JAMES R. OTTESON
JOINT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND ECONOMICS
CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY




Socialism: cooperation,
sharing, altruism, equality.
Capitalism: competition,
hoarding, selfishness,
inequality.
Socialism: community in
affection.
Capitalism: atomization
from greed and fear.
Capitalism is feasible.
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Short run only?)
But perhaps socialism is “infeasible.”
So what?
Sweet grapes on a high branch means … sour grapes?
No: infeasibile ≠ undesirable.
Is socialism infeasible?
Is socialism morally attractive?
1.
2.
◦
◦
◦
“Moral shabbiness of market motivation.”
“The market is intrinsically repugnant.”
“Every market … is a system of predation.”

“Socialism”:
◦ Centralized organization and planning
◦ Common or public ownership of property
◦ Equality

“Capitalism”:
◦ Decentralized organization, non-centrally-planned markets
◦ Private ownership of property
◦ Inequality

Not “liberty” or “justice”:
◦ LibertyS and LibertyC; JusticeS and JusticeC.
◦ Let us beg no questions.



Now-standard answer: Yes, it is infeasible.
Runs afoul of (1) human nature and (2) human condition.
Human nature:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Limitations of human knowledge.
Self-interest and limited benevolence; status.
Territoriality (“natural” private property?).
Value pluralism.

Human condition:

Conclusions: Socialism …
◦ Scarcity, mutually incompatible allocations of resources, conflict.
◦ Competition, striving, happiness.
◦ Requires an impractical altruism and sharing.
◦ Would lead to underproduction, deprivation.
◦ Would lead to strife and division, enervation, unhappiness.

Infeasibility Argument is stronger than one might think.
◦ Must be faced squarely, not ignored.


Nevertheless not enough.
Many moral codes require impossible ideals.
◦ Kant’s Categorical Imperative
◦ “WWJD?”

Socialism’s strongest argument?
◦ Consider Plato’s argument about the kallipolis in the Republic.


Impracticality by itself does not defeat an ideal.
An ideal is not defeated … unless:
1. Involves use of immoral means or policies, or
2. Makes people worse off than otherwise.



Note: a disjunct, not a conjunct.
“Immoral means”: define non-controversially.
“Worse off”: beyond some low but clear threshold.
◦ Mencken’s definition of “Puritanism” not sufficient.


Not “theft”: question-begging.
But:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦



Imprisonment of not-proved-guilty
Murder of not-proved-guilty
Forced labor and slavery
Forced starvation
Torture of noncombatants
These are non-controversially immoral. (Right?)
Universal practices?
Over last ~100 years, higher in “socialist” states.



V. I. Lenin (1917-24):
4,017,000 dead.
Joseph Stalin (1929-53):
42,672,000 dead.
From 1917-87, the Soviet
Union killed some 62
million people—more than
twice as many as killed
during 400 years of brutal
African slave trade.


1927-76 (incl. guerilla
period): 77,000,000
dead.
For comparison:
 Hitler, 1933-45:
21,000,000.


1968-87: 2,397,000 dead.
Most lethal murderer in
twentieth century:
◦ 1975-9: killed 8% of
population annually.
◦ Khmer Rouge killed 31% of
all men, women, and
children in Cambodia.
◦ The odds of surviving: 2.2
to 1.

(Pol Pot died peacefully in
1998 after a one-year house
arrest.)

Remember: impracticality does not defeat an ideal …
unless:
1. Involves use of immoral means or policies, or
2. Makes people worse off than otherwise.



Claim: immoral means and policies have been
implemented.
Does that defeat the ideal?
But let us press further.

Let us not quibble about marginal matters.
◦ Hundreds of kinds of toothpaste?
◦ Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less
(2005)

More central criteria:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Income and wealth
United Nations Development Index
Longevity
Infant morality and child labor
Environmental performance
Some evidence to consider:

Economic Freedom of the World Index
(http://www.freetheworld.com/)


Correlation between “economic freedom” and various metrics
of prosperity in ~140 countries since 1975.
“Economic freedom”:
◦ “Individuals have economic freedom when property they acquire
without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical
invasions by others and they are free to use, exchange, or give
their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical
rights of others.”


