The End of Socialism JAMES R. OTTESON JOINT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND ECONOMICS CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY YESHIVA UNIVERSITY
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The End of Socialism
JAMES R. OTTESONJOINT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND ECONOMICS
CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY
Socialism: cooperation, sharing, altruism, equality.
Capitalism: competition, hoarding, selfishness, inequality.
Socialism: community in affection.
Capitalism: atomization from greed and fear.
G. A. Cohen on Socialism vs. Capitalism
Grapes Sour and Sweet
• Capitalism is feasible.• (Short run only?)
• But perhaps socialism is “infeasible.”• So what?• Sweet grapes on a high branch means … sour grapes?• No: infeasibile ≠ undesirable.
1. Is socialism infeasible?2. Is socialism morally attractive?
◦ “Moral shabbiness of market motivation.”◦ “The market is intrinsically repugnant.”◦ “Every market … is a system of predation.”
Two Separate Claims:
“Socialism”: ◦Centralized organization and planning◦Common or public ownership of property◦ Equality
“Capitalism”:◦Decentralized organization, non-centrally-planned markets◦ Private ownership of property◦ Inequality
Not “liberty” or “justice”:◦ LibertyS and LibertyC; JusticeS and JusticeC.
◦ Let us beg no questions.
Preliminary Note on Terms
Now-standard answer: Yes, it is infeasible. Runs afoul of (1) human nature and (2) human condition. Human nature:◦ Limitations of human knowledge.◦ Self-interest and limited benevolence; status.◦ Territoriality (“natural” private property?).◦ Value pluralism.
Human condition:◦ Scarcity, mutually incompatible allocations of resources, conflict.◦ Competition, striving, happiness.
Conclusions: Socialism …◦ Requires an impractical altruism and sharing.◦ Would lead to underproduction, deprivation. ◦ Would lead to strife and division, enervation, unhappiness.
Question 1: Is Socialism Infeasible?
Infeasibility Argument is stronger than one might think.◦Must be faced squarely, not ignored.
Nevertheless not enough. Many moral codes require impossible ideals.◦Kant’s Categorical Imperative◦ “WWJD?”
Socialism’s strongest argument?◦Consider Plato’s argument about the kallipolis in the Republic.
The End of the Discussion?
Impracticality by itself does not defeat an ideal. An ideal is not defeated … unless:
1. Involves use of immoral means or policies, or2. Makes people worse off than otherwise.
Note: a disjunct, not a conjunct. “Immoral means”: define non-controversially. “Worse off”: beyond some low but clear threshold. ◦Mencken’s definition of “Puritanism” not sufficient.
Impracticality and Ideals
Not “theft”: question-begging. But: ◦ Imprisonment of not-proved-guilty◦ Murder of not-proved-guilty◦ Forced labor and slavery◦ Forced starvation◦ Torture of noncombatants
These are non-controversially immoral. (Right?) Universal practices? Over last ~100 years, higher in “socialist” states.
Experience with Socialism: Immoral Means?
V. I. Lenin (1917-24): 4,017,000 dead.
Joseph Stalin (1929-53): 42,672,000 dead.
From 1917-87, the Soviet Union killed some 62 million people—more than twice as many as killed during 400 years of brutal African slave trade.
Consider: Lenin and Stalin
1927-76 (incl. guerilla period): 77,000,000 dead.
For comparison: Hitler, 1933-45:
21,000,000.
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot 1968-87: 2,397,000 dead. Most lethal murderer in
twentieth century:◦ 1975-9: killed 8% of
population annually.◦ Khmer Rouge killed 31% of
all men, women, and children in Cambodia.
◦ The odds of surviving: 2.2 to 1.
(Pol Pot died peacefully in 1998 after a one-year house arrest.)
Remember: impracticality does not defeat an ideal … unless:1. Involves use of immoral means or policies, or2. Makes people worse off than otherwise.
Claim: immoral means and policies have been implemented.
Does that defeat the ideal? But let us press further.
Conclusion on “Immoral Means?”
Let us not quibble about marginal matters.◦Hundreds of kinds of toothpaste?◦Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less
(2005) More central criteria:◦ Income and wealth◦United Nations Development Index◦ Longevity◦ Infant morality and child labor◦ Environmental performance
Some evidence to consider:
Other Part of Exception: Worse Off?
Economic Freedom of the World Index (http://www.freetheworld.com/)
Correlation between “economic freedom” and various metrics of prosperity in ~140 countries since 1975.
“Economic freedom”: ◦ “Individuals have economic freedom when property they acquire
without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others and they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others.”
Notably “capitalist” definition, though not question-begging. Results?
Global Correlations
Top 10 Countries in “Economic Freedom”
0 2 4 6 8 10
Score (out of 10)
Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Switzerland
Chile
United States
Canada
Australia
Mauritius
United Kingdom
Source: The Fraser Institute.
The Bottom Ten
0 2 4 6 8 10
Score (out of 10)
AlgeriaCongo, Dem. R.
