So, obviously, the title is a fairly ideologically loaded statement, but if you've read my other posts on this blog over the past few months, or even more so, over the past 5 years, you'll know I have a very complicated relationship with socialism. I'm sympathetic to some aspects of socialism, but ultimately, I just don't view socialism as the way forward in addressing capitalism's problems as I see them. Of course, that's the thing isn't it? "As I see them", Marx and the like give insightful takes into capitalism, but his ideology is but merely a lens through which to interpret issues. As is my blog, really, I don't deny being yet another ideological lens through which to view things, but hey, at least I admit to have my own ideological biases here and don't pass my arguments off as indisputable objective truth.
I've been reading Philippe Van Parij's work on "Real freedom" recently, and he made some points, and put things simply in ways I had not previously formulated these issues, and here's how I see them. Obviously, both pure capitalism and pure socialism are bad. Pure capitalism is bad because property without limits ultimately comes back around to enslaving everyone all over again and subjecting the propertyless to the propertied. But obviously, pure socialism is bad because it is subject to extreme collectivism. In a "true" socialist society, anything involving property is subject to democratic vote, and this can often limit peoples' freedoms in other ways. A society in which everything is decided democratically can be just as oppressive as any other society that fails to give people freedom, such as capitalism. And even if formal coercion via the end of a gun or the crack of a whip isn't present, informal relations can still come back and bite you. And this is why I don't consider myself a socialist.
I'm going to ignore the obviously unfree collectivist versions of socialism here, as their lack of freedom goes without saying, and focus on a mild version of socialism I can theoretically support, and that is market socialism. In this system, you have markets, and people are free to join and leave firms as they wish, just as they would under capitalism. But, when you join a firm, you're a part time owner and can democratically vote on stuff. Okay, cool. How in any way does it help me? Well, in theory, we could vote for better wages and reduced working hours. Okay, cool. But what if I don't agree with my coworkers? What if I want to work less, but they vote to make me work more? or work days I dont want to work because they don't want to work them either? Being subjected to majority rule in theory is better than being subject to a dictatorship, but does not necessarily make me free. Tyranny by majority can and does exist. And being autistic, I can tell you I've been in so many toxic social groups where I didn't get along with the majority that it's pathetic. being subjected to them is just as tyrannical as being subjected to a boss.
Obviously, to me, the answer to both capitalism, and socialism's flaws, is in line with what Van Parijs argues, that what would make me free is to have a basic income where I'm not subject to coercion. I can freely choose to enter and leave relations with others, because I'm not financially compelled to participate in them. This cuts down on abusive relationships a lot.
Moreover, basic income makes entrepreneurship more possible too. I'm not against the idea of starting a new business, but that's clearly something that would only exist in a more capitalist system. While people may start new cooperatives I'm not sure people would be willing to sacrifice the businesses they poured sweat and tears into by giving them over to the workers. Obviously most people in power will want to maintain ownership for themselves, and treat hired help as just that, help, not owners. While I am more sympathetic to large organizations being subjected to democratic rule, I'm a lot more leery about it for small businesses. I mean, that's something that always bugged me about socialism. The logistics I know worker coops work, but should all businesses be coops? I'm not sure on that. I'm market socialism friendly, but I'm not particularly attached to market socialism. My ideas fall more in the social democratic category. The only time I really believe in perhaps forcing businesses to be worker owned is if the owner tries to perhaps leave the country to maintain their money, screwing workers and the government out of employment and tax revenue. In such a case, I believe if you are willing to abandon the country that allowed you to get so rich in the first place, then I believe you forfeit your claim of ownership over a particular property. I certainly dont support private ownership without limits, but that's just the thing, I only believe in limiting it when problems exist. And if we can instead just implement a basic income, make people financially independent, and make people free to participate in market relations of their choosing without being coerced into it, that's far more important to me than socialism.
Socialist theory offers a lot of critiques, but on solutions it's always been a mixed bag. Socialism, to me, ranges between interesting to terrifying in terms of its ideas. Moderate versions like market socialism are interesting and I can intuitively agree with the concept in some situations. Extreme versions seem like hell on earth. I certainly ain't a tankie supporting some soviet style regime here. Those ideas seem like they would be terrible to live under. Like being perpetually in a grade school classroom environment where the punishment for stepping out of line isn't a call home to parents followed by a grounding, its the gulag or death. Of course, those environments in the US are intended to prepare people for a future in a capitalist work environment where you're wage slaves subservient to a boss. Capitalism and socialism really have a lot more in common with each other than either party is willing to realize, to be honest. They basically are both coercive systems that force people into work environments, they just differ in how, and how the spoils are distributed. Socialism is more just in its distribution of resources, but is far more explicitly authoritarian. Capitalism has more freedom but uses financial coercion like poverty to keep people in line, and inequality is extreme. Both suck at the end of the day.
At the very least, in my opinion, capitalism and perhaps moderate forms of socialism can be salvaged though with a basic income guarantee and other things. Which is why I tend to trend toward the middle, toward social democracy or market socialism on a traditional economic scale. Of course, I'm far more...libertarian in practice. And that's what we're discussing. How to create an actual libertarian economic system. It doesn't come from either right libertarianism, or socialism, honestly. Capitalism fails because it relies on propertylessness to coerce people into work and abusive power relations. Socialism fails because freedom, in my opinion, relies on individual freedom and autonomy, not on collectivism. The indepentarian/"real libertarian" system I support is far superior to either of these alternatives, and also superior to social democracy, as it provides all of the benefits of social democracy without the paternalism baked into its social structures. It gives you the resources you need to be free, while infringing on your person in the most minimalistic ways possible, trading as little freedom as possible so you can enjoy the rest. And that's why that is the answer to the biggest issues with capitalism, not socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment