>OK, Brett, so you think the historical evidence is that socialism will
>fetter rather than unfetter the forces of production, and that technical
>innovation and a high level of material well being is incompatible with
>egalitarianism? Have you thought of applying for a position as a WSJ
>editorial page writer? --jks
The historical evidence is that industrial society, even agricultural civilizations, have always been socially and economically stratified. At the very least this suggests that overlaying a radically new social order on top of industry will be a gigantic challenge, not easily carried off.
And from what I've seen of your posts, you don't believe egalitarianism is compatible with moder industry either, since you argue that wage differentials (which lead naturally to differences in social status and power) are needed to provide incentives for efficient production.
I go back and forth on this question. Right at the moment I'm pessimistic that we can retain modern industry and achieve socialism. I hope that I'm wrong - I would rather not give up modern plumbing, access to antibiotics or the ability to fly back to Chicago to see my family. What I do want to see is a society in which people only produce things they consider worth the time and effort to create. My hunch is that a lot of the work that goes on today will disappear under those conditions. Maybe not right at first, since people are so habituated to their current lives, but as new possibilities start to sink in things could change significantly.
Nor does this strike me as necessarily bad. What's wrong with a lower tech, but freer and more equal, society? Technology never has been, and never will be, a magic bullet. As tech advances, we still work as hard, sometimes even harder (see Schor's _The Overworked American_). We never get any more free time out of it, supposedly our most scarce resource. If we did, it would mean producing less. If we remove the profit imperative, maybe we'll find we don't want to work very much after all.
Brett