Walk me through this socialism. Who does trash pickup? Who goes out on the ocean and catches fish? What process organizes the production of a pencil, or a toaster, or a computer? What if 90 percent of us have a dream job of being a rock star--do we all get to be rock stars?
Thanks for commenting, but I don't think this is the "gotcha" you think it is.
"Who does trash pickup?" - Sanitation workers. "Who catches fish?" - Fishermen. "What process organizes the production of a pencil?" - Market inputs at first, hopefully one day followed by efficient planning.
I have a strong hunch you didn't actually read the article, but just reacted to the headline.
This is begging the question. There are a lot of unpleasant tasks that need to be done that an insufficient number of people would consider part of a “dream job”. There are a lot of other tasks people would like to do that too many would consider their dream job. So how do we ensure we have enough people emptying bed pans and not too many pursuing a career in esports? One answer is to force some people into occupations they don’t want - say the maoist approach of forcing some to be farmers. I think most advocates for socialism would say that isn’t what they have in mind. Others would say we can let supply and demand, preferences, and the need to make a living guide things, but of course that is a major part of the system you are criticizing. I suppose another alternative is just to live with shortages, but that doesn’t seem to be an improvement on the status quo (the government can’t offer a service no one will provide). What are the other alternatives? Your post doesn’t offer them. Rather, it just assumes they will emerge.
nothing in the article came close to answering my questions. It's not my dream job to be a sanitation worker. It's not my dream job to be a fisherman. Are we just assuming that there are enough people for whom those are dream jobs that they will get done?
"It's not my dream job to be a sanitation worker. It's not my dream job to be a fisherman."
I don't know why you're taking your preferences and trying to copy-paste them onto society at large. The article isn't claiming some people have a burning desire to be a garbageman, but by structuring the employment system to make those jobs more tempting (higher pay, less time working, etc.) they can become "dream jobs."
In fact, as someone from a fishing town, I know many people who fish as their "dream job." They are paid extraordinarily well and work significantly fewer hours than other workers. (They'd make even more if the profit taken by their bosses was given to them.)
I still haven't seen one argument for how it is mathematically possible for everyone to work on what they want whilst society doesn't suffer from lack of necessary but less desirable work. Sure, someone out there will want to be as sanitation worker, but I find it hard to believe enough people will want to do that for us not to need people who don't want to doing it anyway.
Also, I find it cute that part of your explanation for why some people's dream job is fishing involves the pay...
And here comes AI (great piece in The Free Press substack today debating the merits of AI) whereby the tech wizards will charge us for the privilege of stealing ALL of our combined talents and data to produce their products. They will make open source impossible or illegal, just like the internet which was supposed to be free. Who's gonna pay for the tremendous amount of energy its going to suck up and then spit out into our fragile world? And someone please tell me how AI will create more jobs than it will eliminate when the current sad state of affairs is that our students are failing simple math and can't read at grade level? Is the rich tech elite going swoop down and magically save 4 decades of declining worker rights?
I'm fearful about what the next decade of Artificial Intelligence holds in store. Right now, I see so much volatility around it, that I could envision companies "getting ahead of the curve" and racing each other to see who can replace their workers first.
I think you're spot on about, "The REAL problems are those that AI turbocharges, NOT "create". Technological innovations have always disrupted the economy and put people out of work. I fear what's going to happen is AI will do to many white collar jobs what offshoring did to manufacturing jobs: it will replace the workers, who will have to find employment in a lower-paying field, reducing the livelihood of the working class.
" AI will do to many white collar jobs" is not a fear, is past news already. But my point is that those jobs will disappear anyway, and the sooner the better, regardless of AI.
Capitalism is all about who pisses on the ground first to claim their spot AI in and of itself is not the problem (in my humble opinion). The current state of humanity is the problem. We have moved to an authoritative system of worldwide governance and our history has shown that powerful tools in the hands of a concentration of power spells destruction.
Jul 11, 2023·edited Jul 13, 2023Liked by Joe Mayall
Joe, Thank you for crafting another excellent and bullseye piece. I agree with all that you've said here, and that under Capitalism "meaningful labor is corrupted." In my 47 years of working for a vast variety of businesses it all has been tainted by this. Even the "small business."
This article is so timely as I weigh out the pros and cons of the two job offers I've just received. Both at a non-livable wage. (Insert eye roll and sardonic chuckle).
I'm sorry to hear the job offers are poverty wages. That breaks my heart. Everyone deserves a decent, living wage, and all the dignity that should come with it.
People want material things. One thing people want is “dream jobs” — which is to say: jobs that are satisfying to do/jobs that provide gratification beyond the paycheck. What system is most likely to produce more of what people want, and why? Human history suggests that free markets are better at producing material things people want than “efficient planning,” whether those things are dream jobs or something else.
Arnold Kling’s question “if 90 percent of us want to be rock stars, does that mean 90 percent of us get to be rock stars?” is a very tough question for you to answer. What it illuminates is that central planning that satisfies more desires for more people, as compared to free markets, is more or less impossible.
By material things, I just mean “things in the material world” — that includes consumer goods, necessities, services, and jobs (whether they are dream and non-dream). There are plenty of non-material things that people want too, like meaningful relationships, wisdom, and enlightenment, but it is probably asking too much of economic systems to deliver non-material things.
Thanks for clarifying. To return to your original point, "Human history suggests that free markets are better at producing material things people want than “efficient planning."
I think this is to broad a statement to make. If we're talking about homes, then American freemarkets are not good at providing them. We currently have the 4th highest rate of homelessness in the world. Additionally, many of the "consumer goods" people want (TVs, video games, etc.) can and do exist under Socialist structures. Markets aren't exclusive to Capitalism, so there's no real difference there besides the conditions of the workplace that produces those goods.
You are making some very strange arguments that suggest that you are largely unfamiliar with comparative economics, economic history, or economics at all. It is not that difficult for economic planners to create X nuclear bombs, X thousand tanks, or X million bullets. All you have to do is divert capital to the ends you choose and draft a bunch of employees. But getting economic planners to create X million new jobs is more or less a guaranteed failure, because that kind of project rests on building an entire society of economic relationships. It demands knowledge, calculation, and coordination that we simply lack. The notion that the consumer goods (both from a quality and access perspective) that socialist regimes created are in any way comparable to free-market economies is risible. (Famously, when Boris Yeltsin visited the USA in 1989, he thought that the Dallas supermarket he toured was an elaborate practical joke -- because of course it would be impossible for a run-of-the-mill supermarket to provide food of such quality and variety!) You should learn something about what life is really like under socialist regimes: I promise that they simply don't keep up with free-market countries. The same is absolutely true for "dream jobs."
" It demands knowledge, calculation, and coordination that we simply lack."
Correct. I am advocating for society to start improving these facets so that we can efficiently plan necessities, which markets fail to effectively distribute (see American's homelessness and healthcare crisis).
Sounds great, but I neither see nor have heard of any such successful states. On the contrary, they all collapse badly: the U.S.S.R, Red China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba.
Scandinavian nations are social democracies; the government does not own all sources of production.
Granted, capitalism is a terrible economic system with ugly inequality; however, it's still better than all the others. FDR saved it for a reason. (It had collapsed in 1929 for about the sixth time in America.)
I like a strong social safety net, but capitalism seems to be the best system to provide such. I would like to live in a nation of Good Samaritans who donate time, money, and energy to helping others, without Big Brother telling them what to do and how to do it. Or will that not happen because you promise that they will be noble, kind-hearted masters? What would George Orwell say?
And: "Scandinavian nations are social democracies; the government does not own all sources of production."
Is your definition of Socialism that the government owns every source of wealth? Because that has never, and likely will never exist. If it did, it could also be considered State Capitalism (not Socialism) depending on whether or not a specific class is controlling the government.
Red China became Blue China, if you will: Socialism was not working for them, so they ditched it and allowed widespread, freewheeling capitalism. Sink or swim became the order of the day; the government was no longer going to support you, not even provide universal education. It worked gangbusters: Their entrepreneurial spirit took off. They're smart, hard-working, focused people; poverty is a great goad, one of humankind's greatest fears.
Lots of definitions of socialism, but here's one from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole," that is, the government. Now if you somehow manage to have an ethical and moral government, you've got a shot at Earth-bound utopia. However, as Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, that applies across the board -- to corporations, governments, small businesses, families, all types of organizations.
It's human nature to be fallible, yet think that your motives are pure and your methods highly effective. What could go wrong if we good guys take over? Of course, we must have a government, but so many, just about all, in fact, have gone wrong; ours was circling the drain when Trump took over. We still might drown ourselves.
