Socialism Is A Political Movement For People Whose Reasoning Never Advanced Beyond Childhood
The New York Times' David Brooks outgrew socialism, he writes, a movement he was enamored with in his early 20s:
The best version of socialism is defined by Michael Walzer's phrase, "what touches all should be decided by all." The great economic enterprises should be owned by all of us in common. Decisions should be based on what benefits all, not the maximization of profit.That's not what "democratic socialists" like Bernie Sanders are talking about, but I get why some of their socialist concerns are popular. Why do we have to live with such poverty and inequality? Why can't we put people over profits? What is the best life in the most just society? Socialism is the most compelling secular religion of all time. It gives you an egalitarian ideal to sacrifice and live for.
My socialist sympathies didn't survive long once I became a journalist. I quickly noticed that the government officials I was covering were not capable of planning the society they hoped to create. It wasn't because they were bad or stupid. The world is just too complicated.
I came to realize that capitalism is really good at doing the one thing socialism is really bad at: creating a learning process to help people figure stuff out. If you want to run a rental car company, capitalism has a whole bevy of market and price signals and feedback loops that tell you what kind of cars people want to rent, where to put your locations, how many cars to order. It has a competitive profit-driven process to motivate you to learn and innovate, every single day.
Socialist planned economies -- the common ownership of the means of production -- interfere with price and other market signals in a million ways. They suppress or eliminate profit motives that drive people to learn and improve.
It doesn't matter how big your computers are, the socialist can never gather all relevant data, can never construct the right feedback loops. The state cannot even see the local, irregular, context-driven factors that can have exponential effects. The state cannot predict people's desires, which sometimes change on a whim. Capitalism creates a relentless learning system. Socialism doesn't.
The sorts of knowledge that capitalism produces are often not profound, like how to design the best headphone. But that kind of knowledge does produce enormous wealth. Human living standards were pretty much flat for all of human history until capitalism kicked in. Since then, the number of goods and services available to average people has risen by up to 10,000 percent.
If you've been around a little while, you've noticed that capitalism has brought about the greatest reduction of poverty in human history. In 1981, 42 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. Now, it's around 10 percent. More than a billion people have been lifted out of poverty.
Here's somebody who's been there -- from the NYT's comments:
Shiv, New York
I watched the Munk debate on capitalism last night, where Mr. Brooks delivered this editorial as his closing statement. It was the most powerful argument of the evening. I grew up in India at the height of that country's infatuation with socialism, and lived all the ills and evils of socialism. Everything Mr. Brooks says resonates with me.Capitalism has lifted millions of people out of poverty globally. But the improvements in the lives of poor people in the developing world has largely been at the expense of relatively low-skilled people in the developed world, whose incomes have stagnated. The challenge for developed countries will be to create opportunities for such displaced citizens. Mr. Brooks proposes transfer payments and better training. Others propose socialism. I don't know if Mr. Brooks' proposed solution is a good one. I do know that socialism is an awful solution.
No, capitalism is not "really good at," or even "slightly good at," or even "adequate at" "creating a learning process to help people figure stuff out."
That is, unless you consider throwing someone off the side of a ship a "really good" way to teach them to swim. Capitalism provides no instruction for people to "figure stuff out." You will figure something out, or you will starve. Those are your options. No others.
Patrick at December 6, 2019 4:16 AM
If we depended upon all of us in common to get great economic enterprises off and running, we'd still be living in caves.
There will always be someone willing to get up early and sacrifice for a long-term goal; just as there will always be someone who'd rather sleep in and work 9-5 for rent money.
When does that little corner store become a "great economic enterprise?" At what point should Sam Walton have turned over Walmart to all of us in common? At what point should all of us in common have taken over the management and ownership of Standard Oil from Rockefeller?
Collectivist philosophies, whether socialism or fascism, are inherently evil. Not because they propose common ownership by "the people" or "the state," but because they devalue the individual. Once the individual can be shunted aside or sacrificed for the "common good," the system invites tyranny, begs for it.
In the Enlightenment, Europe shook off the idea that some divinely-appointed nobility owned the land, the labor, even the people, and instead put the individual on a pedestal. Capitalism let individuals own the fruits of their labor, whether farm goods, salary, or products - and they could then dispose of those fruits as they wished, as benefited them the most.
Capitalism doesn't just motivate you to learn and innovate, it forces you to learn and innovate, both at a corporate level and at an individual level. There will always be someone out there who can do your job better and faster. So you need to improve your skill set constantly with better skill and new skills.
Conan the Grammarian at December 6, 2019 4:36 AM
"Capitalism provides no instruction for people to "figure stuff out." You will figure something out, or you will starve. Those are your options. No others." ~Patrick
The alternative systems just offer for you to starve. You don't get a chance to figure anything out.
"But the improvements in the lives of poor people in the developing world has largely been at the expense of relatively low-skilled people in the developed world, whose incomes have stagnated."
Not true. It isn't the developed world that stagnated those wages. It is the powerful people in those developing nations.
Corruption is a major issue. It is just about the one thing that differentiates developing and developed nations. Once developing nations get a handle on their governmental corruption it doesn't take long for them to become developed nations.
"It wasn't because they were bad or stupid. The world is just too complicated." ~David Brooks
This is why smart presidents are bad. All presidents are arrogant. You just don't try out for the job without having a big ego. But smart presidents think they can do it all. They can't. It is just an impossible task. You can't be an expert in everything. There just aren't enough hours in a day to keep up with everything that happened in that day. Dumber presidents realize they aren't the smartest person around. They delegate to people who are experts in their field. They are still arrogant asses, but in this they make the right choice.
Ben at December 6, 2019 5:35 AM
The markets provide feed back of "that doesn't work", "we don't really want that", or "that's amazing and we want all you can make". The last one makes you as rich as Gates or Bezos.
As Conan says, we'd still be living in caves if we left these choices to "Top Men". And we'd be driving any color car we want as long as it's black, and texting each other on our Blackberry's.
The alternative systems just offer for you to starve.
Not completely true. Sometimes, they offer you the choice of being worked to death, or perhaps a bullet in the back of the head, or being gassed, or possibly being a test subject for some experimental drug developed by the later day Lysenkoists.
The Chinese seem to have elevated it to an art form: remove their healthy organs then let them die.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 6, 2019 6:44 AM
In hindsight, I realize that we wouldn't have cell phones. If a corded phone was good enough for my grandpa, it's good enough for you.
And it would be a rotary handset. Also in any color you want, so long as it was black.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 6, 2019 6:48 AM
Socialism works fine within families. Because families have to ability to discipline or in extreme cases get rid of the free riders.
It just doesn’t scale up.
The reasons it won’t scale up have a lot to do with human nature. People will work hard to better their own lives, and their children, and to take care of the elderly who they have close familial ties to. For obvious reasons they are unwilling to work to benefit strangers, and people their perceive to be scam artists or unworthy of help.
The second big reason is that central planning works for small groups with a limited number of factors to consider. There has to be a high degree of trust within the group.
It can’t and won’t work for hundreds, thousands or millions, many of whom will be working at cross purposes. The distribution chains are too long, and there are too many points for things to go wrong.
Isab at December 6, 2019 7:53 AM
The alternative systems just offer for you to starve.>>>
No, the world offers you to starve. If any creature doesn't do work, they die. This goes for humans too, under any "system." Only massive amounts of work, ceaselessly performed every day, provides food and shelter to survive, let alone prosper. Under socialism, massive amounts of work still need to be performed every day by SOMEBODY; it's just that all that work will ultimately produce much less because the socialist system is so incredibly inefficient (not to mention soul-crushing and unjust).
RigelDog at December 6, 2019 7:54 AM
Ben:
Really??? My God, I must be mentally ill! I've been laboring all this time that our society offered free education to children up to twelfth grade, which might be used to teach children these skills. Guess that doesn't happen, since all other systems of government don't allow for that sort of thing.
Capitalism would simply say, "You want your kids educated? Pay for it, bitch, and pay handsomely, or teach your kids themselves."
And I thought I had heard somewhere about a SNAP program that actually is intended to help the indigent pay for food. I guess that doesn't happen, since all other systems would simply allow you to starve.
We all know capitalism certainly wouldn't intervene to keep anyone from starving.
Patrick at December 6, 2019 8:15 AM
We all know capitalism certainly wouldn't intervene to keep anyone from starving.
Patrick at December 6, 2019 8:15 AM
Capitalism is the *only* system that produces sufficient abundance to distribute to staving people while still feeding the people who produced the food.
Isab at December 6, 2019 8:45 AM
"the government officials I was covering were not capable of planning the society they hoped to create. It wasn't JUST because they were bad or stupid."
There. FIFY.
Jay R at December 6, 2019 11:34 AM
*If any creature doesn't do work, they die. This goes for humans too, under any "system."*
Sure, like Chelsea Clinton, for example, or Hunter Biden.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 6, 2019 11:41 AM
Can't read Brooks' column right now, but does he mention any European country at any point?
