If I have to pigeon-hole myself, I would say I am an An-Com. The socialist ideals make the most sense of all the economic theories I have looked into. There are inherent dangers, though, that are political, thus I favour a direct democracy approach.
I imagine a kind of 'devolution' as in Jordan's post, where perhaps the first steps are implementing direct democracy and providing adequate space for open debate on each vote, voluntary voting so that only interested parties need vote. Opening up the media so that real information is allowed to flow, rather than the bs we have now.
On that topic (of democracy), I do not believe we, as in neither Australia nor the UK or US has democracy. Democracy is presupposed on the idea that people voting have the information they need to make a decision, and media manipulation has gotten to the point that we no longer have this.
Back onto economic theory, I have seen examples where capitalism has worked to a fair degree, such as Australia, Canada and Scandanavean countries in particular, but overall it does not work, corruption is rampant and people are starving. Also true of socialism, but socialism has not had nearly as much opportunity, particularly the democratic variety. It too has some examples of limited success, although admittedly more failure. For example, Cuba would have been country of third world poverty had it not been for their version of socialism, now you will not find Cubans starving or lacking in healthcare. On the other hand, they don't share in our level of freedom of speech, and for that reason, if for no other, theirs is not a fate I would be keen on sharing. If I were starving, however, I may think differently.
I have observed thought patterns of people who have lived under communism, and I can tell you: I do not like it.
I do not doubt what you say, at all, these criticisms make sense. I just want to point out that you are talking about an economic system in combination with a particular political system, most of what you criticise is about the political system. With the exception of 'why bother?' I imagine there would be a percentage of lazy people in a socialist system, just as there are in the capitalist system. But it means more in a socialist system, as by being lazy you are taking away from others. I don't see any reason why there can't be some fair method of punishment... curious what if anything was done about that and if not, why not? What are the barriers?
I don't think money is the only reason we work, we work for all sorts of reasons, recognition, pride in success, status, meaningfulness of your life after you have dies, meaningfulness of life generally, learning and applying learning to the real world, general wanting to do good, social pressure... that isn't to say everyone thinks along those lines...
Anyway, why socialism? Because the question is, which society is the best for humanity, in my eyes. I think we can safely count out facism. We can count out (for some reason the name has slipped my mind) the one where peasants are bound to the farms, and anarchy is really political not economic. (It would have to be based on some form of economics, an-com, an-cap, an-syd...). There are a number of quasi-socialistic economic theories which I will readily admit I am not well enough informed to discuss. There is capitalism..
Capitalism is set up with the whole structure geared towards competition. Particularly companies. Companies are particularly set up so that the human element is reduced, so that if they act outside of the wants of the shareholders they are 'bad' and the wants of the shareholders are ever increasing profits. If a rational human would avoid polluting a river, not so with a rational company, so long as the fine for polluting the same river is less than the cost of disposing waste thoughtfully.
The system is set up so that those with money are able to own things, thus earn money without any form of contributing, and those without need to sell their labour, thus contribute without being rewarded in the same bracket as those who contribute nothing. A nurse is paid less than a CEO. A builder is paid less than the person who is a property investor. A cleaner of an office is paid less than the person who owns the office and rents it out. The monetary value of a given job has nothing to do with its importance.
Anyway, at the end, my conclusion is that the socialist/democratic ideal is the best for humanity and the most rational. To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. The above is my short answer, my rant.
