Open Letter to Justin Trudeau

You contradicted yourself.
You say “no” to the statement “Thus one main tenet of socialism is centralized control & planning.”,
But then state “Planning is always necessary under any system”

If “Planning is always necessary under any system”, then planning is necessary under “socialism”.
You cannot possibly have planning without some structure to that planing.
And you cannot account for the needs of all members of a social structure without central planning of that social structure.

You can’t it both ways.

The concept of the “free market” also includes elements of planning, but one that is not centrally planned/coordinate.
Planning is done on individual levels, and is therefore subject to the lack of accounting for the needs of all members of a social structure.

It is impossible for a “socialist” system to operate without central planning.
Otherwise you have several different problematic scenarios:
• More goods/services produced than are necessary for a society.
• Too few goods/services produced than are necessary for a society.
• Too few goods/services produced to maintain the needs of a society.
• Certain segments of a society that receive more than other.
• Growth of competition, but in only certain sectors (different industrial & economic sectors will never all be equal with one another, thus there must exist some method to meet the inequitable demand, and provide adequate levels of supply), thus either/or/and more use, more waste, more excess, more scarcity, etc.

Plus, the “needs” of one person are not the same as the needs of another.
And when you don’t have equality of all facets of different lives, you cannot guarantee equality of resources provided.
Thus people will always think others are getting more than they.
And therefore disagreements over value of good/services received will always be a divisive issue.

A group of people will NEVER always agree on everything.
Thus some method of organization must be instilled to resolve disputes.

Just because you foolishly believe “You can have market planned socialism”, doesn’t make that statement true.
Because you can’t.
All you end up with is a corrupted version (mere phraseology) of the ideology.

The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is often widely considered to have been a form of market-based socialism, and yet there was state oversight dictating wage bills and the hiring and firing of managers.

In practice, the appointment of managers and the strategic policies of composite organizations were, depending on their size and importance, often subject to political and personal influence-peddling.

In that version of “giving all employees the same access to decision-making”, a “basic organisation of associated labor were also applied to public services, including health and education. The basic organizations were usually made up of no more than a few dozen people and had their own workers’ councils, whose assent was needed for strategic decisions and appointment of managers in enterprises or public institutions.”
I.e. – Central planning.

Unemployment was also a chronic problem for Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and it held amongst the highest levels of unemployment in Europe.

In fact, every single supposed example of “free market socialism” has had “leaders”, and/or central authority.
I.e. central control & planning.
Those “leaders” and/or central authorities don’t exist just for fun.

You will never get a large group of people to all agree on everything.
And that is the largest problem with the theory of both “socialism” and supposed “market socialism” (which just doesn’t exist).

You need to work harder to tear yourself from unrealistic idealism, and learn to deal with realism.

Interestingly, those most often crying for “absence of private property/wage labour and exploitation of man by man.”, are often those most apt to acquire more for themselves, via exploitation of others.

Let me ask you, are you freely giving away all your excess money to those without clean water, or adequate shelter, or enough food, or clean clothing?
Are you willing to do without a computer, cell phone, car, home, pricey clothes, trendy shoes, television, running water, and other “excesses” (relative to those with next to nothing) for the sake of others?

If you say “yes” you’re a total hypocrite.

There are some 600-700 million people living in extreme poverty.
So, put your money where your mouth is, be willing to live an impoverished life to give those with less, more.

I challenge you to start a business, hire numerous employees, and effectively run & manage that business giving every single one of those employees absolute equal roles, status, pay, participation, etc.
Do it, and prove me wrong.
There will always be disagreements.

It always amuses me when people claim that humans can always engage in fair treatment of all other humans, but then simultaneously complain of certain humans taking advantage of other humans.
That is exactly why central planning is an absolute requirement of any social structure that claims to meet the needs of all members of that society.
Certain people will always look to get more for themselves.
But most people can never recognize that greed & tendencies for exploitation in themselves.

Guaranteed some of what you own, wear, eat & such are produced by those with far less than you.
Thus you are exploiting those other people.

JUDGE THYSELF, FIRST!

Examples of supposed “free market socialism”:

Goulash communism in Hungary, led by János Kádár.
János Kádár. had to control the state and force the peace. He did this through violence, he had his government imprison or execute protesters. There were even mass shootings of people, in the end he was responsible for hundred of deaths. After having quelled the uprising Kádár and his government realised they had to create a major break from the past regime of Mátyás Rákosi. Their goal was a “soft dictatorship”.

The government created the Central Committee, which allowed (i.e. “permitted”) small numbers of “private” businesses.
Which is exactly what give rise to cronyism & corporate corruption.

Hence hardly free of exploitation.

Kádár’s legacy remains disputed in Hungary. Supporters of Kádár argue that the Kádár era was one of peace and stability with widespread job security and robust social protections for average people. Others argue that although Kádár increased the standard of living for Hungarians, and instituted broad liberalization, the country was still fundamentally a dictatorship and a Soviet satellite state.
Polls indicate that nostalgia for the Kádár era remains widespread in Hungary. According to a 2020 poll carried out by Policy Solutions in Hungary, 54 percent of Hungarians believe most people had a better life under Kádár, compared to 31 percent who say life for most people was worse under Kádár.

And though this poll shows more support for Kádár’s policies & results than not, it demonstrates that a group of people will NEVER agree.
Thus trying to account for & maintain for the need of every member of an entire society, without massive central control & planning, is absolutely impossible.

Kádár was known for his simple and modest lifestyle and avoided the self-indulgence persona of other Communist leaders.
But Kádár was known as an avid hunter (hunting for sport used to be an aristocratic hobby before 1945 in Hungary and this pattern continued during the Communist era when it became a cherished pastime and occasion for the new elite to informally socialize and to get drunk), and was a member of an exclusive hunting association made up by Party leaders and other dignitaries.

Hardly a sign of equality.

Titoism in Yugoslavia was a political philosophy most closely associated with Josip Broz Tito.
The League of Communists of Yugoslavia retained solid power; the legislature did little more than rubber stamp decisions already made by the LCY’s Politburo. The secret police, the State Security Administration (UDBA), while operating with considerably more restraint than its counterparts in the rest of Eastern Europe, was nonetheless a feared tool of government control.

The media remained under restrictions that were onerous by Western standards.

As the President, Tito had access to extensive (state-owned) property associated with the office and maintained a lavish lifestyle.

Trudeau and ” leader” is an oxymoron. Trudeau is nothing more than a frontman for the globalists.