As many have pointed out, being a social democrat, in any country, is NOT the same as being a socialist. And more than one European country has embraced social democrats in a way that the USA has not - and they don't seem eager to change their system to one like ours.
lenona at December 6, 2019 12:07 PM
Patrick,
Last I checked you have to buy food. It is about as capitalist as you can get. At least in any nation with an abundance of food. Look at the USSR for the alternatives. Lines going out the door in the hope of getting a loaf of bread. Or plenty of other places where alternate systems were tried. Giving up capitalism quickly leads to mass starvation.
Yes, pure capitalism will let people starve. But just like how democracy is a terrible system who's only redeeming feature is it is better than the alternatives so too capitalism is a terrible system but is still better than the alternatives.
Now, where does capitalism fail? When there is a great abundance. Capitalism is a way to efficiently allocate scare resources. If the resources aren't scarce then the system falls apart.
Ben at December 6, 2019 12:09 PM
As many have pointed out, being a social democrat, in any country, is NOT the same as being a socialist.
That's true. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden allow a great deal of capitalistic freedom. They simply tax the crap out of people to pay for the social safety net.
But Bernie & Company ain't social democrats. They're socialists, and they wish to control the means of production.
In the name of the People. Of course.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 6, 2019 12:54 PM
Instead of a political-economic system fragmented into thousands of private corporations, partnerships, proprietorships, entrepreneurs and free individuals going around doing whatever they want in pursuit of their own selfish goals and dreams, Socialism would transform a whole country into one big nonprofit corporation guided by wise, progressive politicians; and administered by educated public servants and experts with the authority to bestow equality and social justice for all, and the means (police, guns, courts, jails) to re-educate and rehabilitate those not enlightened or woke enough to fully participate in the opportunities determined best for them.
Who needs profit when you can have Socialism:
https://the-drive-3.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fapi.thedrive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F10%2F4441144411.jpg%3Fquality%3D85?w=1440&auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.4.1&s=c3a5c824ca504f851c788dd36738fdff
Ken R at December 6, 2019 4:32 PM
Socialist governments are concerned with efficiency - why do you need multiple automobile manufacturers when people can only drive one car?
This kind of thinking led East Germany to build the Trabant. Inspired by capitalist West Germany's Volkswagen ("peoples car" in German), the communist East Germans set out to build their own peoples car. For 1958, it was impressive and, more important, inexpensive.
Thirty-plus years later, when the Wall finally came down, the Trabbi had changed very little. Seatbelts and turn signals had been added, but it still lacked safety features then common on Western cars - airbags, crumple zones, etc. It still lacked comfort features Western drivers had taken for granted for years - air conditioning, cruise control, stereos with CD players, ergonomic seats, etc.
The Trabbi ran on a mixture of oil and gas with a two stroke engine that spewed smoke like an Iraqi oil fire (yes, socialism is dangerous for the environment). The car lacked a fuel pump, so the fuel tank sat above the motor, letting gravity pull the fuel mixture into the carburetor.
The Trabant was unique in the annals of automotive history in being a car that was more valuable used than new. The waiting list for a brand new Trabant was 15 years long; meaning if you purchased a new Trabant when your child was born, you could take possession of it about the time he was learning to drive.
A common joke of the time went:
A customer goes to the dealer and buys a Trabant. The dealer tells him to come back in 11 years and pick it up. "Morning or afternoon?" the customer asks. "What difference does it make?" the dealer asks, "it's 11 years from now." "Well," the customer replies, "I'd prefer the afternoon. You see, the plumber is coming in the morning."
On the other hand, if you bought a used Trabant from a neighbor, you could drive it home that day. The ability to take immediate possession drove the price of a used Trabant up to more than double that of a new one.
Without competition, there was little incentive for the Trabant manufacturer (aka the State) to undertake capital expenses like retooling factories, adding productive capacity, and upgrading designs. Customers had little choice but to buy a Trabant if they wanted a car. And they could get it in any color they wanted, as long as they wanted one in the state's drab color palette.
As far as the state was concerned, each production run sold out and that was enough. Measuring market demand and adjusting productive capacity to meet that demand was not something the state manufacturer thought necessary. After all, the state's goal was 100% employment and laying off workers when demand dropped was to be avoided. The factory produced its quota of cars every year - and not more than that - and that quota sold out, so the state considered its car manufacturing successful. With all cars of each run sold, there was little waste - no unsold cars to be crushed. Very efficient.
When the Wall came down, hundreds of thousands of Trabants were abandoned on the roads of East Germany as East Germans made their way to the Audi, Opel, and Volkswagen dealerships of the West.
Conan the Grammarian at December 6, 2019 4:36 PM
Patrick doesn't think capitalism provides "training". That is not what is meant by information. Prices provide information. If there is demand for something, prices rise and this inspires people to provide more of it. If you can make something for less that competitors, you can make more money. Companies that are efficient make profits which allow them to expand whereas poorly run companies go out of business.
