Economist Bryan Caplan wonders why socialism ever developed any broad appeal, given the weaknesses of the idea of the “New Socialist Man”:
The classic argument against socialism is that it gives people bad incentives. What’s the point of working, conserving, saving, quality control, and/or taking out the garbage if they don’t pay? The classic socialist reply is that capitalism creates the selfishness it purports to benevolently channel. Socialism will give birth to a “New Socialist Man” who loves his neighbor as himself….
I’ve always considered the New Socialist Man position to be not just weak, but absurd. Ever heard of Darwin? People are selfish because of billions of years of evolution, not capitalism. End of story…
I take hindsight bias seriously. Many mistakes really are hard to see until you actually make them. But socialism wasn’t one of them.
If the possibility of radically altering human nature were the only rationale for socialism, Bryan’s point would be compelling. As he notes, early critics of socialism quickly pointed out many of the perverse incentives it would create. You don’t have to be a sophisticated economist to realize that most people are self-interested most of the time, and that they are unlikely to work hard if there is no reward for doing so. However, the theory of the “new socialist man” was never the only version of socialism, and not always the most influential.
Democratic socialism was a crucial alternative rationale for state ownership of the economy. Even if people remain selfish, bringing the economy under the control of a democratic government could still greatly improve the lot of the working class. Unlike capitalists who pursue only their own profit, democratically elected politicians have to serve the interests of the majority of voters – even if the politicos are power-hungry weasels who only care about their self-interest. If they don’t serve the needs of the people, the people will vote them out. And elected leaders can in turn create good incentives for the bureaucrats, workers, and lower-ranking officials who actually run government-owned industries. Again, if they fail to do this, the people will throw the bums out.
There are many, many problems with the theory of democratic socialism. But notice that it doesn’t assume any reduction in human selfishness. To the contrary, it holds that selfish voters vote for policies that benefit them, and selfish politicians will have to do their bidding. Something like this idea was espoused by mainstream socialist parties in early 20th century Britain, Germany, and elsewhere (though they also occasionally claimed that socialism would reduce selfishness as well). Even totalitarian communist regimes paid some lip service to the theory, which is why they all constantly claimed to be “democratic” and held ritualistic elections where only government-approved candidates could run.
I’m not going to give a detailed critique of democratic socialism here. Suffice to say that it is vulnerable to the sorts of criticisms that I outlined in this post: voters have incentives to be rationally ignorant about policy; even a democratic government won’t be able to acquire the information it needs to efficiently run large parts of the economy; interest groups can easily “capture” the government and use its power to benefit themselves at the expense of the general public. There are other compelling objections to it as well.
The key point for present purposes is that most of these objections are relatively nonobvious, especially to the vast majority of voters who haven’t studied basic economics. Even many otherwise sophisticated intellectuals have a weak understanding of economics as well, and that was probably even more true during the heyday of socialism’s popularity than today.
It’s easy to assume that the debate over democratic socialism is of only historical interest. Even on the political left, very few people still claim that the democratic socialist argument justifies government control of the entire economy. I see that as genuine progress, even though the debate over socialism is not completely over.
But we still have a long way to go. While few today use the democratic socialist argument as a justification for full-blown socialism, many on both the left and the right use very similar arguments to justify central planning of large parts the economy and society, include vast sectors such as education and health care. Every politically aware person has probably heard something like it used as a justification for all sorts of government interventions.
If the democratic socialist argument is a poor rationale for government control over 80 to 90% of the economy, we should consider the possibility that it’s an almost equally weak justification for government control of the 35-60% of GDP that the state spends in most democratic societies today.
UPDATE: Commenter “JR” perceptively points out that my criticisms of democratic socialism “sound more like critiques of democratic theory in general than democratic socialism in particular.” He’s right. The democratic socialist argument is an extension of the more general standard argument for democracy, which is part of its appeal. The main rationale for democracy is that it gives government strong incentives to serve the interests of the people. The democratic socialist argument is that the economy should be controlled by a democratic government, because that will ensure that it will be structured to benefit the majority of voters rather than a small class of capitalists. Thus, the main shortcomings of democratic socialism are likely to be especially severe forms of the flaws of democracy as such. For reasons I discussed here, these flaws become much more severe if the size and scope of government is large.
JR says:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but these criticisms would apply equally well to any democratically-based governing system, would they not? These sound more like critiques of democratic theory in general than democratic socialism in particular.
March 10, 2010, 2:37 amorca says:
“it gives people bad incentives” could be said about almost any collective activity…including democracy.
March 10, 2010, 2:41 amMark N. says:
This is only on a portion of his point, but refuting Marx via Darwin is using hindsight, since On the Origin of Species was published 11 years after the Communist Manifesto, and didn’t become scientific consensus until some decades later.
March 10, 2010, 2:55 amIlya Somin says:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but these criticisms would apply equally well to any democratically-based governing system, would they not? These sound more like critiques of democratic theory in general than democratic socialism in particular.
They are, in fact, critiques of democratic theory generally. That’s part of the point; the democratic socialist argument is closely linked to the more general argument for democracy, which is part of its appeal. However, for reasons I discussed in the linked post, these problems are much more severe if size and scope of government is large.
March 10, 2010, 3:04 amIlya Somin says:
This is only on a portion of his point, but refuting Marx via Darwin is using hindsight, since On the Origin of Species was published 11 years after the Communist Manifesto, and didn’t become scientific consensus until some decades later.
True, but socialism attained its greatest popularity in the late 19th and early 20th century, by which time Darwinism had long since been accepted by most intellectuals. Even if Marx himself can’t be blamed too much for ignoring Darwin, later socialists can.
March 10, 2010, 3:06 amyankee says:
This is correct, but who relies solely on that argument in defending the welfare state that comprises most of that spending (even in the U.S., which spends vastly more on the military than the rest of the democratic world does)? Libertarians are happy to say that the market always produces optimal results, but no social democrat thinks an elected government always produces optimal results. (For example, social democrats have long complained about capture of the government by business and the rich, and nobody expects this influence to be completely eliminated.)
The argument for a government comprising a large sector of the economy is not based merely on the idea that elected officials will do what is best for their constituents, but on arguments that specific policies produce better results than the market. If the market outcome is bad enough, a policy need not be ideally implemented to produce better results than the market. For example, the market outcome of no government schools would be that enormous numbers of people would be unable to afford even basic education. I concede that government schooling does not produce the theoretically optimal result of excellent schools for everyone. Among other things, the greater political influence of the wealthy produces systems in which the schools near wealthy children are much better-funded and better-run than schools near poor children, and unions make it hard to fire bad teachers. But (flawed) public schools are still better than the market system, which would give the poor and lower-middle class no schools at all.
I think you’re also overstating the impact of political ignorance on politicians’ incentives. Voters tend to give the incumbent party credit or blame for the state of the economy and their general well-being, whether it is deserved or not. They’re not capable of evaluating the merits of specific policies, but they can evaluate how their lives are going, and that gives politicians the incentive to make voters happy with their situation.
March 10, 2010, 4:03 amThe historical record says:
Britain’s Education Act dates to 1870. Before 1870, literacy was 92 percent.
A survey by the Poor Law Commission in 1841 found that 87 percent of workhouse children in Norfolk and Suffolk between the ages of nine and sixteen could read.
Of the population of Hull in 1839, 14,109 out of 14,526 adults had attended day or evening school and over 92 per cent of them could read. Most of these adults must have left school before the first modest State subsidies to education began in 1833 and well before the Education Act of 1870.
In Carlisle, at least 24 reading rooms were founded between 1836 and 1854 with a total of almost 1,400 members and 4,000 volumes.
Reading Rooms. Sunday Schools. Workingmen’s Institutes. Friendly Societies. Mutual Aid. This is what the British had built for themselves, and their politicians destroyed.
To quote James Mill in 1813: “Even around London, in a circle of fifty miles radius, which is far from the most instructed and virtuous part of the kingdom, there is hardly a village that has not something of a school; and not many children of either sex who are not taught more or less, reading and writing. We have met with families in which, for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
March 10, 2010, 4:42 amBruce Hayden says:
Rereading the post from a bit over a year ago was interesting. So many back then seemed to have been taken in by President Obama’s claim to a third way, between socialism and capitalism. We come to find though that his new way is really just socialism mixed with crony capitalism little different from what Mussolini and Hitler tried to implement 70 years before and is more a function of his lack of experience, schooling, and understanding of economics.