Notably “capitalist” definition, though not question-begging.
Results?
Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Switzerland
Chile
United States
Canada
Australia
Mauritius
United Kingdom
0
2
4
6
Score (out of 10)
Source: The Fraser Institute.
8
10
Algeria
Congo, Dem. R.
Burundi
Guinea-Bissau
Central Afr. Rep.
Congo, Rep. Of
Venezuela
Angola
Myanmar
Zimbabwe
0
2
Source: The Fraser Institute.
4
6
Score (out of 10)
8
10
GDP Per Capita
(ppp), 2006
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Least Free
Quartile
3rd Quartile
2nd Quartile
Most Free
Quartile
United Nations
Human Development
Index
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Least Free
Quartile

3rd Quartile
2nd Quartile
Most Free
Quartile
*Combined measurement of: (1) life expectancy, (2) adult literacy rates, (3)
school enrollment, and (4) per-capita incomes.
80
Years
60
40
20
0
Least Free
Quartile

3rd Quartile
2nd Quartile
Most Free
Quartile
Note: difference between top and bottom quartiles is over
twenty years.
Infant mortality measured
against EF:
80
Per 1,000 live births,
2006

60
40
20
0
Least Free
Quartile
Child labor (% of 10-14
year-olds in work force)
against EF:
2nd Quartile
Most Free
Quartile
25
Percentage of children
10-14 who are in the
labour force

3rd Quartile
20
15
10
5
0
Bottom
Quintile
Fourth
Quintile
Third
Quintile
Second
Quintile
Top
Quintile
Index (out of 100)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Least Free
Quartile
3rd Quartile
2nd Quartile
Most Free
Quartile

*Includes environmental stresses and ecosystem vitality.

Sources: The Fraser Institute, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and Center for
International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, with the World
Economic Forum and Joint Research Center of the European Commission, 2008
Environmental Performance Index (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/epi).
Wealth, both per-capita income and real
economic growth
Life expectancy
Access to health care
Access to safe water
Infant survival
Child nutrition
Literacy
Food production
Percentage of GDP dedicated to
research and development
Political stability
Peace
Claim 1: Political and economic institutions consistent with markets and
limited government are closely correlated with high and increasing human
prosperity.
Claim 2: Institutions consistent with centralized economic control and public
property closely correlated with low and decreasing human prosperity.
Conclusion: The former seem to make people better off, while the latter make
people worse off.
Broader but weaker conclusion: socialist policies are correlated with
underperformance on standard measures of human prosperity.



If not human nature and human condition …
… then “immoral means” and “worse off”?
But: were they proper or good-faith attempts?
◦ Or power-hungry despots?

Small-scale success?
◦ Monasteries? New Harmony, Indiana? Kibbutzim?
1. Specified, narrow, and shared purpose.
2. Personal familiarity → personal trust, joint effort.
3. Unless subsidized from without, low standard of living.

Would it work on a large scale?

What have we shown?
1. Socialism seems difficult to reconcile with human nature and
the human condition.
2. Large-scale attempts have involved immoral policies and
have decreased human prosperity.



Those constitute a strong objection.
Again, however, let us not yet rest content.
Let us ask: Is socialism’s moral ideal superior in itself?
◦ Capitalism: Class struggles, class interests.
◦ Socialism’s resolution: “species being.”


Human beings are members of classes metaphorically, not
literally
Literally: discrete moral agents
◦
◦
◦
◦
Separate consciousnesses
Individual decision centers
Unique reservoirs of knowledge, experience
Unique schedules of preferences, values

What is common to us:

What is separate, distinct, and indexed:
◦ Desire for money, success, to ‘better our condition’ (Smith)
◦ Higher status
◦
◦
◦
◦
What matters: values, goals, ambitions.
What to do for, with money.
What counts as success, status, better condition.
Who decides.

Factual claim: discrete consciousnesses, unique centers of moral
agency.
Moral principle: individual dignity demanding respect

Socialism: not individual dignity but class membership.

Human beings are not fungible; they are precious and
irreplaceable.
A bedrock, nonnegotiable moral principle.
Socialism’s moral core violates that principle.



◦ Slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing
◦ Human rights, equality before the law
◦ Fungible, interchangeable
◦ Poker chips, marbles
◦ Sharing and community are morally praiseworthy only when voluntary,
respecting individual dignity.
◦ Socialism: no opt-out option.








John Lilburne (1614-1657)
Brought before Star Chamber in
1637: heresy, treason.
Would not doff his hat, would not
bow, would not enter plea.
Claim: “freeborn right” to
conscience, religious practice,
equality before law.
Pilloried, flogged, tortured,
imprisoned.
Bloodied but unbroken. And then
…
Star Chamber abolished in 1641.
That was a great moral leap
forward.
1.
Socialism faces serious challenges:
a) Human nature and human condition entail its infeasibility.
b) Large-scale attempts have both involved immoral means and
have left people worse off.
c) Its conception of humanity is both factually incorrect and
morally flawed.
2.
Thus, the socialist grapes:
a)
b)
c)
3.
cannot be harvested,
have induced destructive attempts, and
are rotten in their core.
Is it time, then, to give up on the socialist grapes?
JAMES R. OTTESON
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY
500 W. 185TH ST.
NEW YORK, NY 10033
OTTESON@YU.EDU