"Socialism would work, if only men were perfect."
Is that so? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. That type of society would definitely require a very nearly perfect group of people in order to function. But could it thrive? Would it even function?
It has been thoroughly propounded that capitalism works with even the vilest of people. If you are greedy, you must provide value to your customers to become rich. The richest men ever, regardless of their intentions, revolutionized modern living. But it is said that if men were perfect, we wouldn't need a greed-driven system.
Here's where we should stop for a moment and look at what an economy is. It is a system of allocating resources, including human labor, technology, oil, bricks, and money itself. An economy is "good" if it successfully allocates resources to necessary goals, goals which provide for human wants and needs.
Furthermore, the participants' good intentions have nothing to do with how successful that distribution is.
"Oh fellow brother, for the good of humanity, should I build houses or factories?"
"I couldn't say. No, literally, I've lost my voice and the well-intentioned folk at the pharmaceutical company didn't produce enough medicine this month."
I've already mentioned how prices are a form of communication. If you eliminate prices, it doesn't matter how good the people are. They won't know what to make, how much, what to do, or what materials to use. The economy is just too complicated. Only capitalism provides mechanisms whereby economic agents are informed about the scarcity and cost of various options, in contrast with the genuine needs of society at large.
They say the road to that uncomfortable place is paved with good intentions. That road is epitomized by socialism. Its glorious intentions lead us along a road to misallocation of resources, shortages, over-production, recession, and depression.
Socialism would not function even if people were perfect. It would only make our suffering and demise as a civilization a little nicer, because we would all love and care for one another with what little resources and lifespans we would have left.
There are several disconnects in your argument. Mainly, what is a perfect man?
ReplyDeleteThe absolute perfect man would require no form of government nor any form of "modern" economy. Second, the perfect man would not have "good" intentions, he would have perfect intentions. Further, if man is perfect, good and evil cease to exist. Therefore there is only perfect action in ever instance.
Let's work that backwards. Let's say man is perfectly good. We know, in some respects, this makes him also the perfect image of the Divine. If this is true, then man's every reaction reflects the perfect action of that Divine.
This is not to say freewill isn't in the equation, it is, but perfect man has two things as a free willed person: 1) Every action he takes is perfect. Meaning there are no worry of intentions, so whatever choice is made is perfect. 2) Not only is every action perfect, but so is the motive behind that action. What does this mean? Effectively, ambition, greed, and self-interest cease to exist. Only those emotions, virtues, and ideas that are perfectly true exist and are done.
What does this mean for socialism and capitalism? Capitalism ceases to exist because there is no competition. Only perfect individuals making perfect choices for perfect reasons. Socialism takes a nose dive as well because a centralization of power isn't needed. A higher government to protect and govern isn't needed because it would never do anything. In actuality, the type of system that would arise would like be a form of communal living.
Further, with perfect man there would be no rich or poor because the motivation to be either would be absent. Perfect man implies perfect equality.
One last note, just because I'm a political science and seen points lost on these grounds: The first quote you give is from Marx ("from each according...") . And Marxism, communism, and socialism are each very different in their approaches. So technically, the argument would be focused on Marxism, not socialism. The best way to think of it is this: Socialism is the exact opposite of libertarianism. Or as a professor put it, the farther you go on the extreme scale of political thought, the closer those extremes come to one another.
Human "perfection". I used a realistic definition of perfect, the type people actually use when they talk. A perfect human is not infinitely rational, infinitely wise, infinitely intelligent, infinitely knowledgeable, and infinitely competent. He is rather a morally "perfect" being who does not sin, and has entirely noble intentions.
ReplyDeleteCompetition. You paint it as something morally disdainful. Competition relates to economics, and the system in which people allocate their time and resources. If you need a house, you can choose among various builders, each of whom has differing abilities and specializations.
Finally, I used the term socialism descriptively, as real people use it, not prescriptively, as a book defines it.
Marxism, socialism, and communism all reflect a general collectivist ideology, and it is fitting to address the general collectivist ideology with the single broad term "socialism." Marx's quote simple exemplifies it nicely and poetically.