BurundiGuinea-Bissau
Central Afr. Rep.Congo, Rep. Of
VenezuelaAngola
MyanmarZimbabwe
Source: The Fraser Institute.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
GD
P P
er
Ca
pit
a
(pp
p),
20
06
Most FreeQuartile
2nd Quartile3rd QuartileLeast FreeQuartile
“Economic Freedom” and Wealth
EF and U.N. Development Index*
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Un
ite
d N
ati
on
s
Hu
ma
n D
ev
elo
pm
en
t In
de
x
Most FreeQuartile
2nd Quartile3rd QuartileLeast FreeQuartile
*Combined measurement of: (1) life expectancy, (2) adult literacy rates, (3) school enrollment, and (4) per-capita incomes.
Life Expectancy
0
20
40
60
80
Ye
ars
Most FreeQuartile
2nd Quartile3rd QuartileLeast FreeQuartile
Note: difference between top and bottom quartiles is over twenty years.
Children
Infant mortality measured against EF:
Child labor (% of 10-14 year-olds in work force) against EF:
0
20
40
60
80
Per
1,0
00 l
ive
bir
ths,
20
06
Most FreeQuartile
2nd Quartile3rd QuartileLeast FreeQuartile
0
5
10
15
20
25
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
ch
ildre
n
10
-14
wh
o a
re in
th
e
lab
ou
r fo
rce
BottomQuintile
FourthQuintile
ThirdQuintile
SecondQuintile
TopQuintile
Environmental Performance*
0
20
40
60
80
100In
dex
(o
ut
of
100)
Most FreeQuartile
2nd Quartile3rd QuartileLeast FreeQuartile
*Includes environmental stresses and ecosystem vitality. Sources: The Fraser Institute, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and Center for
International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, with the World Economic Forum and Joint Research Center of the European Commission, 2008 Environmental Performance Index (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/epi).
Wealth, both per-capita income and real economic growth
Life expectancy
Infant survival
Child nutrition
Literacy
Food production
Access to health care
Access to safe water
Percentage of GDP dedicated to research and development
Political stability
Peace
EF Tracks Positively with Increases in:
Claim 1: Political and economic institutions consistent with markets and limited government are closely correlated with high and increasing human prosperity.
Claim 2: Institutions consistent with centralized economic control and public property closely correlated with low and decreasing human prosperity.
Conclusion: The former seem to make people better off, while the latter make people worse off.
Broader but weaker conclusion: socialist policies are correlated with underperformance on standard measures of human prosperity.
Conclusion on “Worse Off?”
If not human nature and human condition … … then “immoral means” and “worse off”? But: were they proper or good-faith attempts?◦Or power-hungry despots?
Small-scale success? ◦Monasteries? New Harmony, Indiana? Kibbutzim?
1. Specified, narrow, and shared purpose.2. Personal familiarity → personal trust, joint effort.3. Unless subsidized from without, low standard of living.
Would it work on a large scale?
Is That the End of the Discussion?
What have we shown?1. Socialism seems difficult to reconcile with human nature and
the human condition.2. Large-scale attempts have involved immoral policies and
have decreased human prosperity. Those constitute a strong objection. Again, however, let us not yet rest content. Let us ask: Is socialism’s moral ideal superior in itself?◦Capitalism: Class struggles, class interests.◦ Socialism’s resolution: “species being.”
Let Us Take Stock
Human beings are members of classes metaphorically, not literally Literally: discrete moral agents◦ Separate consciousnesses◦ Individual decision centers◦ Unique reservoirs of knowledge, experience◦ Unique schedules of preferences, values
What is common to us:◦ Desire for money, success, to ‘better our condition’ (Smith)◦ Higher status
What is separate, distinct, and indexed: ◦ What matters: values, goals, ambitions.◦ What to do for, with money.◦ What counts as success, status, better condition.◦ Who decides.
“Species Being”: Promise and Pitfall
Factual claim: discrete consciousnesses, unique centers of moral agency.
Moral principle: individual dignity demanding respect◦ Slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing◦ Human rights, equality before the law
Socialism: not individual dignity but class membership.◦ Fungible, interchangeable◦ Poker chips, marbles
Human beings are not fungible; they are precious and irreplaceable. A bedrock, nonnegotiable moral principle. Socialism’s moral core violates that principle.◦ Sharing and community are morally praiseworthy only when voluntary,
respecting individual dignity. ◦ Socialism: no opt-out option.
Great Moral Leap Forward
John Lilburne (1614-1657) Brought before Star Chamber in
1637: heresy, treason. Would not doff his hat, would not
bow, would not enter plea. Claim: “freeborn right” to
conscience, religious practice, equality before law.
Pilloried, flogged, tortured, imprisoned.
Bloodied but unbroken. And then …
Star Chamber abolished in 1641. That was a great moral leap
forward.
One Example: “Freeborn John”
1. Socialism faces serious challenges:a) Human nature and human condition entail its infeasibility.b) Large-scale attempts have both involved immoral means and
have left people worse off.c) Its conception of humanity is both factually incorrect and
morally flawed.
2. Thus, the socialist grapes:a) cannot be harvested,b) have induced destructive attempts, and c) are rotten in their core.
3. Is it time, then, to give up on the socialist grapes?
Conclusions
Thank you!
JAMES R. OTTESON
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY
500 W. 185TH ST.
NEW YORK, NY 10033
Related Documents
