EDIT: Nevermind the e-mail, CDB. I respect your knowledge, but you and I are diametrically opposed in certain areas; this is one of them! So, the below is pretty much what I have to say!
In point of fact it does. If you do not own yourself, the individual being the most basic unit of the means of production or the ultimate capital good, then the only other possible options are: ownership by another; oligarchal ownership in which the individual may or may not have some quotal share of ownership in themselves. There simply are no other options.
Collectivization in no way implies a collectivization of the primary capital good, but the collectivization of the aggregate social capital [fixed, flow, however one wishes to choose to define the means or production]. This in no way predicts a lack of self-ownership as you imply here - de facto or otherwise. I discuss the necessary product of collectivization below, though.
And so, the collectivized ownership of the means of production does not, in fact, imply proxy ownership of the capacity to work in indefinite terms. It means only that the course of production is determined at the level of macroeconomy, but the contract is not forcefully ensured against the laborer's will at the level of the micro-economy. That is slavery, not Socialism; they are not the same process.
There is a bit of red-herring at foot here: the immediate logical jump from self-ownership to lack of self-ownership, and then the deconstruction of the forms of organization which would be adherent thereto. Initial writings of the [empirio-scientific] Socialist project suggest a democratic worker's state. Now, as you mention below, this becomes difficult in direct representation as it is highly impractical on the macro-level; however, neither does a President, for example, phone each one of his constituents whom voted for him individually so that they may forward their opinion on the country's operation - it is the purpose of "constituent agency" and democracy as a whole to address this issue of representation via election. Does a party own one after voting for them? Of course not, you vote for them to represent your interests by proxy. A centralized control of the means of production is not de jure ownership of the variable capital adherent thereto.
Unfortunately, and as you know, Marx was painfully vague in this regard, but the writings of Mandel expand on the democratic Socialist state further [see: From Stalinism to Eurocommunism.]. The overlaying political structure must
necessarily be direct-democracy in a certain stratified fashion, so that the "worker's state" can be enacted both effectively and practically.
It is the ultimate result of socialism. Socialism can't help but break down to oligarchic rule as any other method of organization is impractical; it would be impossible to run a steel plant if every move within the plant required every person in the collective cast their quotal ownership vote. Oligarchy becomes the means of management. Even though benevolent oligarchal rule is possible, the end result is ownership and allocation of the means of production by one group at the default expense of another. The level at which this is exercised is largely irrelevant.
Bureaucratic oligarchies have characterized "actually existing socialism" thus far, this is correct; however, as I say, interpreting the collectivization of the means or production as slavery is a misinterpretation of both terms. Slavery as a concept defines three things that a pure socialist system does not: an exclusively controlled distribution of return to only one party in the productive relationship; a unilateral ownership and control of the means of production, and; as we have discussed, proxy ownership of the labor good itself via coercion. No such elements exist in a socialist system.
Further, oligarchy immediately implies an absence of democratic representation. Again, not present in system aside from those predicated on market despotism. Unfortunately, the socialist project has yet to determine a mechanism by which functional representation of a worker's state could be practically realized. The so-called, "Trotskyist" school of neo-Marxists in addition to Mandel are large proponents of agglomerated unions at the parliamentary level in order to overcome the oligarchial tendency within "actually existent socialism" thus far. The book I speak about above describes such systems.
Even if the oligarchy only claims 'ownership' over the actual tools used in production, this necessarily limits the freedom of any individual to produce for themselves and engage in voluntary trade with others. It is a de facto if not de jure claim of ownership over the person themselves.
Again, if the transfer of labor power is vis-a-vis voluntary contract, than self-ownership remains predominant - I am not assuming direction of production to be ownership. For example, if a Capitalist hat maker employs me, I am given license to operate his means of production, in accordance with his goals, in exchange for my labor magnitude at a set quantity determined by the availability of my [...type of...] labor good and other market factors [i.e., a wage]. I am free to move elsewhere, and the employer does not own my physical body, only the products of it. In Socialism, the process would be the same, except that this capital is redistributed in the sphere of exchange in a manner that deliberately tends toward equality [at the price of productivity] which I describe below.
