<p>@kwasford, then you aren’t advocating pure socialism. BTW, Economic Darwinism is different than evolutionary Darwinism. Economic Darwinism means that bad corporations die, not bad individuals. Also, I think it is very naive of you to assume that brilliant, talented people would happily work as a doctor to the best of their abilities for no extra money/benifits than they would earn by working as a janitor or waitress. Every “living” example of socialism shows otherwise. </p>
<p>@proletariat2, an organism fails in a Darwinian sense when it fails to reproduce. A company would fail in a capitalist sense when it goes bankrupt. I completely agree that people are not purely economically rational. People do not know their own best interest perfectly rationally. However, people do have a general sense of their own best interest and also have a general sense of how to act in their own gain. Hence, the above argument about doctors and janitors. </p>
<p>Things get interesting when you throw psychology into the mix (and the “feel good” benifit that many people get from communal life). In a society completely composed of people for whom the “feel good” reward outweights the monetary cost, socialism would be good and wonderful. But I can’t imagine such a society arising in the forseeable future.</p>
<p>But what if companies don’t really exist in a strict sense? A lot of socialists aren’t really into the whole “company” idea. Failure is entirely different in these societies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if they’re confused by conflicting economic signals? That’s what happening today. Also, there are things like sub-prime mortgages, Ponzi schemes, etc. People know how to act in their own gain if they’re bargaining over tangible or easily conceptualized products on a relatively small scale, but things quickly get complicated beyond that.</p>
<p>^ Well, I suppose I am naive, because I actually do want to be a Neurologist, and if the system called for janitors getting the same pay as I would, I still would want to be a neurologist. I rather enjoy using my brain to help other people’s health more than sweeping floors. >____> I guess that makes me one of those people who aren’t economically rational.</p>
<p>Talking about pay in a socialism doesn’t always make sense. Of course, that depends on the type of socialism, but note that the idea of salaries isn’t universally supported among socialists. “To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.”</p>
<p>Of course, a government without money would have to govern a really small area; otherwise its economic growth would be completely stunted.</p>
<p>@Kwasford, Well if you value the payoff from an intellectually-stimulating job as being more valuable than the economic loss from that job, then you are rational (sort of). But the fact of the matter is, most people don’t share that value system. If they did, we’d live in a much better world.</p>
<p>@proletariat2 yes, but even without salaries I don’t see how the system would work. The doctor/janitor analogy would still hold true without salaries. Just replace pay in money with pay in goods/services and the end result is the same (ie the costs of being a doctor outweigh the benifits). I think, though, that the underlying problem here is that I simply have no comprehension of what you mean by “socialism.” How would a society without companies work? How would a society in which people didn’t take cost-benifits into account when making decisions work? I’m not being deliberately thick, but I can’t picture it.</p>