We need to be humble, cautious, and improve our societies in piecemeal fashion; that way, a mistake, usually small, can be corrected or further implemented. If we jump to a whole new system, as Russia, China, Cambodia, and Cuba did, the the outcomes can be horrendous. People are different, like and hate different things, don't like to be told what to do, don't like to share, don't like change; we have to work with all these variegated personalities fairly, respectfully, and effectively: We are impatient for results; we want our personal lives to improve. Too few of us are moral heroes, i.e., willing to sacrifice for complete strangers. Millions of us recently wouldn't even get vaccines for Covid, even though it might save their lives. Stubborn to the max are they.
Governing people is a perennial, daunting, almost futile challenge. In fact, an ancient Chinese proverb has it that "There is no such thing as governing people; there is, however, such a thing as leaving people alone."
Aristotle said that a "magnanimous" man (his heroic type) does the right thing at the right time in the right way to the right degree to the right person or group. Fine. Now, Professor Aristotle, what exactly is the right thing? (Virtually everyone provides a slightly different answer, so the problem remains. For you, I think, it's a form of socialism; for me, it's a well-regulated capitalism, a social democracy, with a strong social safety net, preferably with a nation chockablock with Good Samaritans. Good luck with that, eh?)
Thanks for asking and starting an interesting conversation. And your civility is a rarity these days; we're all at each other's throats immediately and endlessly. Not helpful, of course, but we're largely animals with clothes on, at least when push comes to shove.
This is a lot of complaining with no real solution besides the word “socialism”. Do you truly understand what a socialist society would look like? How, for example, would you get your gallon of milk for the week? Where would the milk come from, how would it be cleaned, packaged, distributed? What are all the steps involved and how would that look in a socialist society? Break it down to the minutae, dig into some history and economics books, and write *that* article. That’s the truly helpful thing to do.
It's very weird to me when people critique an article with "your writing isn't the writing I'm currently imaging." It's the ultimate strawman.
But nonsense aside, there was actually a time when milk and other commodities was distributed to Americans through central planning, which I wrote about just a few weeks ago.
It’s not that your writing isn’t the writing that I’m imagining. It’s that your essay isn’t particularly persuasive. I think if you offered a more concrete example of what you think a better system would be, then it would strengthen the essay quite a bit.
Oddly, socialism always seems to end up with a handful owning the Dachas and offshore bank accounts while everyone else stands in line for their lard ration. I can find this capitalism everywhere. Oh, and I always hated my bosses, but a poor man never gave me a job. I find capitalism in my four-bedroom ai-conditioned and heated house with hot and cold running water. I can see it in my big screen tv and I carry it around in my pocket where my universally connected smart phone sits.
I've seen socialism. I can see Cuba where people have no weight problem and don't need to sweat the car payments.
Just where is this socialism of which you speak? Show me.
I read the article. I see a description of the Marxist utopia, but I don't see either a reference to any polity that enacted the dream, nor do I see a plan or schema for its enactment. Marx was an excellent writer and made his meaning and analysis clear. In a sense, it's profoundly nostalgic. "The bourgeoisie] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff." Globalization don't ya know.
Central planning? That's what ruins every attempt at socialism. It's a negative feedback cycle of corrupted information that leads to a downward spiral. Ruthless capitalism, on the other hand, is in a constant search for ways to make people happy enough to buy the myriad products offered. It's a conspiracy to make you happy. You know, like a Barbie movie. No central planner would ever make a Barbie movie, send Taylor Swift on tour, or thought of frozen margarita machines. Have you seen what politicians are like? You want them deciding what you can eat, wear, watch, drive?
"Central planning? ... It's a negative feedback cycle of corrupted information that leads to a downward spiral."
This is indisputably false, as evidenced by the fact that American used central planning to defeat Fascist Germany.
"Have you seen what politicians are like? You want them deciding what you can eat, wear, watch, drive?"
No. I want the people to control the means of production and decide for themselves what they would like to produce and consume, either through planning or market forces.
A) I doubt you've taken a deep dive into the US production response in WW2. B) "The people" already decide that through the market mechanism. They don't buy what they don't want. C) The people never control the means of production. The bosses do- in the name of the people instead of the shareholders- still the bosses, except they have guns and can't be fired for poor performance.
