> The beauty of Lange's argument is that it relies solely on the
> "bourgeois" economic theory to make the point - more precisely, on the
> claims of superior economic efficiency of the socialist system rather
> than on a moral imperative. As Lange himself would say, the problem
> with socialism is not economics but sociology - that is to say,
> socialism (public ownership + planning) can be more efficient in
> distributing resources than capitalism (private ownership + free
> market) but it faces a major obstacle in the form of power structure
> i.e. undemocratic governance that impedes good economic planning.
Agreed, Woj, but this masks an even more fundamental problem which I don't think Marxist and other serious left-wing thinkers have ever satisfactorily grappled with - to what extent does the mass of the population willingly abdicate responsibility to state, party, union, and other officials who, with very rare exceptions, would rather not have to submit their decision-making authority to popular control? I don't think coercion or repressive tolerance alone, or even mainly, explain undemocratic governance.
History shows that the masses will mobilize and act collectively when their physical security is threatened by war or natural disaster or when there is an (often related) economic collapse. But after the "heroic" early period of a movement or revolution passes, especially when the reform or change of regime is secured, the primacy of politics again gives way to private and family pursuits. Mass movements are exhausting and typically unfold in conditions of extreme hardship. The imperatives of survival quickly reassert themselves on an individual level, and yesterday's activists and revolutionaries are more apt to experience resentment rather than excitement when their attendance at mass meetings and related political obligations are still expected, this time to build support for the new order. This tendency to retreat is compounded by the confidence which the people vest in their new leaders, and is especially pronounced in the second and subsequent generations who are the beneficiary of the changes which have been won and who take them for granted. The reform impulse always exists either underground in repressive societies or channeled through bourgeois democratic electoral systems, but periodic manifestations of social protest are still very far removed from the ideal of democratic control which is purportedly the goal.
Do we have any historical examples of democratic control - that is, sustained direct mass participation in political life over generations - over the state and the owners or planners of the major means of production which would contradict the above?