March 10, 2010, 4:43 amWayne says:
The stock market is up about 60% since its lowest point last March, unemployment is starting to turn around and we avoided the full on depression that seemed possible in late 2008. Pretty good for someone with a lack of understanding of economics.
March 10, 2010, 5:27 amleo marvin says:
If you think history demonstrates socialism’s inability to overcome selfishness (I do), it should be evident what’s wrong with the conservative claim that private charity would do social safety nets as well as government does. Lots of people simply wouldn’t buy in. No, that doesn’t address the argument that government required buy-in is “legalized theft.” I won’t address it here either, except to say that it’s an outlier view in the general population. My point is just that it’s both unsurprising and rational that most Americans support Social Security and Medicare as emphatically as they do, the popular sentiment against all things socialist notwithstanding.
March 10, 2010, 5:28 amPolitical Observer says:
There are a number of points in this article and the comments that are worth thinking about. Yes the observations by JR are on target and those are the same points that our founders were well aware of. That was the reason they chose a republican form of government with a relatively narrow voter base – originally property owners under the belief that they had the most to lose with a popularly elected government. They also chose to restrict the scope of the federal government to help ensure that it would not be a vehicle for the masses to appropriate other peoples property.
The point about the Democratic socialist government having to be responsive to the people is only partially correct. It only has to be responsive to 50% +1 or the majority of the vote. And in parlimentary systems it can be even less than that – as long as the coalitions generally support the socialist view. As a result most of these governments build a welfare state to support the less successful and unfortunatley decidedly unsuccessful at the expense of the smaller and smaller group of the “haves”. Over time this is why the sytem breaks down because with the perverse incentives at the margins – the recievers have more and more incentivie to become “wards of the state” while the payers have less and less incentive to continue trying to get ahead.
With regard to social security in Leo Marvin’s observation – from the very beginning people were deliberately mislead by the governmenat into thinking that they were paying into their social security accounts. Thus this was really their money – just the government holding it until they retired. IT is no wonder that they felt entitled to this money – the government kept telling them that it was theirs.
March 10, 2010, 6:52 amMatt says:
There’s at least some reason to think that Marx and other socialists thought that socialism would overcome material scarcity, not limited altruism. In a state of abundance there’s no reason to be selfish. At least from today’s perspective that hardly seems a more plausible assumption, but perhaps in the middle of the industrial revolution it looked more plausible. (Of course, needs tend to expand to meet supply, too.) It’s worth pointing out as well that Caplan’s “Darwinian” view is, at least, a contentious one and not one that either universally held among biologists, clearly found in Darwin, or clearly right. (Lots of interesting counter-examples are presented by Kropotkin in _Mutual Aid_, but even beyond that, it’s a pretty contentious and controversial reading of Darwin.)
March 10, 2010, 7:12 amNorthern Dave says:
Ilya wrote:
“The key point for present purposes is that most of these objections are relatively nonobvious, especially to the vast majority of voters who haven’t studied basic economics.”
Considering the following in today’s “Scotsman” it would appear that it isn’t just voters who have trouble seeing the issues….:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Has–Holyrood-gone-completely.6137488.jp
March 10, 2010, 7:26 amPersonFromPorlock says:
One problem is that markets and governments tend to converge into ‘corruptocracies’, where business capture of government means that ordinary people’s lives are substantially coerced for others’ economic gain. The idea that the free market is better than socialism suffers from our experience with that market’s penchant for corrupting government, and government’s eager willingness to be corrupted.
March 10, 2010, 7:43 amAkady says:
@Caplan
Well, yeah, OK. But I’m pretty sure the life of Homo Erectus Libertarianensis was even more nasty, brutish, and short than that of the others. When we were evolving, the truly selfish, he that would put his individual interests ahead of the group’s interests, had pretty bleak prospects for being elected Tribe Member of the Year. He’d have been more likely to end up as game substitute du jour.
March 10, 2010, 8:01 amsalacious says:
Another factor that made socialism attractive was that, at the time, it was very plausible that a centrally planned economy would be more efficient than the disorganized capitalist system. The height of communism’s popularity coincided roughly with the industrial revolution, when firms were reaping enormous increases in productivity through the centralization and rationalization of production. It really wasn’t a totally insane idea that this process could be supercharged by using the power of the state to squeeze out maximal economies of scale. In some cases, it even worked! For instance, the Soviets had great success producing tanks during WW2 in their enormous factories beyond the Urals.
Of course, state-directed centralization sacrifices the distributed know-how and incentives for small scale optimization which ultimately drive growth over the long term. That, coupled with the massive opportunities for corruption in the planning process, vastly outweigh the benefits of planning. But this wasn’t a priori obvious–it took the failure of communist economies to demonstrate conclusively that the disadvantages of central planning outweighed the potential advantages.
March 10, 2010, 8:06 amSquirrelZZ says:
No great mystery. People living in the real world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during economic downturns, saw people living under bridges, while nearby rental property stood vacant. Or, like in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, the character gets a great job in a tractor factory, then everyone gets gets fired because the factory was overproducing or whatever. Well-meaning people often concluded that capitalism was dumb, wasteful, and irrational.
March 10, 2010, 8:48 amStephen Lathrop says:
As a defense of libertarianism that is about as reasonable as it gets, but it still needs to come to grips with at least 2 flawed notions upon which the arguments depend.
Well, sure. Because everybody has a weak understanding of economics. The economics we now rely upon is a social science that tells us how people would behave if people were numbers. Not that it understands the numbers very well, because modeling real world economic problems is simply too complex for any mathematics anyone has yet learned how to manage.
The notion that libertarians understand economics better than others could even be true, but so what? Is there is a meaningful advantage to being 15.1 percent right vs. being 15 percent right? Possibly, libertarian economics is right on some things and wrong on others, just like socialist economics, but maybe right more often. But we would have to understand economics far better than we do to have any hope of proving even that.
That is a critical flaw for libertarians, because compared to socialists libertarians argue in favor of turning a greater share of political policy over to economic models. Socialist pragmatism commits economic errors, but at least in principle retains the ability to measure errors by outcomes. Socialists aren’t arguing for the perfection of their economic models, they are arguing for their social advantages. Libertarians seem to lack any extrinsic yardstick for success; they too often define success as conformance to economic principle, full stop.
Of course in practice socialists, like libertarians, tend to argue against recognizing bad economic outcomes. But libertarians are very bad pragmatists, and unpragmatic politics can’t work at all unless it works to perfection. Socialist politics muddles better. Maybe this is something libertarians could correct.
Vulgar social Darwinism exerts an attractive power on many libertarians. The competition posited by Darwinism is about reproductive success, nothing more. It isn’t about favoring efficiency in mobilization or distribution of resources, or anything else that bears on human economic and political problems. Darwinism (the natural science) gives insight into countless successful examples of socialist economy. Ants are said by some to have accumulated the largest biomass in animal nature. Prides of lions operate on socialist principles, as do many other predators. Socialism may prove to be flawed human economics, but there is nothing in Darwinism to show it.
Darwinism is largely irrelevant to human economics, because other species do less to affect the availability of resources than humans do. Decisions affecting the availability of resources are the principal objects of human economic concerns, so Darwinism has little to teach on the subject of human economy.
March 10, 2010, 8:48 amerp says:
Selfishness?
Capitalists/workers create things and opportunities for themselves and others who wish to build and share.
Socialists/ non-workers seek not to build and create, but to take from workers and give it to shirkers and the more “equal” life is made for the shirkers, the more of them are created until the balance is tipped and there aren’t enough workers to support them.
It’s hard to believe adults are still pushing socialism. After at least a hundred years of socialist experiments all over the world, there hasn’t been a single success story. They collapse when, to quote Margaret Thatcher, they run out of other people’s money to spend.
Conversations like this one are the stuff of undergrad all nighters, not people who’ve learned something in their post college years.
Equality of opportunity is the precious gift our founders left us. Too bad not all of us understand and appreciate that.
March 10, 2010, 8:57 amp.d. says:
It’s not puzzling at all why socialism developed (somewhat) broad appeal, and it doesn’t rely on the premise of the “new socialist man.” It’s a logical result of (1) human self-interest, (2) disparate income and wealth resulting from an unequal beginning distribution of intelligence and talent, and (3) government structures allowing those who have fewer resources to demand and extract rents from those with more resources.