The US defeated fascist Germany and Communist Russia- both the epitome of central planning.
It is quite amazing that people still promote this bankrupt and murderous ideology. Again, where and when has it ever worked? In WW2 it was America's capitalist enterprises that provided the sinews of war. Look up Ford's Willow Run plant.
What article and by whom? The US was in a war emergency for about five years ( we started before Dec 41). How does that relate to a centrally planned civilian economy? The products of a war machine are sunk investments. They are destroyed in the process of their use. I don't see the relevance. We didn't have tank factories. We had car factories that were converted and then converted back. We often built the wrong stuff, but we built an awful lot of it because we had all those Ford factories, US Steel, Henry Kaiser, and Standard Oil. It was a contest between capitalism and the theorists of central planning.
IDK how you get to N, but China pivoted to authoritarian capitalism instead of authoritarian socialism in order to try and get to maybe F, since it wasn't happening under authoritarian socialism
If you want to learn more about how Socialism actually works in the real world, try reading "To Destroy You Is No Loss". It's heartbreaking how cruel these communist brothers were to the "governed" in the pursuit of utopian Cambodia. I don't think there were many dream jobs included.
I've read a lot of these internet critiques of capitalism and they always seem to confuse capitalism and human nature. I'm not saying the "free market is the natural way to act" argument that libertarians use. I am just always skeptical when I see anti-capitalist (or post-capitalist) complaints like:
"In the tech sector, a new boss came in and fired my friend just so she could hire her own."
If you had worked at the People's App Co-op, do you assume there wouldn't be nepotism? Worker protections might mean that your friend's job would be protected, but even a boss elected by your peers would support their friend over yours. Or maybe your peers would directly vote to screw over your friend in favor someone they liked more. Even when you "have a say in your workplace" you'll often end up not getting your way or be treated unfairly.
There's situations of people treating each other terribly without capitalism. Go to a high school cafeteria in a nice suburb, a garage band or a group of grad students and you'll see no profit motives but plenty of miserable interactions. What's an example of a socialist (or at least less capitalist) organization that doesn't have this sort of problem? People never dislike their job at worker co-ops?
This is a very confusing critique to me. It seems to boil down to, "Evolving past capitalism won't solve the flaws of human nature," which I (nor any other post-Capitalist I'm aware of) has ever claimed.
"Or maybe your peers would directly vote to screw over your friend in favor someone they liked more."
What you're describing above is democracy. Yes, under a democratic system (in politics or the workplace) things are not always going to go your way. So be it.
Would this democratic workplace, which also ends up with your friend losing a position to someone else, be a dream job?
Edit: I read your post as making that claim, indirectly. Some of your complaints about jobs seem to be due to human nature. Since you are saying that evolving past capitalism will solve these problems (which can be described as flaws of human nature), you are saying that claim.
I’m not going to pay you money to read an article that is headed by a title that concedes you don’t answer the question. We already dealt with the big difference between central planning to produce military weapons and central planning that produce social networks. Thanks for the evasion, though!
Joe, what you are doing is proposing a perpetual motion machine. The kind of knowledge, calculation, and coordination that is needed to centrally plan to create millions of "Dream Jobs" does not exist and cannot exist. There is no difference between your advocacy and plain old wishful thinking. There is no way to coordinate the wishes and desires of millions of people without a network to do so, and central planning has never created such a network and cannot create such a network. I will admit that I am really curious whether you think that central planning has ever "efficiently planned necessities."
Walk me through this socialism. Who does trash pickup? Who goes out on the ocean and catches fish? What process organizes the production of a pencil, or a toaster, or a computer? What if 90 percent of us have a dream job of being a rock star--do we all get to be rock stars?
Thanks for commenting, but I don't think this is the "gotcha" you think it is.
"Who does trash pickup?" - Sanitation workers. "Who catches fish?" - Fishermen. "What process organizes the production of a pencil?" - Market inputs at first, hopefully one day followed by efficient planning.
I have a strong hunch you didn't actually read the article, but just reacted to the headline.
