Then in that case if they are using to leverage control, they would be shut down.

And in times when the state needs to control labor more intensely, they would begin programs that would probably begin programs and incentives to join into the work force in cases such as war, such as higher wages, war bonds, as well as mobiilizing the market to shift the majority of production to be sent to the military rather than the general population, so food stamps would begin to be issued in order to cut down on food waste that could be sent to the military, and to decrease costs of keeping their soldiers fit and ready for war, as well as having limits placed on what the population can acquire or use on specific items in order to cut down on waste of items, and to again, make it cheaper to send people to war.

What if the state cannot afford to pay its war labour higher wages?

Will they nationalise companies?

'Socialise'

Incentives cost lots of money, money which can be better spent.

Then they must find some other way to entice people into getting people to work in labor, let it be bonds that the government pays back later, or something different entirely.

And how will the government promises to make good on its bonds?

The more people are working the more money that should be generated, along with that at the end of the war the military will largely go down in costs so the government will no longer have to run any more programs that will take a large chunk out of the budget, with that the government *SHOULD* be able to make good on it's bonds.

Plus, with the soldiers returning from war the more money you can get from a very large amount of people coming back into the work force.

There's a pressure point here. The incentive of the government depends on its reputation to deliever on its promises. When the people lose confidence, there will be problems.

In that case if there is a threat that the population may no longer have any trust in the government's promises, then I believe there should be a *TEMPORARY* silence of freedom of speech, which is meant to reduce the possibility of the government becoming weak from fear.

Ignorance, truly is bliss.

I see this deteriorating into an socialist authoritarian state anyway.

The government repossess factories and weapons etc. that are working against its interests.

Selling out to foreign states etc.

Selling out to foreign countries?

I very much dislike the idea of selling out jobs to foreign countries just because it is cheaper.

Sure. If there is no confidence in ther government, companies are going to look elsewhere for support and capital.

If you put limits of profit, this will happen.

You have to build the wall (to keep them in).

https://youtu.be/EOnSh3QlpbQ

Then that is why the state must build confidence in it's population.

If it must become an authoritarian state to do so, then so be it.

Yes, and its confidence is completely decided by catering to the whims of the population, which is a losing battle.

You have to have an iron fist, and show the way, even if they do not like it.

Then that is what the government must do.

This is why I believe in a very strong government, because it will show the population the correct way, even if it is a rude awakening.

Personal interests like profit work against a strong government. Which is way it must move towards socialism, so no one can claim personal interests in profits. They must commit themselves to the state for full compliance and productivity.

It may not be clear now, but when shit hits the fan, it becomes the only way forward.

And then what happens when things calm down?

Things calm down when global capitalism is destroyed. The world population is educated. And then there is no more need for the state. But then the free market will not return, because man has learned to live without exploitation.

And why can't profit be beneficial to the state if done correctly?

Profit starts the cycle all over again.

There can be no profit. Ever.

Like I said, the free market I have in mind will be modified not to produce explotiation of the people, but to genuinely distribute not just essential resources, but also luxuries that people will get using currency.

Free market implies private ownership, which leads to competition, which leads to accrue of capital.

And to acquire resources, the population would use and do whatever they needed to, then would sell them to somewhere else where they may be perfected then sold again to be distributed.

All property must be publically owned.

How do you reasonably expect humans not to compete with each other?

Even if free market could somehow be used only for distribution, it is not very efficient.