1 / 31

The End of Socialism

The End of Socialism. James R. Otteson Joint Professor of Philosophy and Economics Chairman, Department of Philosophy Yeshiva University . G. A. Cohen on Socialism vs. Capitalism. Socialism: cooperation, sharing, altruism, equality.

tivona
Download Presentation

The End of Socialism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The End of Socialism James R. Otteson Joint Professor of Philosophy and Economics Chairman, Department of Philosophy Yeshiva University

  2. G. A. Cohen on Socialism vs. Capitalism • Socialism: cooperation, sharing, altruism, equality. • Capitalism: competition, hoarding, selfishness, inequality. • Socialism: community in affection. • Capitalism: atomization from greed and fear.

  3. 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.

  4. Two Separate Claims: • Is socialism infeasible? • Is socialism morally attractive? • “Moral shabbiness of market motivation.” • “The market is intrinsically repugnant.” • “Every market … is a system of predation.”

  5. Preliminary Note on Terms • “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.

  6. Question 1: Is Socialism Infeasible? • 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.

  7. The End of the Discussion? • 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.

  8. Impracticality and Ideals • Impracticality by itself does not defeat an ideal. • An ideal is not defeated … unless: • Involves use of immoral means or policies, or • 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.

  9. Experience with Socialism: Immoral Means? • 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.

  10. Consider: Lenin and Stalin • 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.

  11. Mao Zedong • 1927-76 (incl. guerilla period): 77,000,000 dead. • For comparison: • Hitler, 1933-45: 21,000,000.

  12. PolPot • 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. • (PolPot died peacefully in 1998 after a one-year house arrest.)

  13. Conclusion on “Immoral Means?” • Remember: impracticality does not defeat an ideal … unless: • Involves use of immoral means or policies, or • Makes people worse off than otherwise. • Claim: immoral means and policies have beenimplemented. • Does that defeat the ideal? • But let us press further.

  14. Other Part of Exception: Worse Off? • 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:

  15. Global Correlations • 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?

  16. Top 10 Countries in “Economic Freedom” Source: The Fraser Institute.

  17. The Bottom Ten Source: The Fraser Institute.

  18. “Economic Freedom” and Wealth

  19. EF and U.N. Development Index* • *Combined measurement of: (1) life expectancy, (2) adult literacy rates, (3) school enrollment, and (4) per-capita incomes.

  20. Life Expectancy • Note: difference between top and bottom quartiles is over twenty years.

  21. Children • Infant mortality measured against EF: • Child labor(% of 10-14 year-olds in work force) against EF:

  22. Environmental Performance* • *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, 2008Environmental Performance Index (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/epi).

  23. EF Tracks Positively with Increases in:

  24. Conclusion on “Worse Off?”

  25. Is That the End of the Discussion? • 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? • Specified, narrow, and shared purpose. • Personal familiarity → personal trust, joint effort. • Unless subsidized from without, low standard of living. • Would it work on a large scale?

  26. Let Us Take Stock • What have we shown? • Socialism seems difficult to reconcile with human nature and the human condition. • 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.”

  27. “Species Being”:Promise and Pitfall • 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.

  28. Great Moral Leap Forward • 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.

  29. One Example: “Freeborn John” • 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.

  30. Conclusions • Socialism faces serious challenges: • Human nature and human condition entail its infeasibility. • Large-scale attempts have both involved immoral means and have left people worse off. • Its conception of humanity is both factually incorrect and morally flawed. • Thus, the socialist grapes: • cannot be harvested, • have induced destructive attempts, and • are rotten in their core. • Is it time, then, to give up on the socialist grapes?

  31. Thank you! James R. Otteson Yeshiva University 500 W. 185th St. New York, NY 10033 otteson@yu.edu

More Related