This is begging the question. There are a lot of unpleasant tasks that need to be done that an insufficient number of people would consider part of a “dream job”. There are a lot of other tasks people would like to do that too many would consider their dream job. So how do we ensure we have enough people emptying bed pans and not too many pursuing a career in esports? One answer is to force some people into occupations they don’t want - say the maoist approach of forcing some to be farmers. I think most advocates for socialism would say that isn’t what they have in mind. Others would say we can let supply and demand, preferences, and the need to make a living guide things, but of course that is a major part of the system you are criticizing. I suppose another alternative is just to live with shortages, but that doesn’t seem to be an improvement on the status quo (the government can’t offer a service no one will provide). What are the other alternatives? Your post doesn’t offer them. Rather, it just assumes they will emerge.
nothing in the article came close to answering my questions. It's not my dream job to be a sanitation worker. It's not my dream job to be a fisherman. Are we just assuming that there are enough people for whom those are dream jobs that they will get done?
"It's not my dream job to be a sanitation worker. It's not my dream job to be a fisherman."
I don't know why you're taking your preferences and trying to copy-paste them onto society at large. The article isn't claiming some people have a burning desire to be a garbageman, but by structuring the employment system to make those jobs more tempting (higher pay, less time working, etc.) they can become "dream jobs."
In fact, as someone from a fishing town, I know many people who fish as their "dream job." They are paid extraordinarily well and work significantly fewer hours than other workers. (They'd make even more if the profit taken by their bosses was given to them.)
I still haven't seen one argument for how it is mathematically possible for everyone to work on what they want whilst society doesn't suffer from lack of necessary but less desirable work. Sure, someone out there will want to be as sanitation worker, but I find it hard to believe enough people will want to do that for us not to need people who don't want to doing it anyway.
Also, I find it cute that part of your explanation for why some people's dream job is fishing involves the pay...
And here comes AI (great piece in The Free Press substack today debating the merits of AI) whereby the tech wizards will charge us for the privilege of stealing ALL of our combined talents and data to produce their products. They will make open source impossible or illegal, just like the internet which was supposed to be free. Who's gonna pay for the tremendous amount of energy its going to suck up and then spit out into our fragile world? And someone please tell me how AI will create more jobs than it will eliminate when the current sad state of affairs is that our students are failing simple math and can't read at grade level? Is the rich tech elite going swoop down and magically save 4 decades of declining worker rights?
I'm fearful about what the next decade of Artificial Intelligence holds in store. Right now, I see so much volatility around it, that I could envision companies "getting ahead of the curve" and racing each other to see who can replace their workers first.
Then I'd really appreciate your feedback on this: https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/ubi-ai-and-reality-always-in-the
I think you're spot on about, "The REAL problems are those that AI turbocharges, NOT "create". Technological innovations have always disrupted the economy and put people out of work. I fear what's going to happen is AI will do to many white collar jobs what offshoring did to manufacturing jobs: it will replace the workers, who will have to find employment in a lower-paying field, reducing the livelihood of the working class.
" AI will do to many white collar jobs" is not a fear, is past news already. But my point is that those jobs will disappear anyway, and the sooner the better, regardless of AI.
Capitalism is all about who pisses on the ground first to claim their spot AI in and of itself is not the problem (in my humble opinion). The current state of humanity is the problem. We have moved to an authoritative system of worldwide governance and our history has shown that powerful tools in the hands of a concentration of power spells destruction.
Joe, Thank you for crafting another excellent and bullseye piece. I agree with all that you've said here, and that under Capitalism "meaningful labor is corrupted." In my 47 years of working for a vast variety of businesses it all has been tainted by this. Even the "small business."
This article is so timely as I weigh out the pros and cons of the two job offers I've just received. Both at a non-livable wage. (Insert eye roll and sardonic chuckle).
I'm sorry to hear the job offers are poverty wages. That breaks my heart. Everyone deserves a decent, living wage, and all the dignity that should come with it.
I think Arnold Kling has your number.
People want material things. One thing people want is “dream jobs” — which is to say: jobs that are satisfying to do/jobs that provide gratification beyond the paycheck. What system is most likely to produce more of what people want, and why? Human history suggests that free markets are better at producing material things people want than “efficient planning,” whether those things are dream jobs or something else.
Arnold Kling’s question “if 90 percent of us want to be rock stars, does that mean 90 percent of us get to be rock stars?” is a very tough question for you to answer. What it illuminates is that central planning that satisfies more desires for more people, as compared to free markets, is more or less impossible.
