For some reason, I cannot seem to wrap my mind around this chapter, so this is my pre-apology for any terribleness that arises in my post.
In my view, socialism is a great idea for bettering the greater good. However, it often operates at the expense of the individual. Accordingly, post-war British socialism, just like many other socialist regimes, did not prosper all that much. While I do commend the Fabian Society’s approach of gradualism, I still retain my belief that any institution that imposes a fair amount of unnecessary control over a market will ultimately cause that market to fail. For instance, the Soviet Union. Now although post-war British socialism attempted to incorporate capitalism into its agenda, it nonetheless hoped for the eventual goal of state ownership of the means of production, which completely conflicts with capitalist ideals. In the end, Fabian concepts resulted in market deterioration and not growth. Here it is wise to note that when regulations were lifted from Germany’s markets, prices lowered and prosperity was reintroduced back into the market. It is therefore my conclusion that socialism does not work as well as free markets do and that it, socialism, should not, seeing as how it denies an individual the ability to willingly seek their comparative advantage. Yes, regulation is beneficial in a plethora of sectors and, yes, that is in regards to both the consumers and the producers. Unfortunately, when taken to an extent that can be labeled socialism, control simply turns into overbearing and restrictive power.