I’m not saying it’s a justifiable outcome, but standard assumptions about human nature combined with basic democratic structures seem to suggest that socialism or redistribution of resources such that basic incentives are thrown out of line is inevitable. The better critique is that socialism is *unsustainable*, as the incentive problems Caplan raises usually only arise after the threshold decision to implement socialist governance. It’s probably expecting too much of rational economic man to assume that he can forsee the ill effects ex ante.
March 10, 2010, 9:14 amMike P Wagner says:
I suspect that folks who advocate socialism have a different economic goal than those who advocate private enterprise/free market systems.
In general, the strengths of a private enterprise/free market system are that it tends to allocate resources “efficiently” in ways that raise the average standard of living, etc. I think that there is little doubt that in an ideal private enterprise/free market system, most people are better off economically than under a socialist system.
I think that the goal of socialism is captured by a statement I once hears from Elie Wiesel (I am paraphrasing, and he may have been quoting someone else): “A society is judged by how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable members.” Judged by this standard, a pure private enterprise/free market system does poorly – folks who are in fact unable to produce and compete are worse off under an ideal private enterprise/free market system than under an ideal socialist system.
I suspect that the current system in the US, which is a mixture of socialism and private enterprise/free enterprise accurately reflects the ambivalence of people in the US about the priority of these two goals.
March 10, 2010, 9:24 amNorthern Dave says:
Does anyone know if there is an online copy of :
“Feedback and Stability in Science and Society” by Petr Beckmann
out there somewhere? (there isn’t one for sale on ebay today)
As my memory serves me he did a bang up job of mathematically proving Communism/Socialism simply couldn’t effectively manage necessary societal feedback mechanisms, but my memory is aging (along with the rest of me) and I’d like to check out the reference.
March 10, 2010, 9:28 amTomH says:
Has anyone, here or in literature, examined the point of view that private charity to charities of one’s own choosing can be individually self-serving. The description of English literacy in the 19th century brought it to mind.
The individual’s benefit of giving willingly translated to a better (presumably more stable and richer) society for the giving and receiving individuals to live in.
Perceived failures of socialism or government control of charity in general, are that the recipients are decided by central planning, which planning is controlled by persons subject to influence, otherwise known as corruption. Also, forced giving detaches the giver from the benefit, which IMHO, reduces the value of the gift and creates a barrier of ingratitude between the giver and the recipient. This creates a conflict between classes as opposed to a synthesis of classes.
Of course, this only works when those who have the resources to give have the sense of noblesse oblige to help themselves by helping their community.
March 10, 2010, 9:47 amerp says:
In reply to Mike P Wagner:
The rate of private charitable giving in the U.S. is very high and remains so even in hard economic times. We also have private foundations set up to help those in need and wealthy people who fund all kinds of worthy causes. At the very local level, religious institutions and other groups set up soup kitchens, clothing and food drives, etc.
We are already taking very good care of the neediest among us. What socialists want is for all of that to be in the hands of the state so the elites get to decide who gets what with the greatest share going to them and the public service unions who serve them.
Low income people would be far better served by local free/low cost health clinics in the neighborhoods where they’re needed, organized and run locally in conjunction with local private hospitals. Medicaid is a huge uber-costly bureaucracy that serves only the bureaucrats leaving very little for the needy.
Medicare is also very costly and we geezers should be able to buy private insurance (currently illegal) to cover what we determine to be our needs instead of sending gazillions to Washington. Drug companies would have to price their products compressively if we had to pay to full price for those prescribed by our private physicians whose fees would also have to be competitive – ditto hospitals and other medical facilities.
Further interference by the feds in our health care ala the current insurance power grab scam the feds are trying to foist on us will exacerbate an already bloated bureaucracy and result in less care costing much more.
March 10, 2010, 9:54 amJay says:
Caplan doesn’t have much understanding of Darwin. Evolutionary theory may explain why people are reproductively selfish, but it doesn’t have anything to do with “explaining” selfishness in the material sense Caplan means.
Anyway, as erp suggests, the word selfish does more to obscure than illuminate. The sort of institutions (lending, for example) necessary to support capitalism would be impossible if everyone’s actions were based on immediate, pleasure seeking self-interest; successful capitalism requires acceptance of delayed gratification. And I agree with p.d.’s point that socialism, to the extent it is popular rather than theory, is mostly based on short-term self-interest, a belief that its implementation will result in the reallocation of wealth from the minority who have most of it to the majority who don’t.
March 10, 2010, 9:59 amCornellian says:
The main rationale for democracy is that it gives government strong incentives serve the interests of the people. The democratic socialist argument is that the economy should be controlled by a democratic government, because that will ensure that it will be structured to benefit the majority of voters rather than a small class of capitalists.
Really? So if it could be shown that our economic output would be 10% greater under an absolute monarchy, that would be the system we should adopt?
Not everything is a function of measuring economic output.
March 10, 2010, 10:02 ambfwebster says:
Rudyard Kipling had a good go at it some 90 years ago in “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”:
Track down and read the whole poem; it’s worth it. ..bruce..
March 10, 2010, 10:02 amCornellian says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure
March 10, 2010, 10:05 amthese rightsa more efficient form of economic organization, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governedefficiency of the country’s economic output . . .Jay says:
This is kind of what I mean by saying that describing or explaining things with the word “selfish” quickly becomes circular and meaningless. If you start with the belief that people do things for selfish reasons, then there is no human action that can’t be described that way, based on the person’s own internal sense of what matters (i.e., was Gandhi selfish, because he really wanted a free India, and all his actions were devoted to achieving that goal?) Correspondingly, there are few vile behaviors that have gone unjustified as somehow actually motivated by altruism.
Edit: I’m reminded of how suicide is often described as a “selfish act.”
March 10, 2010, 10:06 amgo vols says:
“It’s hard to believe adults are still pushing socialism. After at least a hundred years of socialist experiments all over the world, there hasn’t been a single success story.”
I don’t believe these are appropriate American models, but are you arguing that Norway, Sweden, etc. are 1) not socialist or 2) not successful?
March 10, 2010, 10:27 amA. Criminal says:
Prides of lions show some “socialist” behaviors, but a new male lion will kill all the offspring of previous male(s) because he’s not related to them; after their kids have been killed by their “step-dad,” the females go into heat. Not exactly cooperative behavior.
“Darwinism” explains why ants are successfully “socialist,” and why it “don’t work that way” for humans. Social insects are genetically related to each other differently than most other animals; female siblings [workers] are more closely related to each other than they are to their mother [queen]:
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~jm703496/es-antevln.html
Therefore, all female offspring of a mated pair, which includes the female worker caste, will receive the same genetic information from their father, and thus each daughter shares a 3/4 relation coefficient with the other – a closer relationship than they share with their mother. Therefore, haplodiploid individuals that become part of a social caste specialized for the rearing of sisters would experience a selective advantage, as their genes would have a greater prevalence in the gene pool due to this close relationship with their true sisters.
As some biologist said of socialism and humans: “Great idea, but wrong species.”
March 10, 2010, 10:51 amMartinned says:
Indeed. That’s what I’ve been wondering about as well. Given how many (working) poor there are in the US, why do they put up with being treated in this way? There’s no question that socialism/communism is inefficient, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t desirable, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be optimal for the lower classes to adopt it. If you have nothing (…to lose but your chains), why wouldn’t you want to legalise theft?
March 10, 2010, 10:58 amyankee says:
No, they’re not socialist. In socialism, the government tries to run the entire economy through central planning. Industry is owned by the state, not by private investors. In Norway and Sweden, the
freeregulated market coexists along with a large welfare state and high tax rates. Norway is more socialist than other other social democracies, in that the government owns a large state in several major industries, most notably energy. I’m not sure if Sweden does the same thing.Social democracy, where the government taxes the market to fund a large welfare state, is not at all the same thing as socialism, where the government simply tries to run the economy.
Edit: I should add that by my lights Norway and Sweden are both extremely successful.
March 10, 2010, 11:02 amzuch says:
Prof. Somin:
It’s worth remembering that for many people back then, the choice wasn’t between government ownership and self-ownership, it was between government ownership (with the worker being a small “part owner” of that potentially democratic government) and ownership by some filthy rich capitalist bourgeoise. Which is still true for many people; despite some recent trends towards making workers “owners” through stock participation plans and profit-sharing, the level of worker investment in the companies they work for is still generally low.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 11:04 amMartinned says:
I guess you missed the memo. In the US these days, everything to the left of Clinton is socialism. (i.e. all of Europe, the entire rest of the English speaking world, and in general pretty much every democratic country on earth.)
