1. I look around and see the vast majority of my fellow humans pursuing wants and desires that I find to be selfish, ignoble and aesthetically displeasing and, since despite all the lessons of history and evolution, I cannot believe that they would do this of their own free will, I therefore blame capitalism. Because certainly there is no socialist society in which people continued to pursue selfish, ignoble and ugly wants and desires.
2. I don't believe that comparative advantage, the division of labor, and scarcity (in the sense that economists use that term) are real things that affect the efficiency and sufficiency of all human activity, regardless of the type of economic system, and therefore I will simply ignore these unavoidable factors.
3. In terms of actually implementing the "range of expressions" that is socialism, I will follow the lead of Marx who, despite over 1,000 pages of Das Kapital, wrote close to nothing about how any of his program would actually be implemented: "my purpose here was to debate for its merits rather than to supply particular policy parameters, which can be left to more talented policy-makers than I." Because, despite innumerable failed attempts to implement my ideals at the state and communal level, I am really just here to say that "real socialism has never really been tried." Because I find this to be an insightful and novel observation.
4. In particular, I won't address the issue of how decisions will actually be made in my idealized world; I will simply gloss this issue over by inserting the adjective "democratic" in front of "socialism." So, no need to think about the existence of actual expertise (to which decisions logically should to be deferred), an intellectual division of labor, or Hayek's "knowledge problem." And certainly no consideration of Nozick's "Tale of the Slave" and just how "free" someone is in an economy where almost all resources are "democratically" controlled but where, sadly, he or she is not in the 50.1% majority.
5. The reason why the species homo sapiens has been so successful is precisely because our ability to cooperate is more advanced than any other species, which makes it all the more amazing that somehow the only societies in which humans have actually flourished are capitalist ones where dog-eat-dog competition has annihilated any cooperation.
My understanding is that Elizabeth Bruenig is a Catholic as well as a Socialist. I think she is actually trying to make the Catholic anti-capitalist argument more than the socialist one. As someone who was raised Catholic I was taught to make distinctions between desire and needs. In economics class I was taught to ignore such distinctions: "Resources will always be scarce relative to needs and desires"
She's arguing in front of a libertarian audience so she is trying to avoid invoking Papal authority. So she ends up trying to describe the entire history of the critique of desires instead. It ends up being weird because she finds herself invoking people who are anti-democracy. She would have been better off citing Popes directly. Her view of human nature reflects the type of community the Popes trying to encourage from his flock more than Marx's conflict ridden worldview.
I share a lot of her sentiments, but it is idealistic.
> And yes, as a moral realist, I say today’s standards are plainly morally superior to those of the pre-modern thinkers who took slavery, persecution, and dictatorship for granted.
Her argument is tied typical romantic negative argument. 1) Here are all the things I don't think are ideal in capitalism, and that I wish were elsewise. 2) I'm unable to explain how socialism will make those things elsewise, but I know that done right it will, really really.
I'll start by agreeing that "pay for" and "should provide" is also a fruitful area for the tug of war between competing policies.
With respect to education & child labor the history is rather more complicated.
"Reformers in the 19th century worked to improve conditions and
outlaw child labor, but it wasn’t until the Great Depression that child labor
conditions were improved. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 placed limitations
on child labor and the employment of children under 16 was prohibited (Yellowitz,
2009). Because of these changes concerning child labor, attendance in schools
began to rise." There is a bit of chicken and the egg in childhood education and childhood labor. I won't wander into the gender history of education but will note that there were substantial inequities.
With respect to literacy there is language and then there is mathematics. Teaching of mathematics significantly increased in the late 1800s and evolved through the 20th century. Not a simple story but a complicated interaction between government and local schools (as well as the "pull" from public and private universities). Hard to imagine that mathematical education would have become as broadly disseminated and advanced without federal involvement. There is a role for private mathematical education and happily students can now access advanced mathematics (and everything else) on line courses as they have interest and foundational backgrounds.
Coming back to the main point, not an either/or. Government (all levels) has a role to play as does private enterprise/Capitalism. Everyone should enter the debate with the thought that it is likely that some of each is needed to optimize results (and to keep each side "honest").
This is a great post that focuses back on realistic and mostly objective measures in which to base the comparisons.
I have one gripe - the hyperlinks to your other writing, for example moral realist, are point to a web site that does not answer, owl232 dot net or something like that. I was diving in to read more and got no response. Are those other articles on substack? Why not just link to them directly?
