Socialism under a benign bourgeoisie?

This is a spillover thread to accomodate a tangent from this thread. The purpose is basically to discuss potential reforms of the unfortunate system necessitated by the reality of human greed. Special thanks to SpecAgentDW for making the post that inspired this probably misguided but still potentially worthwhile chain of though. Afterall, early in the process of creation, one is better off to entertain the absurd, and later nitpick the hell out of it until he has adjusted it into something of potential value.

To be completely honest- special thanks also to a certain distillery in Kentucky, whose product has suspended my inhibitions to the point that I am conducting this thought process in public, rather than in the confines of my own mind, from whence it would never otherwise escape until I were almost completely sure that I was right.
So without further ado...



Spec's view is a fairly close parallel to mine, in that I do consider force to be the bottom line of all government at one level or another, and that the fatal flaw of any attempt to change is that human greed seems impossible to eliminate and will corrupt every attempt at reform sooner or later, and therefore benign dictatorship is probably the closest thing to perfect government that humans in their current stage of mental and moral evolution are capable of. These benign dictatorships, tend to be very short-lived unfortunately, and I have very little realistic hope for solving this particular problem, although I will mention a rather fleeting hope that a bourgeoisie ruling class could be enticed to limit the depth of their exploitation by the promise of stability in their positions; in effect creating an odd reversal of revolutionary dynamics whereby the rank and file are decieving the revolutionary leaders for popular gain.

We can, however, do much better as individuals, communities, nations, and humans as a whole at pursuing our greed in somewhat inclusive ways, rather than the mutually exclusive way which often creates unnecessary wars and economic exploitation.

Force, while it is the supreme arbitor, comes in many packages. Nuclear strikes, mechanized combined arms assaults, bar brawls, economic pressure, lies, etc.
As you go up the force continuum, you find the acts easier to accomplish but less precise and effective in their results. If you whip a man enough, he may pick your cotton, but if you offer him green paper of zero intrinsic value, he will invent polyester. Therefore, peaceful change through force is not only possible, but preferable, despite the difficulty of managing it.

The idea with which I am toying currently is, in a nut shell, that through allowance of profits limited just slightly above what statistically justifies the calculated risks, by treating peace, allies, strategic strength, and the prosperity of others as commodities which can be purchased through investment in other nations, through using the threat of force, rather than bribery, as the primary instrument of securing peace and safety from potentially hostile nations, in order to divert those "bribery" funds and sweetheart deals towards the encouragement of third nations to join in the economic investment towards peace described earlier, and through a state-organized policy of barring non-vital trade which does not serve BOTH participants, that a large amount of the conflict generated by the current system might be diminished, though certainly not to the exclusion of potential hostilities or unfairness.

I know I'm being putting this in a confusing way, so let me boil it down if I can. Basically what I am suggesting is that a quasi-socialist nation such as America and the EU at this point, or in the near future, perhaps China and India, which accepts the reality that it will sometimes have to exploit for its own survival, and sometimes have to destroy those who would seek to exploit it or others, could through bribery and coercion potentially regulate exploitation and force for their own benefit in a limited way as creates a net increase in quality of life for most others as well, and surpasses the attractiveness of current unrestrained exploitation because of the potential stability that might be achieved if such a system survived its first few decades.

Wow... this really isn't going to work at all, even if anybody does understand a word I've said. Screw it though, sometimes it's fun to be wrong if it generates good thinking from others or from my future sober self, so i'll click post before I chicken out.