What do you mean by "People want material things"? Are you talking about consumer goods (Xboxs, baseball gloves) or necessities (food and shelter)?
By material things, I just mean “things in the material world” — that includes consumer goods, necessities, services, and jobs (whether they are dream and non-dream). There are plenty of non-material things that people want too, like meaningful relationships, wisdom, and enlightenment, but it is probably asking too much of economic systems to deliver non-material things.
Thanks for clarifying. To return to your original point, "Human history suggests that free markets are better at producing material things people want than “efficient planning."
I think this is to broad a statement to make. If we're talking about homes, then American freemarkets are not good at providing them. We currently have the 4th highest rate of homelessness in the world. Additionally, many of the "consumer goods" people want (TVs, video games, etc.) can and do exist under Socialist structures. Markets aren't exclusive to Capitalism, so there's no real difference there besides the conditions of the workplace that produces those goods.
You are making some very strange arguments that suggest that you are largely unfamiliar with comparative economics, economic history, or economics at all. It is not that difficult for economic planners to create X nuclear bombs, X thousand tanks, or X million bullets. All you have to do is divert capital to the ends you choose and draft a bunch of employees. But getting economic planners to create X million new jobs is more or less a guaranteed failure, because that kind of project rests on building an entire society of economic relationships. It demands knowledge, calculation, and coordination that we simply lack. The notion that the consumer goods (both from a quality and access perspective) that socialist regimes created are in any way comparable to free-market economies is risible. (Famously, when Boris Yeltsin visited the USA in 1989, he thought that the Dallas supermarket he toured was an elaborate practical joke -- because of course it would be impossible for a run-of-the-mill supermarket to provide food of such quality and variety!) You should learn something about what life is really like under socialist regimes: I promise that they simply don't keep up with free-market countries. The same is absolutely true for "dream jobs."
" It demands knowledge, calculation, and coordination that we simply lack."
Correct. I am advocating for society to start improving these facets so that we can efficiently plan necessities, which markets fail to effectively distribute (see American's homelessness and healthcare crisis).
Er, has real socialism worked anywhere?
Sounds great, but I neither see nor have heard of any such successful states. On the contrary, they all collapse badly: the U.S.S.R, Red China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba.
Scandinavian nations are social democracies; the government does not own all sources of production.
Granted, capitalism is a terrible economic system with ugly inequality; however, it's still better than all the others. FDR saved it for a reason. (It had collapsed in 1929 for about the sixth time in America.)
I like a strong social safety net, but capitalism seems to be the best system to provide such. I would like to live in a nation of Good Samaritans who donate time, money, and energy to helping others, without Big Brother telling them what to do and how to do it. Or will that not happen because you promise that they will be noble, kind-hearted masters? What would George Orwell say?
What do you mean by, "Red China has collapsed"?
And: "Scandinavian nations are social democracies; the government does not own all sources of production."
Is your definition of Socialism that the government owns every source of wealth? Because that has never, and likely will never exist. If it did, it could also be considered State Capitalism (not Socialism) depending on whether or not a specific class is controlling the government.
Red China became Blue China, if you will: Socialism was not working for them, so they ditched it and allowed widespread, freewheeling capitalism. Sink or swim became the order of the day; the government was no longer going to support you, not even provide universal education. It worked gangbusters: Their entrepreneurial spirit took off. They're smart, hard-working, focused people; poverty is a great goad, one of humankind's greatest fears.
Lots of definitions of socialism, but here's one from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole," that is, the government. Now if you somehow manage to have an ethical and moral government, you've got a shot at Earth-bound utopia. However, as Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, that applies across the board -- to corporations, governments, small businesses, families, all types of organizations.
It's human nature to be fallible, yet think that your motives are pure and your methods highly effective. What could go wrong if we good guys take over? Of course, we must have a government, but so many, just about all, in fact, have gone wrong; ours was circling the drain when Trump took over. We still might drown ourselves.
We need to be humble, cautious, and improve our societies in piecemeal fashion; that way, a mistake, usually small, can be corrected or further implemented. If we jump to a whole new system, as Russia, China, Cambodia, and Cuba did, the the outcomes can be horrendous. People are different, like and hate different things, don't like to be told what to do, don't like to share, don't like change; we have to work with all these variegated personalities fairly, respectfully, and effectively: We are impatient for results; we want our personal lives to improve. Too few of us are moral heroes, i.e., willing to sacrifice for complete strangers. Millions of us recently wouldn't even get vaccines for Covid, even though it might save their lives. Stubborn to the max are they.