March 10, 2010, 11:06 amyankee says:
Apparently. In the mind of today’s conservatives, when you start subsidizing the purchase of private health insurance, you might as well be announcing a five-year plan.
March 10, 2010, 11:11 amStrict says:
“Industry is owned by the state, not by private investors.”
This oversimplistic definition doesn’t account for real life scenarios.
PetroChina, which is the company with the biggest market cap in the world, is controlled by a corporation which is controlled by the state of China. But some [10-15%?] shares of PetroChina are indeed publicly traded and owned by private investors.
This is a hybrid model. And more and more completely nationalized Chinese companies will become more and more privatized, but they will be neither fully state-owned nor fully privately-owned.
Industry is owned by both. That occurs in both “socialist” systems and “capitalist” systems.
March 10, 2010, 11:20 amStrict says:
So if the China Investment Corporation buys a $3 billion stake in Blackstone and a 10% [$5 billion] stake in Morgan Stanley, does that mean that Blackstone and Morgan Stanley are [China] state-owned? Well, yes, but not entirely.
Blackstone and Morgan Stanley are both owned by both national governments [including a Communist government] and private investors.
Isn’t that perfectly within the spirit of capitalism: a corporation can sell its shares to whomever it pleases, even if the buyer is a State, or even a Communist State.
March 10, 2010, 11:30 amleo marvin says:
Consistent with your later comment, Americans spent the second half of the 20th Century being indoctrinated to the notion that socialism was a hostile political system more than an economic one. I suspect tribalism and patriotism trumped economic self-interest, effectively striking socialism from the menu. In other words, the right result for the wrong reasons.
March 10, 2010, 11:36 amDemocracy and the Appeal of Socialism « The Republican Heretic says:
[...] Appeal of Socialism Wed 10 Mar 2010 The Republican Heretic Leave a comment Go to comments Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy questions why socialism retains its appeal, despite obvious flaws in its theoretical assumptions. [...]
March 10, 2010, 11:37 amAllan Walstad says:
The incentives problem, and the inability of coercive collectivist regimes of all sorts to access and effectively utilize widely dispersed knowledge, and the moral problem associated with robbery and coercion, together all argue for a fairly strict limitation of the scope of coercive government. So yes, to first approximation, democratic socialism is to be rejected for the same reasons as massive government meddling in human affairs generally.
leo marvin:
You’re talking about two very different situations. Where people are free to provide for themselves without being robbed blind, I suggest they are far more likely to engage in charitable activities than where their efforts are appropriated by the collective from day 1.
…at least in part for the same reason an addict will fight to maintain a supply of the drug: it’s very hard to quit, even though you’d be much better off not to have started in the first place. Nevertheless, admitting the latter is an essential first step.
PersonFromPorlock:
That’s why the scope of government needs to be limited constitutionally. Oh, and by the way, collectivist government is quite capable of being corrupt all on its own, as the Soviet experience amply demonstrates. There it was the pols, bureaucrats, and military brass who got all the goodies.
March 10, 2010, 11:40 amerp says:
In reply to go vols:
The Scandinavian countries are unique in that many people retained their protestant work ethic, so they didn’t deteriorate into a shirker country as quickly as countries who didn’t have it to begin with.
Norway, filthy rich with oil money, doesn’t count because there’s little need for workers to produce much of anything at all.
Sweden is, by necessity, now decentralizing and reacting to the reality of a population not used to providing for itself. Denmark and Finland aren’t far behind.
As aside on Denmark, a very good friend born in Denmark but who has lived in the U.S. most of her adult life, tells me that her nieces and nephews now in their 40’s have NEVER worked, but depended on, to quote, Blanche Dubois, “the kindness of strangers.” I don’t think they’re the only ones who’ve never contributed at all to the common weal.
Simple arithmetic tells us that can’t go on indefinitely.
In reply to Martinned:
March 10, 2010, 11:49 amIs the paragraph below, parody? If so, it’s darn good.
Indeed. That’s what I’ve been wondering about as well. Given how many (working) poor there are in the US, why do they put up with being treated in this way? There’s no question that socialism/communism is inefficient, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t desirable, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be optimal for the lower classes to adopt it. If you have nothing (…to lose but your chains), why wouldn’t you want to legalise theft?
If not, you haven’t been paying attention.
How can the “lower classes” adopt it (socialism) unilaterally? Contrary to Soviet propaganda, socialism isn’t about losing your chains, it’s about embracing them, it requires that worker ants produce excess wealth so it can be redistributed to the grasshoppers and very soon that deteriorates to, they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.
The so-called working poor have the same opportunities as others who’ve risen above their origins by working hard, investing their money (capitalism), learning a trade or entering a profession, etc. We know that works, but it’s hard. We also know that sitting around waiting for someone to come along with a handout, not only doesn’t work, but makes things worse, but has the advantage of being easy, i.e., not requiring any effort on our parts.
Strict says:
“collectivist government is quite capable of being corrupt all on its own, as the Soviet experience amply demonstrates. There it was the pols, bureaucrats, and military brass who got all the goodies.”
The Yugoslav experience was the same – see Milovan Djilas “The New Class.”
In India it was the License Raj. If bureaucrats control who gets to start a private business, then corruption is the obvious course of action: pay me a bribe and I’ll grand you a license.
In Korea, a story just broke about Kim Il Sung’s lavish lifestyle. It’s an interesting read. The ultimate proof that he was insane is that he never ate Korean food.
However, the “people in charge are selfish assholes” theory is not confined to socialist or communist states. It generally applies everywhere.
March 10, 2010, 11:51 amStrict says:
“The Scandinavian countries are unique in that many people retained their protestant work ethic, so they didn’t deteriorate into a shirker country as quickly as countries who didn’t have it to begin with.”
Because all those Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, and Buddhist people in socialist countries never had a strong work ethic? What? I guarantee you that the average Chinese factory worker works a hell of a lot harder than the 30-hour-work-week Western Europeans.
March 10, 2010, 11:56 amStrict says:
“That’s why the scope of government needs to be limited constitutionally. ”
Allan, so we should constitutionally limit the ability of our government to invest in domestic corporations? But that doesn’t limit the ability of domestic corporations to sell their shares to foreign governments.
March 10, 2010, 12:02 pmMartinned says:
They can use their numbers to vote or fight to change the economic system, i.e. to “legalise theft”. In other words, given how much inequality there is in the US, you’d expect a lot more civil unrest.
March 10, 2010, 12:14 pmJeff R. says:
The appeal of socialism can be explained by simply observing that envy is approximately as strong a force in human behavior as selfishness.
March 10, 2010, 12:16 pmJoshua Macy says:
I don’t think your argument does more than push it back a level. You seem to be saying that while it’s obvious that people won’t work hard just for the common good, people will cheerfully vote for politicians who promise to make them work hard for the common good. That just substitutes the New Soviet Voter for the New Soviet Man.
March 10, 2010, 12:21 pmray_g says:
Socialism continues to have broad appeal because it serves the interests of 3 groups of people, and the reasons they like it have little to do with it’s economic merits (or lack thereof)
1- To a young and/or naive idealist, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” is very appealing.
2- Those who are envious of the “rich”, which is usually defined as anyone who has $1 more than they do – let’s redistribute that wealth!
3 – Those who sincerely think they should be in charge. It has 2 subgroups, — arrogant self appointed elites who think they know better than the ignorant masses — and last but not least, those who want power for it’s own sake, and (correctly) see a socialist system as a very good vehicle for gaining and exercising that power.
Groups 1 & 2 consider each other allies, group 3 sees groups 1 and 2 as means to group 3′s desired ends, so they usually work in concert to promote the socialist system. Taken together, this is a significant percentage of the total population.
March 10, 2010, 12:26 pmyankee says:
The “so-called working poor”? Wow.
Can we have an end to complaints about liberals’ supposed snobbish disdain for ordinary people now?
March 10, 2010, 12:43 pmDangerMouse says:
ray,
You’re basically right. Socialism is a dream of idiots, the envious, and the arrogant. At some level, all socialist policies or quasi-socialist policies are a mix of the three.
And that’s why socialism will be a constant cancer on the history of mankind, because man will always be plagued by idiots, envy, and arrogance.
March 10, 2010, 12:44 pmSarcastro says:
[Wait, which Socialism are we talking about now? Or does it even matter anymore?]