The exact same limitation of freedom exists necessarily in a capitalist system, though, if one chooses to interpret "work" in the manner you do. In both systems, the worker does not directly appropriate his own value save for in subsistence economies [i.e., Feudalism or crude Agrarian states]. He only realizes the value of his labor in a greater sphere of exchange, itself predicated on the appropriation of the value of more labor power still. And aside from the so-called "petty bourgeois", he does not control the means of production [save for his own physical body], nor the purpose of his "work".
In each system, the laborer is free to use his labor-power in the manner he so chooses: in Capitalism, he must adhere to the goals of production which are negotiated and maintained on a firm-by-firm basis; in Socialism, the goals of production are maintained centrally. Central planning does not suggest "one worker, one job", however. So, if we assume the de-facto slavery-esque quality to Socialism that you claim, the same process exists in Capitalism just, as I said, in differing degrees of central organization. There is also nothing in the primary works of the Socialist project to suggest that subsistence labor on the micro-level would be forbidden, or that the voluntary contract as-a-whole is abolished; quite the opposite, in fact. Again, if we are debating actually existent "Socialism" [it is not, but, I digress] I do agree with much of what you have said.
In the hat example, I would not decide which hats to make, when to make them, how to make them or which colour they are, no matter if it was Socialist or Capitalist; if I disliked the type of hats being made and/or the wage-bill I command for my work, I could go elsewhere. This process is repeated in either system.
No, they don't. Nothing in capitalism, aside from rosy pictures painted by proponents, guarantees or assumes anything. 'Access' often depends on means, all capitalism guarantees is that means are best improved, supply increased, through private voluntary exchange.
I am not sure how you interpreted "access" in the context I used it, but "free access" to the voluntary contract must exist for Capitalism to exist. Not entirely sure how you interpreted "access" in this context.
It does not guarantee equality. In fact inequality is at its core.
Typo, as equality was meant to say, "equilibrium".
Access by definition in capitalism is unequal.
Again, it appears you interpreted "access" to mean equal access to the goods of production.
No one this one two. Socialism assumes capacity is unequal and thus the differentiation between contributing according your abilities and taking according your needs. If ultimate ownership of the capacity were assumed socialism could not establish any legal framework for forcing anyone to work at a rate other than that for which they voluntarily contracted. Capitalism depends on, but does not assume the ultimate ownership of one's capacity to work. The ability to work is technically alienable, and thus tradable.
Socialism regards the ability to objectify the capacity to work [i.e., to
actually labor] as a magnitude, but regards "capacity to work" as an abstract universal quality. As such, the reduction you quoted above is realized in the sphere of exchange, and not on the level of micro-contract, as each would [...theoretically...] be payed a wage according to the universal 'capacity to work', and contribute in a magnitude defined by their physical person - i.e., from each according to capacity, to each according to needs. In this manner, productivity is
necessarily sacrificed at the expense of equality. The philosophical recognition of capacity must be universal and equal, CDB, that is the categorical definition of Socialism itself. Problems obviously arise in regard to relativizing this abstract quality to some predetermined quantitative magnitude, though. (I.e., how would one set a universal wage-bill for a given occupation?)
I see your motivation for saying this is slavery, insofar as this process described above means some are laboring for less than their worth in the context of the immediate exchange - as I said, though, this means that a Socialist framework would need to normalize this parasitic relationship in the sphere of exchange so that the overall distribution of the resultant social capital tends toward equality. (Universal provision of health care, education, infrastructure and so on at the expense of the immediate capital gain enacted through voluntary contract, in other words.)