Black and white? As noted in the discussion all real systems are hybrids so the debate should be what is the optimum ratio of capitalism to socialism. Having capitalism and socialism compete tends to make both capitalism and socialism perform better. Education provides a good landscape for that competition. Historically public education did two good things - provided an alternative to child labor (kids in school weren't working) and raised the literacy of the general population (a very good thing). Not something that a capitalist would have done (at least not at the same rate and degree). Whether the historical socialist system is still the best way to provide education is an ongoing discussion and marketplace competition. There is a role for "socialist" policies and "capitalist" policies in "modern" society. Let's continue to debate and experiment not declare a victor.
Great line. So you think that parents sent their children to work to keep them busy because public school and daytime TV were unavailable?
You have causation exactly reversed. It wasn't "socialist" public education that eliminated child labor. It was "capitalist" productivity and innovation that made it possible for families to survive without the labor of their children, who could then be educated in the system of private education that was widely available (and literacy-producing) in America before tax-supported public education broadly emerged in the 1840s and later. In fact, if you google historical literacy rates in the US, you will see that literacy (outside of the slave population) was estimated to be virtually 100% by the early 1800s.
You should also distinguish between things that a government should "pay for" and things that a government should "provide" (a confusion which is the source of many policy errors). An argument can be made for the government to pay for universal basic education; the argument for the government to actually provide this service, usually in a largely non-competitive system, is vastly weaker. And yet that is the "socialist" system that we actually have and it has been a massive failure for the disadvantaged.
Might I suggest Haiti as a laboratory for such experimentation, especially that of the "socialist" bent? "If it works here, it'll work anywhere!" could be the country's slogan to attract the wild ravings and vast funding of professors and governments (hopefully respectively) from all over the world. We'd all stand to benefit in the sense that lunatics being identified, isolated, and confined to the asylum by the sane serves everyone.
Here is a quick summary of Bruenig's argument:
1. I look around and see the vast majority of my fellow humans pursuing wants and desires that I find to be selfish, ignoble and aesthetically displeasing and, since despite all the lessons of history and evolution, I cannot believe that they would do this of their own free will, I therefore blame capitalism. Because certainly there is no socialist society in which people continued to pursue selfish, ignoble and ugly wants and desires.
2. I don't believe that comparative advantage, the division of labor, and scarcity (in the sense that economists use that term) are real things that affect the efficiency and sufficiency of all human activity, regardless of the type of economic system, and therefore I will simply ignore these unavoidable factors.
3. In terms of actually implementing the "range of expressions" that is socialism, I will follow the lead of Marx who, despite over 1,000 pages of Das Kapital, wrote close to nothing about how any of his program would actually be implemented: "my purpose here was to debate for its merits rather than to supply particular policy parameters, which can be left to more talented policy-makers than I." Because, despite innumerable failed attempts to implement my ideals at the state and communal level, I am really just here to say that "real socialism has never really been tried." Because I find this to be an insightful and novel observation.
4. In particular, I won't address the issue of how decisions will actually be made in my idealized world; I will simply gloss this issue over by inserting the adjective "democratic" in front of "socialism." So, no need to think about the existence of actual expertise (to which decisions logically should to be deferred), an intellectual division of labor, or Hayek's "knowledge problem." And certainly no consideration of Nozick's "Tale of the Slave" and just how "free" someone is in an economy where almost all resources are "democratically" controlled but where, sadly, he or she is not in the 50.1% majority.
Pathetic. Simply pathetic.
Oh. And I almost forgot:
5. The reason why the species homo sapiens has been so successful is precisely because our ability to cooperate is more advanced than any other species, which makes it all the more amazing that somehow the only societies in which humans have actually flourished are capitalist ones where dog-eat-dog competition has annihilated any cooperation.
Pathetic. Simply pathetic.
My understanding is that Elizabeth Bruenig is a Catholic as well as a Socialist. I think she is actually trying to make the Catholic anti-capitalist argument more than the socialist one. As someone who was raised Catholic I was taught to make distinctions between desire and needs. In economics class I was taught to ignore such distinctions: "Resources will always be scarce relative to needs and desires"
She's arguing in front of a libertarian audience so she is trying to avoid invoking Papal authority. So she ends up trying to describe the entire history of the critique of desires instead. It ends up being weird because she finds herself invoking people who are anti-democracy. She would have been better off citing Popes directly. Her view of human nature reflects the type of community the Popes trying to encourage from his flock more than Marx's conflict ridden worldview.
