Trahison Des Clercs

Socialism just means a state of affairs wherein some form of social ownership is the rule rather than the exception. (Communism, in contrast, refers to a specific type and level of socialism wherein the entire public owns everything.) It can be socially libertarian or not. For instance, I consider myself largely a social liberal, but not libertarian. The hardcore libertarian believes only in negative liberty (freedom from state-imposed oppressions, e.g. freedom of speech and assembly). I, on the other hand, believe that the maximum liberation is achieved by way of combining the right amount of that with the right amount of positive liberty (freedom from spontaneous oppressions, e.g. the constitutional ban on slavery). Sometimes freedom is best advanced by imposing rules, frankly. I consider myself thus a believer in a certain amount of social engineering.

Further, democracy and libertarianism are not the same thing. Many libertarians oppose democracy because they believe it negates the will of each individual by way of collectivizing the decision-making process. I am reminded of something BleedingHeadKen wrote some time ago over the libertarian social group. He argued at one point that democracy is an "inefficient" form of "central planning". I am not an individualist. As a communist, I believe in collective ownership and in collective decision-making.

The post is about socialism's economic nature. The important aspect is the focus on efficiency, rather than equity. Communism is bobbins stuff on a par with 'free market capitalism'. A myth used to ensnare the desperately optimistic

If by "efficiency" you mean results, then I'm kinda sorta with you. I also find much of the radical socialist movement (communists and democratic socialists) to be too dogmatic, idealist, and formulaic. Indeed I am widely considered to be on the more "moderate/right wing" end of the communist spectrum of debate and often find myself frustrated by the naivete of my comrades concerning the viability of the electoral route, the point of pursuing reforms, the ridiculous political model of the one-party state on the one hand and of total direct democracy on the other, and so on. But even I feel that a one-sided focus on "efficiency" is realistically going to lead you off the deep end to an embrace of austerity and privatization/impoverishment-of-masses mentality like the right wing "Socialist Parties" of Greece and Spain have embraced (at the cost that their members are deserting to more left wing parties). Socialism needs a moral component...the ability to empathize...to remain socialism, and socialist morality is inevitably egalitarian in nature. I believe that collectivists should focus on practical results on the one hand and moral principles on the other in an even-handed way. When we do this, the two things mutually reinforce one-another, I believe. Socialism is about meeting the needs of both people and nature, setting all on a livable and sustainable path. It is not about saving the 1% money that they mostly stole in the first place.

A moral component? That won't deliver a feasible economic paradigm. That will typically lead to excessive grumbling over what we already have. The focus on economic efficiency is a crucial aspect of delivering something feasible. We get a two tiered approach. First, an appreciation of the continued importance of individualism (i.e. whilst worker ownership will be the norm, we still need firm creation and therefore the imagination of the individual). Second, a labour economic appreciation of the available productivity gains (leading to both an appreciation of how equity and efficiency are linked plus how the pie increases through the protection of 'the value of our labour' property rights)

Is there a more or less definite economic program you're proposing here, corresponding to this orientation?

(I'm not necessarily suggesting agreement or disagreement.)

I'm a market socialist. That details the importance of property rights (I.e. Eliminating the theft of labour value) but also the means to avoid the problems generated by socialist calculation.

See post-hayekian socialism by the likes of Burczak