From: Otteson, James. The End of Socialism. Kindle sample. My working definition of socialism … is a system of political economy that prefers centralized political-economic decision making to achieve its ends. [remainder of this section will leave out “…” marks where edited to condense, e.g. “for its part”] The more fully an economy is centralized— whether through outright ownership or through the more common means today of command-and-control policies of dirigisme—the more fully is the economy socialist. Capitalism is a system of political economy that prefers decentralized political-economic decision making to achieve its ends. The more decentralized an economy is the more capitalist it is. We can flesh out the natures of, and differences between, socialism and capitalism by considering three separate aspects, their respective (1) conceptions of human nature (2) central values (3) public policies -1- Conceptions Of Human Nature In each pair of the following aspects of human nature, socialist-inclined policy tends to advocate the first characteristic and capitalist-inclined policy advocates the second: socialist -versus- capitalist 1. altruistic vs. self-interested 2. cosmopolitan vs. localized 3. unconstrained vs. constrained Socialism does not deny human beings are motivated by self-interest. However, it believes in human altruism in one, or in some combination, of the following ways: -People are at least as altruistic as they are self-interested -People can, under the proper institutions, develop altruistic motivations that dominate self-interested ones -People act out of altruism much more than they do when under capitalist institutions Socialism holds out as an ideal people can come to view others as equally worthy of their concern, regardless of physical or psychological nearness. Some, like Peter Singer, view this as a matter of expanding the concentric circles of our sympathy, perhaps until they encompass all human beings—a universal brotherhood of man. Finally, socialism holds human nature is not as constrained as others take it to be. Under different institutions, or with different experiences, human nature might be significantly different from what it currently appears to be. That means socialism is able to face the criticism its prescriptions are inconsistent with human nature by responding “perhaps with human nature as it currently appears, but not necessarily as it might be constituted.” Capitalism tends toward the latter in each of the three aspects: self-interested, localized, constrained. It does not deny human beings act out of altruism. Capitalism holds one or some combination of the following theses about self-interest: - human beings are fundamentally or predominantly self-interested - people’s self-interest is a “natural” fact about them that cannot be eradicated - there are many arenas of human interaction in which acting from self-interest is proper Finally, as suggested by its conception of self-interest, capitalism presumes a more constrained vision of human nature. It holds human motivation and other important putative facts about human nature are more enduring and thus more immune from attempts at institutional engineering than other positions might suppose. As Bryan Caplan put it, instead of conceiving of human beings as something like clay that institutions and experiences can shape, capitalism conceives of them as more like pieces of hard plastic, concerted pressure can bend them somewhat, but they snap back into their original shape once released.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:11:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015