The Inevitable Road to Serfdom: Why Managed Equality Fails and Leads to Tyranny

The dream of a perfectly equitable society—whether pursued through the revolutionary fervor of Communism or the gradualist "Fabian" approach of social democracy—ultimately collides with a singular, immovable wall: human nature. While movements like the Fabians or Social Democrats believe they can steer society toward fairness through central planning and "local efficiency," history warns that removing individual agency is the first step toward totalitarianism.

The Paradox of Central Planning

Modern socialist thought often mirrors the management error of "100% utilization." Just as an organization that optimizes every second of a secretary’s day loses the "slack" needed for innovation, a state that attempts to optimize all resources loses the "slack" required for freedom.

As Margaret Thatcher famously argued, once the state begins to direct the economy to achieve social justice, it must inevitably suppress dissent. To ensure a central plan works, the planners cannot allow individuals to "change lanes" or deviate from the script. This is why Thatcher maintained that socialism leads to a dictatorship; when the government controls the means of subsistence, it gains the power of life and death over its citizens.

The Lessons of the Communist World

The rise of Communism was a reaction to the industrial revolution's excesses. However, the transition from theory to practice revealed a fatal flaw: a total misjudgment of human nature.

• Lenin established the principle that "party discipline is higher than democracy and human rights," justifying any means to reach a political end.

• Stalin weaponized this through "The Great Purge," using terror and thought control to consolidate an absolute one-party dictatorship.

• Mao Zedong institutionalized class struggle, leading to political movements like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions and the destruction of social ethics.

Why Gradualism Fails: The "New Class"

Even in non-revolutionary socialist models, a fundamental corruption occurs. Milovan Djilas, known as the "Prophet in the Communist World," observed that once these systems succeed, they inevitably birth a "New Class". This bureaucracy becomes more oppressive and corrupt than the capitalists they replaced.

When we sacrifice "Slack in Control"—the right of the individual to choose their own path—for the sake of state-mandated efficiency, we lose the very innovation and responsiveness that keep a society alive. A society forced to be "busy" following a central plan is a society merely repeating yesterday’s mistakes, eventually collapsing under the weight of its own rigidity.

Omakase Is Expensive Central Planning — A Socialist System in the Kitchen

 

Omakase Is Expensive Central Planning — A Socialist System in the Kitchen

Omakase, the famed Japanese “chef’s choice” dining experience, is far more than a meal. It’s a high-end, curated, top-down menu where every course, ingredient, and serving order is dictated by a single authority: the chef. In that sense, omakase is not just a culinary style — it’s a microcosm of central planning, echoing the logic of a socialist economy, where a central planner decides what is produced, how much is produced, and who gets it.

Picture this: a small, exclusive restaurant, perhaps ten seats around a counter. The chef, like a kitchen Commissar, plans every course days in advance. There is no à la carte menu. No choice of main dish. You don’t order; you obey. The chef decides what fish is served, what rice is cooked, and what condiments are matched. The diner is not a consumer, but a participant in a tightly controlled, state-like system.

This is the socialism of fine dining. The chef is the central planner, setting prices, rationing supply, and allocating portions with precision. The menu is fixed, availability is limited, and deviation is not allowed. The only thing missing is the rice coupon and the People’s Canteen.

In fact, the logic is scarily similar. In a socialist economy, the state determines what food is produced, how much is available, and who gets how much. There’s no free market of choices; instead, there’s a planned distribution according to ideological or bureaucratic priorities. In omakase, the chef plays the same role: the “ideology” is culinary perfection, and the “bureaucracy” is the kitchen hierarchy. The only currency is money (and reservations), but the mechanism is the same: planned allocation, rationed portions, no returns, no substitutions.

Compare this to a market-style izakaya or a Western restaurant. There, customers choose what to eat, when to eat, and how much to spend. Prices adjust with supply and demand. Chefs may offer specialties, but the diner is sovereign. In omakase, that sovereignty is surrendered. The diner pays a premium not just for ingredients, but for the privilege of being told what to eat — much like a citizen in a planned economy pays for access to the state’s rationed goods.

The “pro’s rice coupon” is the reservation system. In many elite sushi-ya, getting a seat is like obtaining a ration card: it’s scarce, often allocated to insiders or loyal regulars, and sometimes traded at a premium. The “People’s Canteen” is the omakase counter itself: a place where everyone gets the same meal, served in the same order, with no customization. The only difference is class: some sit in the “premium” section for a higher price, while others get the “standard” set — a hierarchy of access, just like in a socialist system.

So the next time you sit at an omakase counter, remember: you’re not just having dinner. You’re experiencing a luxury version of central planning, where the chef is the planner, the menu is the plan, and your wallet is the ticket to the state dinner. Delicious? Yes. Expensive? Very. But also, deeply, darkly socialist.

---