Governing people is a perennial, daunting, almost futile challenge. In fact, an ancient Chinese proverb has it that "There is no such thing as governing people; there is, however, such a thing as leaving people alone."
Aristotle said that a "magnanimous" man (his heroic type) does the right thing at the right time in the right way to the right degree to the right person or group. Fine. Now, Professor Aristotle, what exactly is the right thing? (Virtually everyone provides a slightly different answer, so the problem remains. For you, I think, it's a form of socialism; for me, it's a well-regulated capitalism, a social democracy, with a strong social safety net, preferably with a nation chockablock with Good Samaritans. Good luck with that, eh?)
Thanks for asking and starting an interesting conversation. And your civility is a rarity these days; we're all at each other's throats immediately and endlessly. Not helpful, of course, but we're largely animals with clothes on, at least when push comes to shove.
All the best.
This is a lot of complaining with no real solution besides the word “socialism”. Do you truly understand what a socialist society would look like? How, for example, would you get your gallon of milk for the week? Where would the milk come from, how would it be cleaned, packaged, distributed? What are all the steps involved and how would that look in a socialist society? Break it down to the minutae, dig into some history and economics books, and write *that* article. That’s the truly helpful thing to do.
It's very weird to me when people critique an article with "your writing isn't the writing I'm currently imaging." It's the ultimate strawman.
But nonsense aside, there was actually a time when milk and other commodities was distributed to Americans through central planning, which I wrote about just a few weeks ago.
https://joewrote.substack.com/p/how-the-american-economy-was-centrally
Please engage in good faith conversation, not these hollow (and, incorrect) "gotchas."
It’s not that your writing isn’t the writing that I’m imagining. It’s that your essay isn’t particularly persuasive. I think if you offered a more concrete example of what you think a better system would be, then it would strengthen the essay quite a bit.
Oddly, socialism always seems to end up with a handful owning the Dachas and offshore bank accounts while everyone else stands in line for their lard ration. I can find this capitalism everywhere. Oh, and I always hated my bosses, but a poor man never gave me a job. I find capitalism in my four-bedroom ai-conditioned and heated house with hot and cold running water. I can see it in my big screen tv and I carry it around in my pocket where my universally connected smart phone sits.
I've seen socialism. I can see Cuba where people have no weight problem and don't need to sweat the car payments.
Just where is this socialism of which you speak? Show me.
The comment that no poor man ever gave me a job is a goddam classic. I have never heard that before.
Fwiw the article is better than you are allowing for, even if I tend to agree with you.
I read the article. I see a description of the Marxist utopia, but I don't see either a reference to any polity that enacted the dream, nor do I see a plan or schema for its enactment. Marx was an excellent writer and made his meaning and analysis clear. In a sense, it's profoundly nostalgic. "The bourgeoisie] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff." Globalization don't ya know.
"Just where is this socialism of which you speak? Show me."
Here's a snippet of what it could look like: https://joewrote.substack.com/p/how-the-american-economy-was-centrally
Central planning? That's what ruins every attempt at socialism. It's a negative feedback cycle of corrupted information that leads to a downward spiral. Ruthless capitalism, on the other hand, is in a constant search for ways to make people happy enough to buy the myriad products offered. It's a conspiracy to make you happy. You know, like a Barbie movie. No central planner would ever make a Barbie movie, send Taylor Swift on tour, or thought of frozen margarita machines. Have you seen what politicians are like? You want them deciding what you can eat, wear, watch, drive?
"Central planning? ... It's a negative feedback cycle of corrupted information that leads to a downward spiral."
This is indisputably false, as evidenced by the fact that American used central planning to defeat Fascist Germany.
"Have you seen what politicians are like? You want them deciding what you can eat, wear, watch, drive?"
No. I want the people to control the means of production and decide for themselves what they would like to produce and consume, either through planning or market forces.
A) I doubt you've taken a deep dive into the US production response in WW2. B) "The people" already decide that through the market mechanism. They don't buy what they don't want. C) The people never control the means of production. The bosses do- in the name of the people instead of the shareholders- still the bosses, except they have guns and can't be fired for poor performance.
