"Master plans have two additional unhealthy characteristics. To begin with, the existence of a master plan alienates the users ... After all, the very existence of a master plan means, by definition, that the members of the community can have little impact on the future shape of their community, because most of the important decisions have already been made. In a sense, under a master plan people are living with a frozen future, able to affect only relatively trivial details. When people lose the sense of responsibility for the environment they live in, and realize that they are merely cogs in someone else’s machine, how can they feel any sense of identification with the community, or any sense of purpose there?"
Here's a fine description of my despair under socialism. sigh
This is a common misconception, linking socialism with top-down bureaucratic control (what is this passage really is about).
from google define:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
In my opinion "regulation by the community" is what is important, eg. there are private coops. This regulation is consensus-driven by the workers and people involved, direct action, locality etc.., it's not bad at all, on the contrary you feel more connected.
I get a 403 on this link. The running theme is that Guy Steele avoids using multi-syllable terms in the talk without defining them first. Getting only the slides dampens the impact a lot. Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0
