribution is good in itself. He thought, like the many socialists of his time of socialism as a means to a more prosperous, progressive society. He read Mises & realised that socialism could not do that. So he pursues the same aim through liberal theory & policy. If he likes equality at all then it is secondary to the above aims.

[@Malthus0]

No,he is saying that direct collective action can not replace the market mechanism for the effective coordination of economic activities.However government is constituted it's role is the same with regard to the economy. To make sure that the rules by which people play the economic game are clear & easy to follow, the same for everyone & are generally conducive to economic cooperation(to make & break deals,move when & where you want ect)& of course to deal other probelms/natural disasters ect.

[@MrIzzyDizzy]

@Malthus0 you could do it with real time inputs in a distributed computational network - or large enough mainframes linked together - via meta anaylis - inpots of real time consumption of all comodites and multivarient regressions - when you crituque a rbe - i doubt you can find a flaw - but if you think you can compare it to the flaws of a market - as pointed out in zeitgeist moving forward and zietgeist activation and orientaton guide -or future by design or best money cant buy

[@Malthus0]

@Emptyca1m ''but you are going on random aspects of socialism you don't like and assigning that to cover all of socialism which is naive at best'' When did I do that or Hayek do that exactly? I have made a discription of a particular popular use of the term, I have made no proscription. Let alone a universal claim. I think you may be making unsound assumptions.

[@Tyrant_13]

I should also clarify to those unfamiliar with Walter Block that at the time of the interview he was a limited-gov't Libertarian and has since shifted to Anarcho-Capitalism after working extensively with Murray N. Rothbard.

[@BinanceUSD]

Profit motive is key for unknown to unknown

[@eurohim]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I've used the "for this to work, the people in charge would need to know everything about everything and know exactly what will happen to everyone from everything they do." I just get blank stares. It is good to see someone else has that opinion and Hayek of all people. woo!

[@Tyrant_13]

@vatoencabronado Private tyranny is a contradiction in terms. But, I would like to know, inside an an-synd commune within an an-cap society, what would proponents like yourself do if you discovered, to your horrow, that an extreme minority (let's say a mere handful of people) actually voluntarily wanted and resided in it? Would you have

[@Malthus0]

@Emptyca1m When we ask what somthing means,we must always ask in what context it gains meaning. As far as popular discource go's bonfirejovi is right there has been a shift in the use of the term. Before 1948 it would be difficult to find any self identifing 'socialist' who did not advocate at the very least the nationalisations of major industries, and people perceived the concept in that light.Today popular method for acheving socialist ideals is redistribution 'socialism' has changed with it.

[@eshnajizzle]

I do - and did - realize that. It doesn't address my concerns. He is essentially posing the question of the route to equal distribution, claiming that it cannot be achieved because of imperfect information, and moving to his default option and the micro level (peculiar for a macro-economist). If he truly thinks socialism's goal to be worthy and morally imperative, he should be willing to persevere longer in order to achieve it.

[@CurtHowland]

@nocturnezero I'm not playing with terms. You specifically and carefully stated "SELF MANAGEMENT". Self management implies self ownership. Self ownership IS private property, the opposite of collective ownership which is Socialism. Look it up.

[@Tyrant_13]

@vatoencabronado True, but Cisco and GE are both profiting enormously from gov't. The cap and trade scheme will particularly benefit each according to the head schemers.

[@jaschul]

For a sophisticated socialist answer to Hayek, see: spe.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/spe/article/view/11254/8145

[@Malthus0]

You say sophisticated I say dodging the important points. www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/user/image/particplanning.pdf At least central planning had a intuitive rationale; the market is an anarchistic chaos and so a 'Plan' can do better. 'Participatory planning' is a mess, a backward step to anarchistic chaos without the virtues of markets. A society of committees controlling absolutely everything is a bit of a joke. There is a reason that an the consciously coordinated workers planning of Marx became a 'central plan' by bureaucrats in practice.