I share a lot of her sentiments, but it is idealistic.
👋
> And yes, as a moral realist, I say today’s standards are plainly morally superior to those of the pre-modern thinkers who took slavery, persecution, and dictatorship for granted.
The 'moral realist' link (http://www.owl232.net/objectiv.htm) is dead -- maybe it should go to https://fakenous.substack.com/p/an-ontological-proof-of-moral-realism ?
Her argument is tied typical romantic negative argument. 1) Here are all the things I don't think are ideal in capitalism, and that I wish were elsewise. 2) I'm unable to explain how socialism will make those things elsewise, but I know that done right it will, really really.
I'll start by agreeing that "pay for" and "should provide" is also a fruitful area for the tug of war between competing policies.
With respect to education & child labor the history is rather more complicated.
"Reformers in the 19th century worked to improve conditions and
outlaw child labor, but it wasn’t until the Great Depression that child labor
conditions were improved. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 placed limitations
on child labor and the employment of children under 16 was prohibited (Yellowitz,
2009). Because of these changes concerning child labor, attendance in schools
began to rise." There is a bit of chicken and the egg in childhood education and childhood labor. I won't wander into the gender history of education but will note that there were substantial inequities.
With respect to literacy there is language and then there is mathematics. Teaching of mathematics significantly increased in the late 1800s and evolved through the 20th century. Not a simple story but a complicated interaction between government and local schools (as well as the "pull" from public and private universities). Hard to imagine that mathematical education would have become as broadly disseminated and advanced without federal involvement. There is a role for private mathematical education and happily students can now access advanced mathematics (and everything else) on line courses as they have interest and foundational backgrounds.
Coming back to the main point, not an either/or. Government (all levels) has a role to play as does private enterprise/Capitalism. Everyone should enter the debate with the thought that it is likely that some of each is needed to optimize results (and to keep each side "honest").
This is a great post that focuses back on realistic and mostly objective measures in which to base the comparisons.
I have one gripe - the hyperlinks to your other writing, for example moral realist, are point to a web site that does not answer, owl232 dot net or something like that. I was diving in to read more and got no response. Are those other articles on substack? Why not just link to them directly?
Caplan is the humanist here, and Bruenig is (just) a classicist.
At her age (35), I was wiser than Bruenig, though less schooled in the classics (as I remain today).
Black and white? As noted in the discussion all real systems are hybrids so the debate should be what is the optimum ratio of capitalism to socialism. Having capitalism and socialism compete tends to make both capitalism and socialism perform better. Education provides a good landscape for that competition. Historically public education did two good things - provided an alternative to child labor (kids in school weren't working) and raised the literacy of the general population (a very good thing). Not something that a capitalist would have done (at least not at the same rate and degree). Whether the historical socialist system is still the best way to provide education is an ongoing discussion and marketplace competition. There is a role for "socialist" policies and "capitalist" policies in "modern" society. Let's continue to debate and experiment not declare a victor.
"Provided an alternative to child labor."
Great line. So you think that parents sent their children to work to keep them busy because public school and daytime TV were unavailable?
You have causation exactly reversed. It wasn't "socialist" public education that eliminated child labor. It was "capitalist" productivity and innovation that made it possible for families to survive without the labor of their children, who could then be educated in the system of private education that was widely available (and literacy-producing) in America before tax-supported public education broadly emerged in the 1840s and later. In fact, if you google historical literacy rates in the US, you will see that literacy (outside of the slave population) was estimated to be virtually 100% by the early 1800s.
You should also distinguish between things that a government should "pay for" and things that a government should "provide" (a confusion which is the source of many policy errors). An argument can be made for the government to pay for universal basic education; the argument for the government to actually provide this service, usually in a largely non-competitive system, is vastly weaker. And yet that is the "socialist" system that we actually have and it has been a massive failure for the disadvantaged.
Apologies, reply wound up as new post, should be here.
Might I suggest Haiti as a laboratory for such experimentation, especially that of the "socialist" bent? "If it works here, it'll work anywhere!" could be the country's slogan to attract the wild ravings and vast funding of professors and governments (hopefully respectively) from all over the world. We'd all stand to benefit in the sense that lunatics being identified, isolated, and confined to the asylum by the sane serves everyone.