March 10, 2010, 12:53 pmzuch says:
Huh?!?!? Where has Obama claimed a “third way, between socialism and capitalism”?
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 1:02 pmzuch says:
Sorry for my scepticism, but your proof for this?
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 1:08 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Great point about what the founders left us — if we’re focusing on
March 10, 2010, 1:16 pmlandownersmale landownerswhite male landowners.Northern Dave says:
I think the key here, Martinned, is the very real social mobility available in the US. People may be poor, but they know that the possibilities of self improvement – and if not for themselves for their offspring – are real. In a truly Feudal state or Socialist state the availablity of upward mobility is so restricted that you generate the social unrest you don’t see in the US (think North Korea).
It’s not a new issue…wasn’t it de Tocqueville who pointed out that once the populace realized it could vote itself monies there might be some difficulties?
I believe if one looked back to even the 1950′s one would find a great deal less in public largess from the government to the populace, so one could argue that the public *is* using its numbers to alter the system.
March 10, 2010, 1:17 pmMartinned says:
Demanding much?
This is the most fundamental question in economics: The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
So far, the only “proof” we have doesn’t pass the test of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. Still, it’s better than nothing.
March 10, 2010, 1:18 pmyankee says:
There’s always the Cold War. It turned out that Americans had vastly overestimated the strength of the economy of the USSR and its client states, and the capitalist world a much higher standard of living.
Saying that laissez-faire produces a higher standard of living than social democracy, on the hand, is completely without any evidentiary support.
March 10, 2010, 1:19 pmMartinned says:
Only they’re not. Social mobility is lower in the US than in most western democracies, mostly because of the unequal access to education. That’s the beauty of the American Dream: it’s only an illusion, but at least it keeps the peasants quiet.
March 10, 2010, 1:20 pmzuch says:
Not true. For one thing, Norway’s been a bit smart about it and knows the oil won’t last forever, and has been salting a fair bit away for a rainy day.
And Norway was “socialist” well before the North Sea oil.
And my relatives will not take too kindly to your suggestion they’re just sitting on their keisters sucking on the petro-teat.
Kindly keep your comments to those things that you actually have knowledge about.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 1:21 pmyankee says:
They work a hell of a lot harder than Wall Streeters trading derivatives and imagining themselves the most productive members of society too.
March 10, 2010, 1:27 pmzuch says:
You might note the terms that I bolded:
How specifically does capitalism achieve those two things? BTW, I’m not sure that the data we have support either. Certainly, 1929 and 2008 (and the decades around these years) cast a bit of a pall.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 1:29 pmNorthern Dave says:
I thought that was the whole point of his “The Audacity of Hope” book. Are not he and Kevin Rudd good buddies?
This is just old Benito Mussolini reworked (and we all know the practical outworking of such a philosophy from collective experience – bad pun intended).
March 10, 2010, 1:30 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Yes, but I’d rather have 1% of a 100 lb pie than 4% of a 20lb lb pie, even if I have to live next to a glutton with an enormous fork. It’s a persistent flaw in human reasoning to evaluate scenarios based on relative outcomes instead of absolute ones.
Think about the expected return for the bottom 20% of society in two scenarios — 3% economic growth versus 2% economic growth and the social mobility to immediately jump to the next quintile. Surely the bottom 20% would be immediately better off, but it’s just a matter of a few decades before the curve turns over.
March 10, 2010, 1:34 pmzuch says:
Considering where the Soviet Union started, I’m not sure you can say that the Soviet experience was a total failure. They did manage to put the first satellite in orbit and send the first satellite to the moon. But that doesn’t answer my question. My question was on capitalism’s virtues, not socialism’s (or more correctly, Stalinism’s).
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 1:34 pmzuch says:
Then you should be able to quote from it (or cite the relevant passages) where he says that.
Mussolini a collectivist? Who knew?
March 10, 2010, 1:37 pmCheers,
yankee says:
zuch: one can’t talk about whether capitalism raises the average standard of living without comparing it to some other system, the obvious alternative being socialism. This may be a difference in terminology, though; I take “capitalism” to mean the market-based economic system seen in the rich world, not a hypothetical system of laissez-faire.
I don’t think your argument about Russia starting as a poorer nation holds much water either. East Germany and West Germany were similar before the Cold War, but by the end East Germany was far poorer than West Germany, and the average East German’s standard of living was much lower. Sure, the Soviets did do a fair number of impressive things, but their standard of living was far behind the capitalist world’s.
March 10, 2010, 1:44 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I hope you do not believe you are speaking for Liz Cheney, Al Gore, the Rockefeller heirs, Steve Bing, Dick Scaife, the Ford heirs, George W. Bush, Abigail Johnson, the Frick heirs, Steve Forbes, the Vanderbilt heirs, Anne Getty Earhart, the Pritzker heirs . . .
March 10, 2010, 1:50 pmMartinned says:
Again, do you know what you are asking for? The amount of data it would take to answer your questions in the way you seem to expect literally takes up volumes. It would require a careful definition of what you mean by resources (does that include human capital? and, if so, how do we value it?), not to mention allocation and the other key terms. All of that can be quibbled over endlessly, and that’s before we even get to the statistics.
Long story short, sending a man into space isn’t such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. As the present state of Russia shows, they have plenty of resources to work with, but at no time in Russia’s history do they seem to have managed to allocate them efficiently. Other communist and totalitarian states have varying resource endowments, but – taking a narrow view of resources – none of them have the kind of GDP per capita that we have, especially when you control for resource endowment.
…which, of course, doesn’t answer your question, since GDP is rubbish, the definition of resources is too narrow, etc. Read a book.
March 10, 2010, 1:51 pmyankee says:
I don’t think you understand. Taking food stamps so you can feed your children is “waiting for a handout.” Using your connections to get your kid hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding so he can buy another business after the first one he ran flopped is “providing for your family.”
March 10, 2010, 1:58 pmMartinned says:
My point is that the numbers in this example are probably off. It’s probably more like a choice between 10% of a 20lb pie and 1% of a 100lb pie. So why not choose the former?
March 10, 2010, 2:01 pmyankee says:
As long as we’re making numbers up I think social democracy is more like 10% of a 95 lb pie.
March 10, 2010, 2:04 pmNorthern Dave says:
Er…not quite:
“Norway is not a socialist country. Its a liberal capitalist country that transitioned to supply side economics under Kåre Willoch. State provided healthcare does not equate to socialism.” – author unknown but agreed with.
North Korea is a socialist country. Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu was a socialist country. Zimbabwe under Mugabe is a socialist state (see how well that land redistribution worked…..).
The ancient Norwegian Kings had regulations for the provision of widows etc. and no one is arguing any of the Haakons were socialists. Universal provision for citizens is not the unique territory of socialism – eg the Molmutine laws of ancient Cambria (and though Iolo Morganwg may have forged some later entries he lived far after Geoffrey of Monmouth who brings them to our attention – see the excellent defense of Monmouth by no less than Flinders Petrie in the “Proceedings of the British Academy/Neglected British History/Read November 7, 1917″)
I’ve heard from some Norwegians that the oil fund doesn’t reach too far down the pipe (old folks homes falling apart, etc.).
March 10, 2010, 2:05 pmMartinned says:
It’s called corporatism. While nobody uses the term anymore, the thinking behind it is still hugely influential on the continent. That is why in the Netherlands, for example, all legislation and other government action in the areas of economics and social policy are first discussed in the SER, the Social-Economic Council, made up of one third labour representatives, one third representatives of the employers, and one third represenatives of the government.
March 10, 2010, 2:06 pmNorthern Dave says:
Then you are being intellectually disingenious. The Soviet Union started with more resources than anyone else by a factor of three. They had a strong central government and excellent communications. They had the loot from Germany and a host of satellite slave nations which they plundered for many years. Their citizens were still standing in lines for hours to get bread, lacked heat and were constantly under surveillance lacking dignity and privacy. Those who could defect did.
They were an utter and complete failure.
China has adopted a free-market model for its peasants and voila wealth. The correlation is so utterly clear that only the willfully blind (eg Watermelons – those environmentalists who claim to be green but are at the core fanatically red) any longer deny it.
March 10, 2010, 2:15 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
No argument. All I was pointing out is that ‘the market’ is no panacea, it has shortcomings of its own. As far as I can see, all corrupt systems are the same: the apparatchik and the alderman with their hands out aren’t just brothers, they’re twins.