So, a legal framework to enforce the contract would not, then, be based on forcing individual laborers to work involuntarily beyond their means, but; would attempt to normalize the loss of the potential for individual gain in a manner that resulted in an equalized, though lessened [...potential...] standard of living. Thus, to express the point in more simple terms, the only practical legal framework
would be a parliamentary Socialistic approach, described above, founded on two principle ideas: large nationalization of strategic and necessary industries [energy, telecommunications, infrastructure] and a parliamentary government based fundamentally on labor compacts.
Countries demonstrative of this approach, again, sacrifice the possibility for
potential standard of living for a higher absolute
average-actual standard of living. In this regard, Norway's nationalized approach to key industries is an exemplar: it has one of the consistently highest PPP averages, has a large proportion of millionaires, high standard of living, and universal health care/education. Despite Norway's incredibly high proportion of millionaires in nominal dollars, the taxation system on all commodity types and earnings tends to curb this trend toward equality on a systemic scale. The results have been discussed.
Finally, the productive capacity of the macroeconomy is thus obviously less in a Socialist economy as a function of equality - i.e., maybe there is only Honda and Civic, no Rolls Royce, but everybody has a fully functioning version of the former two. But, this is not to suggest that a Parliamentary Socialist system need be undemocratic and/or contain a small proportion of total goods
to access [again see: Norway]. Which ideological set you privilege, however, depends on whether or not you feel Rolls Royces [using these as an example] serve a valid philosophical role in man's life. From what I glean from you, they serve no purpose save for validating the ultimate right of free choice at the expense of equality. Myself, on the other hand, is willing to sacrifice Rolls Royces to provide Universal Health Care and education, for example.
The worker has no representation in capitalism except to the extent he helps determine demand.
Yes, exactly - i.e., representation through the economic process.
Nope again. Theoretically socialism can not work. It suffers from systemic and philosophical problems. Philosophically man must be rewired for it to work, systemically even if that rewiring were possible the systemic problems of resource allocation absent a pricing mechanism. Systemically capitalism works fine and is self regulating. Philosophically man's propensity to steal through various means needs to be dealt with.
Crude Socialism as a form of exchange seems to pervade history, but; as I say below, the operation of a pure socialist system on the scale of the micro scale/community is antithetical to the practical operation of the macroeconomy. As a reaction, bureaucratic oligarchy is enacted to direct production and remove self-ownership. Again, this is not Socialism. Can it work on the level of the modern macroeconomy? No, probably not.
Theoretical or practical, the problems with socialism are two fold, the problems with capitalism aren't. Man's propensity to steal, specifically through state means, is what needs to be dealt with and limited. To date the means of limitation has been revolution. Not ideal, but workable in the short term.
Man steals no matter from each other or the state - a complete lack of regulation necessarily predicts coercion in the temporary, particularly on the level of the micro-firm [though entire markets do not tend toward coercion - it is impractical]. Again, we come back to the contradiction of either system in regard to the interaction of the micro and macroeconomy, and the introduction of government regulation in varying magnitudes to "correct" these issues. What is good for a pure Capitalist macroeconomy is precisely what does not, and never would occur on the level of the micro-firm, unfortunately. Both systems necessitate a man-in-general that does not exist, unfortunately.
To expand, a self-regulating, perfect Capitalist system assumes [edit: depends upon] a lack of certain fundamental characteristics of man: manipulation, coercion, and the application of force [whether physical or intellectual]. Again, on the level of the individual firm Capitalism's logic contradicts with its systemic operation. Pure Capitalism is impossible for precisely the same reasons as a pure Socialist system: they both suffer from issues endemic to their nature, because they suffer from issues endemic to human nature.
Finally, Marxism's fatal flaw, as regard by Sowell, is the not that it tends toward despotism and/or oligarchy in-and-of-itself, but that it fails to predict its manipulation so. As you said, the issue is not endemic to Socialism, but endemic to man's predisposition to organize in certain institutions. When even Sowell accords this consideration to Marx's work, I am sure you can muster the same. I feel you are conflating "actually existing Socialism" with the philosophical bases of Socialism, and presenting the two criticisms unilaterally.