Socialists seem to hate "profits" but it is only profits that allow a company to modernize, raise wages, develop new products, and expand.
Incentives are so important. In a gov run operation, there is little incentive to improve anything. In a business, if you can find a way to save money or develop a new product you will get promoted. This means that millions of people are out there every day trying to make things better. To make more money, you pretty much must find a way to make people's lives better. A car that lasts longer and handles better improves my life.
Incentives also exist for people to start a small business and grow it. Every big business was at one time a single person or a small set of partners.
cc at December 7, 2019 9:38 AM
lenona; “As many have pointed out, being a social democrat, in any country, is NOT the same as being a socialist.”
It is the same to Republicans/conservatives. To them, any use of the word “social” means you’re an evil “socialist.”
JD at December 7, 2019 11:46 AM
lenona; “As many have pointed out, being a social democrat, in any country, is NOT the same as being a socialist.”
It is the same to Republicans/conservatives. To them, any use of the word “social” means you’re an evil “socialist.”
JD at December 7, 2019 11:46 AM
Explain the differences. Too bad I won’t know you are a socialist unless you chose to make it a topic of conversation.
Social democracy usually means: one man, one vote, one time.
Sweden has become decidedly less socialist. Somehow the Swedes didn’t take kindly to hundreds of thousands of middle eastern tribal immigrants going on the dole, with no intention of either working or assimilating.
Denmark took a hard line from the start.
Isab at December 7, 2019 12:36 PM
> Capitalism provides no instruction
> for people to "figure stuff out.
Which is cool, because some of us don't want to be 'instructed.' We're not dependent children.
The wording you seek to criticize is "learning process," which is not the same thing as 'instructed.'
(PS- I dislike liberals. Thanks for your time and attention!)
Crid at December 7, 2019 7:54 PM
In other words, Conan is well attuned:
> both at a corporate level and
> at an individual level.
There are no institutions in American life encouraging individuals to think about innovative or even effective ways to be of service to others, not for profit or any other reason. (Even Sand Hill Road, I would affirm, is ever-more inclined to fund ventures which exploit customers & others.)
Crid at December 7, 2019 8:12 PM
Crid Says:
"Which is cool, because some of us don't want to be 'instructed.' We're not dependent children."
One of the great differentiators between human beings and other great apes such as gorillas is that we evolved adaptive behaviors to pass on accumulated knowledge quickly and efficiently.
Education and instruction isn't about anyone being a child... it is about recognizing the fact that while it is possible to reinvent the wheel from scratch, it is much quicker to have an expert in wheel construction show you what they have learned and you can then move forward from there.
Your adversarial gut reaction to the mere suggestion of "instruction" being involved in the process of learning has no merit or justification.
I just don't think you like the idea that there are folks out there who know more than you do on a variety of subjects and that you might have something to learn from them.
You can go ahead and forgo hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution if you like and instead operate like a gorilla... as for the rest of us, we will gladly accept instruction and guidance from experts to help accelerate the pace of our learning.
Artemis at December 8, 2019 3:00 AM
Kiss a girl.
Crid at December 8, 2019 4:52 AM
That was an impulsive response. And it was sensational!
But a couple minutes later I come back and see again that the blog post was in fact about socialism, and now, Orionbunny, you wanna to get all slippery-slope about it.
Well, no one will EVER stop you. This is a great blog! I come here all the time! Bring your best unseen psycho-dramatic enthusiasm, and dress it up for church on Sunday morning.
(And it this particular instance, your proud bow tie affirms Amy's point in brilliant fashion… It's the quintessence of socialism.)
But we might start to wonder why. Your comments are in invariant in tone, corruption and logorrhea. You're disliked. What exactly would a rhetorical victory even look like to you? How do you imagine your thoughts are received? Like, how do you picture the physical posture of your readers as they scan the sentences?… Rapt? Awestruck? Chortling?
Besides, it's what a guy/person who's touchy about having been raised in an institution would say.
Crid at December 8, 2019 5:21 AM
Crid,
It wasn't an "impulsive response" it was a childish and stupid one as per usual.
You are constantly obsessed with kissing as some landmark achievement like a teenage boy who just started puberty.
Have you ever taken care of a newborn?
Have you ever taken care of an elderly parent?
Have you ever buried someone you loved?
There are the kinds of things that actual adults deal with that have true emotional content.
Incidentally your obsession with kissing is also attached to a constant aggravation with a perception of folks telling you what to do or "instructing" you. Your behavior is no different than someone who never actually left middle school.
You really need to grow up.
Artemis at December 12, 2019 11:19 AM
Leave a comment