March 10, 2010, 2:22 pmMartinned says:
Well, that’s the empirical question: How much does the pie shrink, and how much does the share of the lowest 50% increase? Since, theoretically, it takes the votes of 50% of the population + 1 to change the rules, the relevant question is how much their piece weighs.
As long as you discount, even the difference between a 3% real average GDP growth rate and a 2% rate is already quite significant. (Starting both at 100, and discounting at 5%, the net present value of the former is 5000, and the NPV of the latter is only 3333 1/3, a difference of 50%.) A one percentage point drop in the growth rate is already quite significant. On the other hand, the income distribution wiki-page that I linked earlier had the bottom 50% of personal income earning less than about $25.000. (That would be the cutoff, based on census data.) A quick number-crunch gave an average personal income of $ 12.000.
That’s not a particularly large piece of the pie, and one that can easily be increased by enacting some social-democratic legislation. (I know, I know, this kind of back-of-the-envelope calculating is highly flawed, but it’s the best I’m willing to do without being paid for it.)
March 10, 2010, 2:23 pmerp says:
In reply to: Strict
My comment was in reply to a question about whether or not socialism worked in Scandinavia. As you no doubt know, the Protestant work ethic has to do with self imposed work habits of a free people, not the back-breaking dehumanizing work forced on their subjects by the czar, the emperor, the king, the sultan or the communist party.
Why so quick to take offense when none was offered?
In reply to: Martinned
Again, I remind you that the Constitution only offers equality of opportunity, not equality of results. However a brief survey will show that only countries with a very low standard of living have anything approaching the kind of equality you claim to want and those countries, e.g., Cuba allow no upward mobility. They’re all (except the leadership, of course) are stuck in a substandard (to us) life style with no hope of anything better.
In reply to: yankee
Give us your definition of working poor. I don’t know what it means that’s why it’s in quotes. Contrary to the lefty élites, I don’t think there are people (other than the obviously ill or handicapped) who can’t take care of themselves. Drunks or drug addicts need to clean up or be incarcerated so they don’t prey on society. We’ve proved over the last 50 years or so and millions of tax payer dollars that rehab and TLC aren’t effective.
The “poor” working or non-working in this country are the envy of the world where “poor” people don’t have cars, cell phones, TV’s., etc.
In reply to: zuch
I was wondering the same thing. Obama never said anything about the third way.
Also, glad to know your Norwegian relatives are working their keisters off instead of sitting on them – much healthier than way. Of course, Norway was socialist before the oil gusher, but they’re a lot more successful at it now that the money is pouring in, so they don’t need to rethink their form of government as their neighbors are doing.
In reply to: Arthur Kirkland
March 10, 2010, 2:23 pmAs a non-collectivist, I only speak for myself and am happy that in our open society, others have the opportunity to do likewise.
zuch says:
Why not?
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 2:28 pmMartinned says:
The Constitution can be changed. Anyway, what I want isn’t the point. I’m a highly educated academic, so I’m not particularly worried about ever having to do seriously unpleasant work. What intrigues me is that the lower classes in America put up with the socio-economic system in place there, although I do realise that disenfranchising them works almost as well as lying to them in terms of keeping them quiet.
Anyway, see my previous comment for more nuance.
P.S. To be clear, I think our current system, i.e. the system us Europeans and you Americans share, is desirable not because it produces a superior economic outcome, but because it allows us to be free. Such a system needs no further justification. Then again, I realise that that is easy for me to say…
March 10, 2010, 2:34 pmzuch says:
I didn’t say it would be easy. What was I asking for? Support for an assertion someone else made:
I though that was clear. Sorry I had to repeat it.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 2:36 pmMartinned says:
Because the word “raises” implies a benchmark. If sea levels rise, the benchmark is their levels now. If inflation rises, the benchmark is its level now. How would you propose we do a time series test of the effects of adopting capitalism? By looking at central and eastern europe? But that would be a comparison with communism again… Alternatively, we can do a cross-sectional test, but then we need a sample of capitalist countries and countries that are not capitalist. I.e., we need something to compare to. What kind of benchmark would you like?
March 10, 2010, 2:39 pmSarcastro says:
Socialism is only the bad, totalitarians! But also it includes health care and Democrats, somehow!!
March 10, 2010, 2:46 pmzuch says:
I won’t bother to argue with you exactly how socialist Norway is. You will note the quotation marks around my use of “socialist”. I was responding to another poster who was kind enough to provide the explanation for Norway’s success despite it’s being “socialist”.
Sounds here like you’re trying the “no true Scotsman” tactic.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 2:48 pmerp says:
Martinned said:
I’m a highly educated academic, so I’m not particularly worried about ever having to do seriously unpleasant work.
Be careful. That’s what the highly educated academics in China thought, but then they found themselves in the fields with the peasants and many of them didn’t make it out alive.
BTW – I’m not surprised that you aren’t an American because you seem to have a skewed idea about our “lower classes” probably because you get your information from the mass media whose specialty it is to display the U.S. in the worst possible light.
I won’t try to change your mind, I can only hope you can get an appointment here for at least year and you can travel around our vast country. You may be surprised at what you find.
We don’t have lower classes. We have people across the board of income levels and our schools, even if they’re far too leftwing for me, admit all children even those of so-called illegal aliens. Students are admitted into our colleges and universities without regard to their race or ethnicity or even their economic background. It’s not just some jingoistic song, it’s really the way it is.
That’s why so many people risk so much to get here.
March 10, 2010, 2:52 pmzuch says:
If you look at the last link I gave you, you will find that there’s no sharp discontinuity in GDP or such circa 1973. In fact, the period of strongest growth was the post-WWII years.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 2:55 pmzuch says:
I think we can agree that injecting heat into an isolated mass increases temperature. It might even melt the substance. Cause and effect. It may be harder to prove an effect absent controls (or comparison) in some situations, but it is not impossible. But the original poster (whose assertion I questioned) made no comparative statement. They made an absolute statement. It is their BoP to show such, or to withdraw their assertion as unsupported or amend it.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 3:01 pmMartinned says:
I am aware of my disadvantage in this respect, which is why I backed up my question with income distribution data. If more than 50% of working Americans have an income lower than what I get for writing my Ph.D. (yes, the university pays me, not the other way around), I think the notion of working poor doesn’t just exist in my head. $12.000 per year as an average income for the bottom half of people who have an income, that’s not a lot. From the same table: 16,75% of people working have an annual income of less than $10.000. If you want to talk household income instead, the picture is just as depressing:
Again, I’m not necessarily against the system that produced this outcome, I just wonder why so many people who are in it put up with it.
March 10, 2010, 3:08 pmMartinned says:
As far as I can tell, the original comment you are referring to is this one, from 9.24 am.
It seems to me that this comment clearly suggests a benchmark: “a socialist system”. Even if you read the first sentence quoted in isolation, there is still little (reasonable) doubt that the intention is to compare capitalism to any other imaginable system.
March 10, 2010, 3:13 pmStrict says:
“Be careful. That’s what the highly educated academics in China thought, but then they found themselves in the fields with the peasants and many of them didn’t make it out alive.”
Highly educated academics are often the first target of oppressive regimes. Ring wing US President Richard Nixon supported right wing Pakistani President Yahya Khan, who was responsible for the killings of almost the entirety of the professoriat and intellectuals in East Pakistan [now Bangladesh].
Right winger Pinochet became infamous for his crackdowns and mass arrests of students and professors at all the major universities in Chile…
March 10, 2010, 3:24 pmgray says:
How many socialists can dance on the head of pin?
Are we talking about the command economies of the former USSR and Satellites ( “communism” although they called themselves “socialist”) or the western European social democracies ( whose “socialist” parties are mostly members of the “Socialist International”) who have built mixed economy welfare states.
People continue to choose the latter, at least in democratic cycles, the former have been essentially abandoned by those who can.
March 10, 2010, 3:25 pmStrict says:
India has certainly become more wealthy since its liberalized its economy in 1982 [shifted from socialism to basically unbridled capitalism].
But it’s hard to say whether or not the economic growth is “good.”
Population has boomed from 700 million in 1982 to almost 1.2 billion right now…pollution is at a crisis level and getting worse…
March 10, 2010, 3:35 pmyankee says:
There are many rights in the Constitution, but no right to equality of opportunity. If there were such a right, the government would be required to make schools in poor areas better than schools in rich areas to make up for the various other disadvantages that come with being poor. There would also be a Constitutional right to various other welfare programs aimed at things like ensuring adequate nutrition and medical care for the children of poor people. The government would also need to give the children of the poor advantages that made up for the advantages of rich kids’ access to their parents social network and contacts. But in fact the Constitution provides no such rights.
