: : 1. Because public ownership of the means of production avoids the crises of overproduction and shortage that characterize capitalism.: No. Just the opposite. Eveyone seeking to gain utility will utilize these means to the utmost until they're destroyed. This is called the tragedy of the commons and happens when everyone can take from the common pot so that those who take the most and first get the greatest benefit.
It's typical of the Right that they completely misuse Hardin's thesis. When he invented teh phrase "the tragedy of teh commons", Garrett Hardin was trying to show that if individuals are allowed to use public rewources for private ends, they will invariably use them selfishly and deplete the resources. His solution was not to privatize them (which i suppose might work in theory) but to ensure taht public property is used for public ends. natural resources will NEVER be preserved ifthey are privately owned- that's why we have to create national parks, etc.. to preserve wilderness.
: : 2. because socialist societies lead to MARKEDLY higher average standards of living for teh people.
: Yes. If you had several years, large supercomputers and a generously prescriptive definition of standards of living. Suggestion for ya: it might help to select the countries involved in your study real carefully. Also, see my empiracism comment below.
At least you don't argue with the premise. I can
: : 3. Because if we have democracy in the political realm (i.e. control by ALL the people) I don't see why this should not be extended to teh economic realm.
: Well, this is a good point. Public Choice Economics shows that public decisions are massively less efficient than private decisions. I think the direction is going the other way: it's called anarcho-capitalism or government through pure price allocation.
the horror!
: : 4. because socialism, by giving people a stake in the future of society, empirically reduces alienation and crime.
: Where? A massive study by Lott and Mustard showed that increased private gun ownership decidedly reduced crime rates in a very short time.
I'm not even paying attention to A,merican crime rates; too many people have the idea that things begin and end within our borders. Of teh lowest 15 murder rates and crime rates in the world, the majority are in West African societies which take the communal, collectivist societies to their highest extent. Within africa, the countries with the lowest crime rates (mali, Burkina Faso, sao Tome, Guinea Bissau, Guinea) generally have had a long history of socialism. More generally, countries with an extremely low crime rate generally fall into 3 actegories- tribal-traditional, Islamic, or socialist. In social terms, all these 3 methods of organization are similar in that they emphasize that we are all inextricably part of a collective and taht we are all rewponsible for each other. Tribal tradition, islam andsocilaism also all militate against inequality. The individualistic ethic, saying taht each of us is an Island and taht we rise and fall on our own efforts, tends to foster crime. If you look at teh world's highest crime rates, tehy tend to be in highly unequal capitalist countries (Brazil, Colombia, South Africa). The individualistic US has a much higher murder rate than the collectivist Western Europe. Within the US, teh individualistic South has a much higher murder rate tahn teh more collectivsit Northeast.
It's widely believed taht teh root cause of crime is poverty, but international comparisons seem to suggest taht rather, crime is caused by the inequality and alienation under capitalism. Extremely poor countries often have very low crime artes if teh meagre wealth is evenly parceled out.
: As to the 'stake in the future'? That's a nice platitude without even the vaugest pretence of meaning. How bout "oh, father, mother, society, give us a stake in the future of you". Additionally, long-term marriage is probably the other biggest component to reducing neighborhood violence.
As I told you, I'm not particularly interested in teh details of any oen society- I'm more interested in teh international picture. Also, I admit that the stake in teh future arguemnt has no extrinsic basis. I introduced it merely as a HYPOTHESIS to explain the observed data. Do you have a better one?
How do you explain teh fact taht teh world's lowest crime rates are invariably found in high;ly collectivist societies, while the higehst ones are found in highly individualistic countries?
: But, hey, I though you guys were historicists and not empiricists.