If your definition of human perfection uses those terms, then my argument still stands. Perfect man doesn't need law or government. Quite simply because there is nothing to govern if man automatically makes the right choice. You make the assumption that we can have the current world in place with such perfection, when in all likelihood, we wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteTo morally perfect man, competition would be disdainful. Competition between humans wouldn't exist. There would be no need to be better than another person. Perfection is already attained. Simply put, if you have man as morally perfect, all the rules change. You are absolutely right to say capitalism works because it harnesses the bad intentions of man. Absolutely true. But, by the same token, if you remove the very things that make it work, you lose that system.
Doesn't make people right. Surprised you went with that argument, though. It's like arguing conservatism, libertarianism, and anarchy are simply individualist ideology. Fact is, they are different and prescribe totally different forms of control, in all spheres. And if you don't know that when you get into a debate with an actual Marxist, Socialist, or Communist, you're walking into a debate unarmed. They have answers to every Austrian economist. The "people" lump them together out of ignorance, not knowledge.
Really, the closest thing you're gonna come on Earth to a communist society made up of perfect people is a Christian Commune like the one described in the several passages below.
ReplyDeleteActs 2:42-47
"The Fellowship of the Believers
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."
Especially note the part in there about owning everything in common.
I'm not sure if this counts as communism, and I'm sure it's on a much smaller scale than a country, and I don't know if it would work without the apostles, but, minus religion, this sounds pretty much like how the propaganda portrayed the Soviet Union to outsiders (Happy well-fed people dancing and singing.) Acts 4:32 also demonstrates this religious communism. "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."
Finally, here's some evidence that it was centrally planned, if you need it: "Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet." Acts 5:1-2. Now I know this passage is usually used as an example to get people to tithe fully, but why would Ananias and Sapphira put their money in front of the disciples feet anyway unless their commune was centrally planned and the disciples, with guidance from the Lord, were the planners?
I would suggest that a communist community of perfect people could get along quite well. After all, the only perfect people ever (other than Christ, and he doesn't count because he was God, too) were Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were in perfect communion with God (I'm just mentioning Adam and Eve for the sake of arguement. As Daniel said above, perfect people could all afford to be anarchists.) In perfect communion with an omniscient God, it can't be too hard to keep a communism running smoothly.
But we're talking about economics. A perfect amn would need technology to sustain his needs. He would need a book-keeping system to organize his contact lists. He would need a shopping system to effectively buy his groceries.
ReplyDeleteHe would likewise need capitalism to allocate his resources. Saying otherwise is like saying he'll be too perfect to need technology, or book-keeping systems, or shopping lists.
Of course, if he was perfect enough to never steal/kill and always follow on his agreements, perhaps no government would be needed. But it would still be capitalism... just anarcho-capitalism.
But you're still assuming here that a modern conception of the world would exist with perfect man. Which is faulty. Take the Biblical notion of perfect man: Man didn't have any idea he was actually running around streaking. Perfect man wouldn't either. Nothing immoral about it. Ergo, there goes the entire clothing industry and all the technology used to create it. Grocery stores exist because they provide a way for people to eat without subsistence farming (serfs). Farming, as Genesis points out, is toil. It is a curse. Furthermore, disease and pestilence enter the world through imperfect man. So there goes agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and everything associated with that. The meat industry would be gone, perfect man is a vegetarian.
ReplyDeleteYou mention bookkeeping and buying, but why would perfect man need money? Money is something we use for exchange for labor, and labor is something we aren't even sure exists with perfect man. Given perfect man's sensibility to be content, it doesn't even follow property ownership would be something to have any worth with perfect man.
that capitalism is about allocating resources, which is faulty thinking. Economics is about the allocating, capitalism is a certain way to allocate those resources. And I doubt we'd be in an anarchic-capitalist system, it would more than likely represent an interesting mix of Locke's state of nature and and full communal system with a large family (because the wages of sin is death, and perfect man has no sin, so no death either).
All that to say, if you make man morally perfect in every way, many things change. Simple cause and effect. Capitalism only works, as we understand it now, with a fallen nature of man. Essentially, its the best we can create for everyone because we know everyone makes a mistakes along the way. Capitalism appeals to the largest common denominator of the whole human race: self-interest. But perfect man is unlikely to be self-focused. So it is difficult to see capitalism existing with perfect man.