The US defeated fascist Germany and Communist Russia- both the epitome of central planning.
It is quite amazing that people still promote this bankrupt and murderous ideology. Again, where and when has it ever worked? In WW2 it was America's capitalist enterprises that provided the sinews of war. Look up Ford's Willow Run plant.
"I doubt you've taken a deep dive into the US production response in WW2."
I just provided you an article doing exactly this. What are you talking about?
What article and by whom? The US was in a war emergency for about five years ( we started before Dec 41). How does that relate to a centrally planned civilian economy? The products of a war machine are sunk investments. They are destroyed in the process of their use. I don't see the relevance. We didn't have tank factories. We had car factories that were converted and then converted back. We often built the wrong stuff, but we built an awful lot of it because we had all those Ford factories, US Steel, Henry Kaiser, and Standard Oil. It was a contest between capitalism and the theorists of central planning.
You are going to have to prove this works rather than say it will.
1) nationalise the factories. Or whatever you think is socialism.
….
….
….
N) dream jobs for everybody.
You should read my writings to see "what I think Socialism is." There's an entire archive of them.
2) Immediate shortages and empty shelves.
3) Widespread poverty.
4) Venezuela.
IDK how you get to N, but China pivoted to authoritarian capitalism instead of authoritarian socialism in order to try and get to maybe F, since it wasn't happening under authoritarian socialism
Wow I never considered that. I guess I've been bested in the marketplace of ideas.
Happens. You're young, bright. You'll rebound in no time.
You left out the murders. There are always mass murders.
If you want to learn more about how Socialism actually works in the real world, try reading "To Destroy You Is No Loss". It's heartbreaking how cruel these communist brothers were to the "governed" in the pursuit of utopian Cambodia. I don't think there were many dream jobs included.
Sounds like e need worker co-ops
We have them. If anyone wants to start one nothing is stopping them.
I've read a lot of these internet critiques of capitalism and they always seem to confuse capitalism and human nature. I'm not saying the "free market is the natural way to act" argument that libertarians use. I am just always skeptical when I see anti-capitalist (or post-capitalist) complaints like:
"In the tech sector, a new boss came in and fired my friend just so she could hire her own."
If you had worked at the People's App Co-op, do you assume there wouldn't be nepotism? Worker protections might mean that your friend's job would be protected, but even a boss elected by your peers would support their friend over yours. Or maybe your peers would directly vote to screw over your friend in favor someone they liked more. Even when you "have a say in your workplace" you'll often end up not getting your way or be treated unfairly.
There's situations of people treating each other terribly without capitalism. Go to a high school cafeteria in a nice suburb, a garage band or a group of grad students and you'll see no profit motives but plenty of miserable interactions. What's an example of a socialist (or at least less capitalist) organization that doesn't have this sort of problem? People never dislike their job at worker co-ops?
This is a very confusing critique to me. It seems to boil down to, "Evolving past capitalism won't solve the flaws of human nature," which I (nor any other post-Capitalist I'm aware of) has ever claimed.
"Or maybe your peers would directly vote to screw over your friend in favor someone they liked more."
What you're describing above is democracy. Yes, under a democratic system (in politics or the workplace) things are not always going to go your way. So be it.
Would this democratic workplace, which also ends up with your friend losing a position to someone else, be a dream job?
Edit: I read your post as making that claim, indirectly. Some of your complaints about jobs seem to be due to human nature. Since you are saying that evolving past capitalism will solve these problems (which can be described as flaws of human nature), you are saying that claim.
I’m not going to pay you money to read an article that is headed by a title that concedes you don’t answer the question. We already dealt with the big difference between central planning to produce military weapons and central planning that produce social networks. Thanks for the evasion, though!
Joe, what you are doing is proposing a perpetual motion machine. The kind of knowledge, calculation, and coordination that is needed to centrally plan to create millions of "Dream Jobs" does not exist and cannot exist. There is no difference between your advocacy and plain old wishful thinking. There is no way to coordinate the wishes and desires of millions of people without a network to do so, and central planning has never created such a network and cannot create such a network. I will admit that I am really curious whether you think that central planning has ever "efficiently planned necessities."
"I will admit that I am really curious whether you think that central planning has ever "efficiently planned necessities.""
Here you go: https://joewrote.substack.com/p/how-the-american-economy-was-centrally