Is this really that complicated? The “working poor” are poor people who are employed. I suppose one might also count those who are unemployed and seeking employment, but this distinction isn’t the point. What I object to is your sneering characterization of the working poor as the “so-called” working poor, by which you seem to mean that there is no such thing as poor people who work and they’re all lazy bums. This sort of snobbery is a common attitude among conservative elites.
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Border-crossing illegal immigrants (the ones who are taking risks to get here) come here mostly for higher wages, not for access to public schools. How do we know? Because they routinely come here without their families, sending remittances home.
March 10, 2010, 3:59 pmSarcastro says:
Any rights the Constitution does not explicitly mention, the government should not try to provide!
Welp, back to the 20-hour workdays from age 12 till I drop!
March 10, 2010, 4:09 pmRoland Nikles says:
The Scully article that is linked suggests government spending of 21% GDP as the “optimal” level for promoting “quality of life.” This goes to the question Orin Kerr asked a few days ago about how big government should be. It strikes me, however, the article uses an artificially constrained measure of “quality of life.” The study measures and correlates to 1) literacy, 2) infant mortality, and 3) life expectancy. What about living in a non-polluted environment, having efficient public transportation, having a culturally rich community by support of various arts, etc., etc.? Many people would consider their “quality of life” enhanced by living in a society that spends money on providing medical care for all (not just infants), spending money to improve the lot of the unemployed (and unemployable), spending money to support the aged to lead a life with dignity-not just to survive.
March 10, 2010, 4:37 pmRoland Nikles says:
Sorry, Yankee. The quote above is from Ilyia Somin’s post.
March 10, 2010, 4:44 pmerp says:
In reply to: Martinned
I’d rather not speak to numbers when I don’t know how reliable they are.
$12,000/yr – the bottom half of income earners? That’s probably 35 hours, five days a week at the average minimum wage of $7.25/hr. Few adults work for that wage. Even part-time fast food jobs usually taken by high school kids, pay considerably more than minimum wage.
Again, I don’t know what you mean by “putting up with it”? Low income earners can earn more — work two jobs — save their money and invest it, open a business. High income earners can lose their jobs, their businesses and drop down. There are no classes here.
Universities here can also pay students with TA jobs and grants depending on the discipline. There are also low costs loans available, so contrary to what you may have read (my husband was a university administrator, so I do know what I’m talking about), no student is turned away because of his or her ability to pay.
I’m no pollyanna and I know that immigrants who come here not knowing any English and without skills have a hard time, are frequently treated badly and work for very low wages. Whether here legally or illegally and have little recourse to complain. With few exceptions, the countries south of our border, all of which are socialist to some extent, are plagued with unimaginable poverty and no opportunities, so what’s the answer? Why do you think they put up with that?
We are the land of opportunity. That’s why knowing all the above, they still come by the millions hoping to make a better life for themselves and their families.
The condition of our inner cities is a disgrace of unimagined proportions caused by creeping socialism and deadly marriage of unscrupulous politicians aka as poverty pimps and a population of slaves so beaten down by them that they believe they are unable to take care of themselves without the welfare. If you think it’s about racism, disabuse yourself of the thought. This is black on black.
March 10, 2010, 4:51 pmerp says:
Strict, I hate to break it to you, but Nixon was a socialist.
March 10, 2010, 4:59 pmzuch says:
This is my reply:
But FWIW, I have yet to see any proof for even the comparative implicit assertion.
Cheers,
March 10, 2010, 5:34 pmleo marvin says:
Can we get a show of hands on this one? Because I suspect it gets more agreement on the ideological right than most people would think possible.
And BTW, if we’re setting the bar for socialism so low that Nixon qualifies, even I’ll agree that by that standard Obama is a socialist.
March 10, 2010, 5:40 pmAllan Walstad says:
Zuch, so you are a least partly of Norwegian ancestry? Nice to know that we have something in common.
You’re not actually denying that market economies generate more goods and a higher standard of living by & large than collectivist ones, are you? The whole run of history back to the industrial revolution demonstrates it. Stagnant populations rose rapidly in Britain precisely because the greater output made it possible for people to be more productive. Eventually, with much greater affluence, birth rates fall. The US grew from near-nothing to be the economic powerhouse of the world while lifting up millions of immigrants and dealing with the fallout from slavery and Jim Crow, and is still at or near the top after decades of astronomical military spending (which I don’t support, at least not since the Soviets collapsed and the Chinese took up capitalism). Many immigrants still come here with little more than a willingness to work. The contrast between East and West Germany during the Soviet occupation is striking, as someone noted earlier. As time has gone on and the US has moved in the direction of more collectivism, we can’t expect to maintain the same advantages. People point to Scandinavian countries, which aren’t so much socialist as welfare-statist, and these are relatively small, homogeneous societies that aren’t squandering their wealth trying to maintain military hegemony over the whole world. Britain had a much closer encounter with socialism post WWII when many industries were nationalized, and paid for it by becoming an economic basket case.
March 10, 2010, 8:10 pmcommon_sense says:
Leo,
I think his price and wage controls were at least moving in that direction. Even if that isn’t quite state control of the means of production, it is a big step in that direction.
Zuch,
March 10, 2010, 8:17 pmPrivate enterprise allocates resources more efficiently and raises the standard of living compared to a state of nature, or any other actually attempted political system. I assume that a state of nature is the only way to evaluate the statement as you unfairly characterize it. For proof, look at 100 years of economic writings and real world experience.
Strict says:
Allan,
Generally I agree that capitalists markets “allocate resources” more efficiently than governments do.
But what about preservation of resources? Look at Haiti, which has only 1% forests – the private market has completely stripped Haiti of its forest resources. It’s not profitable, especially in the short term, for the “market” or any individual company to reforest Haiti. Only the government could or would do that – or if you wish, a private company contracted by the government. The massive Cuba reforestry experiment has taught us lots of lessons on what do to and what not to do, but the point is that simply nothing will happen without government action. Almost all the reforestation corporations in North America are paid mostly by governments…
March 10, 2010, 8:47 pmnewshutz says:
I doubt that Nixon had an ideology. IMHO, He governed as a progressive, because he thought that would preserve his power.
March 10, 2010, 10:08 pmStrict says:
Well Nixon was a politician, after all. He did make empty campaign promises [microlending to poor people and minorities aka Black Capitalism] that he didn’t carry out. That just shows he was a liar, not that he lacked true ideology.
I’m not sure what’s more a more absurd claim: that Nixon was a socialist, or that Nixon was a pure pragmatist without ideology.
You can see ideology in at least some of Nixon’s judicial appointees (e.g. Rehnquist and Burger).
It’s not like Nixon only did things to get elected. I don’t think “pure practicality” would explain all the covert actions [Operation Menu covert bombing of Cambodia; covert electoral rigging in Chile; covert military support for Yahya during the genocide and personally thanking him for committing the genocide which killed anywhere between 500,000 and 3 million and creating between 8 and 10 million refugees], nor would it explain his extremely insensitive and crass comments that were not meant for public consumption [it is necessary to abort mixed race babies; we should investigate the rich Jewish cabal conspiring against me; fags are trying to destroy American society; etc.].
Nixon believed in rule by straight, white males. That’s an ideology.
March 10, 2010, 10:44 pmzuch says:
Jeg var født i Norge.
You’re very perceptive. I was not actually denying that market economies generate more goods and a higher standard of living by & large than collectivist ones. What I did was question the positive assertion that such was true. I thought that was obvious from what I said (and what I didn’t say). I simply asked for proof (or supporting evidence for this claim. Call me sceptical, I guess.
Cheers,
March 11, 2010, 1:25 amzuch says:
Ahhhh. The much-loved (by the RW) “proof by repeated assertion”. Clap harder.
Cheers,
March 11, 2010, 1:33 amAllan Walstad says:
Zuch: Got it. I have my dad’s birth or baptismal certificate (1916) from North Dakota, which was in Norwegian. A distant cousin in Norway contacted me a year ago with an email entitled “Are you the son of Malmin?” I owe her some more information about the family in the US.
