Democratic vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz recently said: Urged His supporters say, “Don’t shy away from our progressive values. One man’s socialism is another man’s neighborliness.” Socialism Who could argue with that when they’re sharing sugar with the family across the street?
Waltz’s identification of socialism with love for one’s neighbor is similar to Bernie Sanders’ state “t“To me, socialism never means the nationalization of everything, but it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living.” Here Sanders is not equating socialism with a particular economic system, but rather with the uncontroversial idea that we should create a world in which all people have a decent standard of living.
Even socialist philosophers and writers have fallen prey to such rhetorical sleight of hand. G.A. Cohen once wrote: Claimed that Voluntarily sharing food and equipment with friends on a camping trip embodies socialist principles; and According to George OrwellSocialism is “Everyone gets their fair share of the work and everyone gets their fair share,” he said, calling the benefits of socialism so defined “clear.”
I agree with Orwell to some extent. teeth It’s obvious. We should We want an economic system that distributes burdens and benefits fairly. But it is not clear that socialism is this system. Equating socialism with a just economic system is not as convincing a defense of socialism as simply equating it with anything but socialism. Capitalism A fair economic system is CapitalismThis is a bit like someone simply labeling the foods they find to be the healthiest as “paleo” and then claiming that the paleo diet is the healthiest diet. Thus, to effectively compare capitalism and socialism, we need to understand the specific economic institutions that characterize socialism and capitalism.
At the most general level, a socialist economy is one that mandates the collectivization of producer goods. That is, private ownership of “personal property” like shoes is permitted, but “producer goods” like shoe factories are not. Collectivization can be institutionalized in a variety of ways; for example, traditional socialists would support nationalizing shoe factories. But such socialist economies are less popular today, given the overwhelming evidence that they are neither prosperous, kind, nor fair (see:See Venezuela for a recent example.).
This has led modern socialists to advocate workplace democracy — roughly speaking, workers collectively owning enterprises and making decisions democratically. This arrangement allows for market competition, allowing worker-owned enterprises to compete openly with each other, and avoiding some of the traditional Hayekian criticisms of socialism.
Still, I’m not sure this style of socialism is all that neighborly. Sure, some people might prefer to be worker-owners of democratically run businesses, and some people might prefer working remotely rather than in an office. But some people might prefer capitalist businesses. Those Under socialism, people are unlucky. Philosopher Robert Nozick said Point outIn capitalism, socialist-minded people can pool their resources together to form democratic worker cooperatives if they so wish, but in socialism do not have Allow capitalist-minded people to create capitalist businesses.
And there are many reasons why people like capitalist companies. For example, Don Lavoie writes: NotesWorkers “may not want to take on the risks, costs, and responsibilities that come with running a company,” he continues. “After all, there are potential advantages to workers who choose to specialize in earning a wage income in order to insulate themselves from the vagaries of market competition. There are often advantages to having someone else be your boss, easing concerns about enforcing wage contracts, and letting management worry about the company’s profit and loss statement.”
To illustrate this point, say Lance wants to start his own landscaping business and needs to hire employees. Moe just wants steady employment and a steady wage; he doesn’t want any of the business and hassle that comes with it. So Lance hires Moe to mow his customers’ lawns.
As a result of the wage contract, Lance and Moe both got what they wanted. But, as Nozick says, this is one of the “capitalist acts between consenting adults” that a socialist system must prohibit if it is to remain socialist. A socialist system would force Lance to give Moe a share of the business if Lance were employed, even though they would both end up worse off. But forcing people into workplace arrangements that they want to avoid is neither kind nor friendly; in fact, it’s downright unneighborly.
Christopher Freiman is a general business professor in the John Chambers School of Business and Economics at West Virginia University.
