Organizations are composed of individuals, thus prone to the exact same vices. The fallibility of the average individual can compound in an organization just as it is mitigated.
Every time in history we've found evidence of a State forming de novo, it's been predicated on a religious power, rather than a default condition people participate in. The State is not just the organic result of human behavior. Law in middle-age europe f.e. worked on a premise called Case Law, where instead of working under a pope or king, judges were trusted for their reputation and their rulings became common precedent; those who made rulings widely considered unfair were less trusted, while the rulings of trusted lawyers became precedent and law, and the general will fell into some code while regulating rogue actors but not requiring a single central authority. It was the church that resulted in consolidation of power towards modern states, because people entrusted it with so many of their tithes. This is an example of a more polycentric form of human self-regulation being practiced in history as a default, rather than something consciously manufactured, with the State only following later. The State has been in effect so long that we can't imagine a time where we had anything else, and so we assume it's necessary.
The State is not a utilitarian institution. No State in antiquity was justified on utilitarian grounds like we justify ours. The Indian caste system that dates to the ancient times could absolutely not be justified as being done "for the good" of the Untouchable class it mandated, it was justified on religious grounds. In reality, the utilitarian necessity of the State is the product of social inertia into a time when we no longer see validity in a theocratic power, but never knew anything but a State and forgot when we could function without it. The Athenians' choice of this freakish institution of "democracy" was predicated on the distrust of the Tyrant monarchs they overthrew; they never knew anything but a State, but still wanted as much personal autonomy as possible, so they chose a weird fusion of the two, where, mind you, the lobbying
that we see as a "hijacking" of democracy was openly accepted.
Most States exceed the Dunbar limit of human interaction, inhibiting their ability to self-regulate the way smaller communities can. This is part of why we see so many inefficiencies in them. Communism was a projection of our innate communitarian nature onto a large, imperial-scale State, which, in its allocative inefficiency and inability to self-regulate, created and perpetuated a ruling class within an intended socialist structure while causing even more deprivation for the lower classes.
Socialism is not a state institution. It's the equivalent of how a group of people will comport themselves if you take them on, say, a missionary trip. This projection of our communitarian nature onto a large state that is far too large to fit within the Dunbar limit is why "new deal"-style projects fail, because the contributors are alienated from the destination of their appropriated labor value.
This perfectly explains why both "socialism" and "capitalism" as we understand them only perpetuate inequity, because the projection of natural human behavior into this artificial construct of the State is taken for granted, and almost never questioned.
When a natural monopoly gains an advantage in a market and theoretically stifles competition, in practice this causes a relative spike in the stock that net industry has, causing investors to flock to that industry and make investments that stimulate competition; natural monopolies often create the conditions that result in their destruction. The concept of a natural monopoly itself is a recent idea and monopolies prior to that were almost always those granted
by a monarch to instill stability, so their kingdoms would not have to deal with the chaos inherent in competition.
In this sort of mixed-economy that we have, attempts to regulate the largest firms in an industry only result in these firms being able to bribe their regulators into protecting their own monopoly while punishing competition. While this is facilitated by the State, the effects of large monopolies prohibiting competition and ruining the general society for everyone else is inevitably blamed on the "free market," when the market is anything but that.
Now, with the world's present population, we could not survive without the output from modern agricultural technology we've relied on. Therefore, participation in this capitalist economy - where we work to pursue this abstract social institution of profit, instead of automatically following our communitarian drives and everyone naturally picking up for everyone - is inevitable. We couldn't survive without participating in the market and there's probably no substitute in sight.
But, what isn't
inevitable is this projection of our abstracted communitarian drives into this large quasi-religious industry of the State, one that's so large that it's inherently alienated from the people sustaining it.
This is why so many people who self-identify as "socialists" inevitably come from classes that are alienated from the real struggles workers face, because they fail to recognize the State itself as part of the problem; it's just assumed the State is a means to the end of equity, not the hindrance it is. The State is too big to be altruistic and faith in its altruism is folly.
We are not capitalist, and we are not socialist. We are this monstrous hybrid, where a religious institution that controls our access to force is run like a monopoly, whilst we project our natural social cohesion and communitarian drives onto it, and the result is this mangled hydra that is none of these things. If someone wanted the workers to get closer to their means of production, they wouldn't endorse this inefficient gateways-system that forces us to rely on monopolies for employment, and makes it impossible to start your own businesses.
This post was edited by its author on .