March 11, 2010, 1:35 amAllan Walstad says:
Strict, I’d have to do some research, but it was my impression that privately-owned forests in the US are maintained, while clear-cutting tends (or tended, in the past) to happen on government land. From the standpoint of economics, there’s a short-term incentive to cut trees and sell lumber, but if you destroy your forest and erosion strips away the topsoil you lose property value so there’s an income versus equity tradeoff. I also seem to recall that there are more trees in the US now than in colonial times. It’s not my impression that Haiti is a bastion of free-market capitalism,
March 11, 2010, 1:57 amM. Simon says:
If you have nothing (…to lose but your chains), why wouldn’t you want to legalise theft?
Because once you do that things revert to their natural order: the rich steal from the poor.
I discuss that here: The Natural Order
Once you allow theft into the system the poor get the worst end of the deal. Which is why the Founders state: only a moral people can keep the system going.
March 11, 2010, 8:08 amM. Simon says:
People point to Scandinavian countries, which aren’t so much socialist as welfare-statist, and these are relatively small, homogeneous societies that aren’t squandering their wealth trying to maintain military hegemony over the whole world.
It is not a matter of hegemony. It is a matter of keeping the trade lanes open and reducing warfare. Here is what happens when you can’t do that:
Decline and Fall
Desolation Row
March 11, 2010, 8:19 amM. Simon says:
I’m retired poor living on Social Security. A pittance.
And yet I have central air. A computer that corporations in 1950 would have gone to great lengths to get. Hot and cold running water. Vehicles. A 10 T1 pipe feeding my computer. etc.
In other words better than the Kings of 1800. Why? Capitalists working to drive down costs to get an edge on their competition. Don’t cry for the poor. The poor have wonders today unimagined in 1800. Well OK maybe only imagined.
The problem in much of this thread is myopia.
March 11, 2010, 8:32 amSarcastro says:
Well, since we’ve made progress since 1800, we should declare victory and stop pushing for improvements!
Capitalism, democratic socialism, dag-nasty evil socialism, who cares which helps people more? Even if sometimes the poor still die of cold or starvation, they will die with free wi-fi!
March 11, 2010, 9:11 amStephen Lathrop says:
You can get the research done in about 2 minutes. Google “Maine,” zoom in on the area north of Baxter State Park (all private land), and switch to satellite view. What you will see is a mixture of clear cuts, reforested clear cuts showing obvious even-age monocultures, and land, probably second growth dating circa 1900, that hasn’t yet been cut industrially, but certainly could be. You can see the same pattern throughout the country, wherever there is logging of private land. Start with northern Florida to see more.
If you want to make the case that there are more trees now (although quantity of trees is a deceptive measure; size of trees and variety of trees mean more) than there were toward the middle of the 19th century (not colonial times), that is probably true from the eastern seaboard out across the Appalachians. West of the Mississippi, not so much, because that region mostly hadn’t been logged prior to the Civil War.
The eastern tree increase accompanied the decline of agriculture in the East as easier farming in the Midwest, and irrigated agriculture in the West, displaced agriculturally inferior eastern land. But of course the increase in eastern trees is the result of letting them grow back after first cutting them down. The colonists did not find many open fields just waiting for sowing.
In early colonial times nobody was measuring the forests. The subjective accounts suggest colonists who were deeply impressed by the extent of the forests, the size of the trees, etc. It is not hard at all to find accounts suggesting the forests were so vast that they could be cut at will without ever exhausting them. I doubt the same observers, beholding the present situation, would come to a similar conclusion. One available indicator is the size of the trees. Look in any 300-year-old house and you will likely find timbers and floor boards cut to dimensions you pretty much couldn’t make today.
You are right about clear cutting on public land. It’s a disgrace, and it continues.
March 11, 2010, 10:52 amray_g says:
Since we’ve already gotten sidetracked …
I happen to know someone who owns a small amount private timberland. He is very serious about managing and maintaining it. However, at one point it looked like the government (I don’t remember if it was the state or Federal) might restrict cutting on his (remember, privately owned) land because of some proposed environmental law/regulation. He said that if that was enacted he would cut it all before it became effective, for fear of never being able to use it after the law/reg’s enactment. So, tell me once again how the government is so good at preserving things.
(BTW, the clear cutting issue is not as “clear cut” as you might think, done properly it can be a good forest management tool. It just looks ugly right after the cut).
March 11, 2010, 11:40 amStrict says:
Allan, Haiti is certainly not a bastion of free market capitalism.
But use of the forests has been, for a long time, completely unrestricted by the government. And now there are restrictions in place, they are largely unenforced. The demand for wood [for normal wood uses and also for making charcoal] is strong. So as of now, government action in this matter is largely ineffectual, but it’s the only positive action there is.
March 11, 2010, 11:47 amzuch says:
That was a Limbaugh “talking point”. I think this may be true if you consider [or more accurately, don't take into account] the size of the colonies versus size of the U.S. today.
Cheers,
March 11, 2010, 12:06 pmM. Simon says:
Well, since we’ve made progress since 1800, we should declare victory and stop pushing for improvements!
Nice straw man. Is he dead yet?
I in fact want more progress. I believe the best way to get it is a market oriented society where theft by government is kept to a minimum. i.e. socialism is bad for progress.
March 11, 2010, 12:27 pmAllan Walstad says:
Zuch, I didn’t get it from Limbaugh. Over the years I’ve read about the issue, like many others, in various places. I’d love to have perfect recall of each reference.
Strict: Use of whose forests? Where forests are privately owned, with clear, secure long-term property rights, they tend to be managed, not just ripped out. There is a clear basis in economics for understanding this: the property owner has the incentive to consider not just the short-term income but also the underlying property value. If you clear-cut the trees and the good soil washes away, you have destroyed some or all the value of your property. This is reflected immediately in its market price. Where long-term property rights are non-existent or insecure, there is more of an incentive to take what you can now and let the future worry about itself. Here’s one link I came across, regarding a government study that was done regarding forests in the southern US:
http://mises.org/daily/1625
If the use of government forestland is insufficiently controlled, that’s a government failure, not a market failure. And to the extent you are talking about other countries, with weaker property rights and politically hamstrung economies, then again it seems the real problem is government failure, not market failure. In light of the massive despoliation of the environment under collectivism in Russia and Eastern Europe, why would you assume that government is conservation’s only or best friend?
March 11, 2010, 1:27 pmzuch says:
I didn’t say you did. I said it was a Limbaugh “talking point” (which more or less means bullsh*te, or skewed or cooked ‘facts’). I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d heard it someplace else; once the RW Mighty Wurlitzer gets cranked up and the echoes rebound from the far hills, pretty much everyone (unfortunately including the SCLM) is repeating the claims back and forth so often so as to make them seem ‘facts’. The RW is very adept at this, and that’s (in part) why “ClimateGate” has such cachet, and HCR has taken such a blow to its support. Some on the left (and others such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen Colbert) are quite aware of this, but the SCLM chooses to keep its head in the sand.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 1:55 amDesiderius says:
“The contrast between East and West Germany during the Soviet occupation is striking, as someone noted earlier. As time has gone on and the US has moved in the direction of more collectivism, we can’t expect to maintain the same advantages.”
It would be to someone not blinded by their ideology. My UK Comparative Econ professor was busy telling me that the East German economy was superior to the West German in 1989, backed by the textbook. As the wall fell, I went to see for myself.
Rip Van Zuch and his legion of colleagues are still so blinded, and evidently will be until their cohort passes from this life.
Jeers!
March 13, 2010, 10:59 amDesiderius says:
“I in fact want more progress. I believe the best way to get it is a market oriented society where theft by government is kept to a minimum. i.e. socialism is bad for progress.”
It is surreal to me that a person of Sarcastro’s evident intelligence could maintain such a willful ignorance to where libertarians are actually coming from.
As for the putative progressivism of Socialism, Nietzsche was prescient:
“Socialism is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be. Thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires a wealth of executive power, as only despotism had it; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, which it sees as an unjustified luxury of nature, and which it intends to improve into an expedient organ of the community… Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word “justice” like a nail into the heads of the semieducated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its semieducation), and to give them a good conscience for the evil game that they are supposed to play.
Socialism can serve as a rather brutal and forceful way to teach the danger of all accumulations of state power, and to that extent instill one with distrust of the state itself. When its rough voice chimes in with the battle cry “As much state as possible,” it will at first make the cry noisier than ever; but soon the opposite cry will be heard with strength the greater: ‘As little state as possible.’”
Human, All Too Human, 473
March 13, 2010, 11:09 am