Got in another political argument with a socialist, and he started coming at me and claiming I was brainwashed by capitalist conditioning and acting like if only I understood their point of view, that I would think differently. And I just have to say...no, I won't.
The fact is, I do understand socialism. I do understand that you (socialists) have a severe ideological hangup on the idea of economic democracy and that you find capitalist business structures as authoritarian and unjust.
I understand that capitalism is only a couple hundred years old and evolved out of feudalism. I have studied entire books and wrote articles outlining this.
I know capitalism sucks. I understand your critiques against it. I just have a different opinion on how to approach the issue.
Unlike you, I don't think that socialism is this end all be all that solves all problems with oppression. I've written entire articles discussing this, and I sent them to the poster in question.
And unlike them, I think that there are some benefits to capitalism, and that capitalism is functional.
And for people shaming me for thinking, because i try to abruptly shut down conversation the second this gets existential because i don't wanna waste time on this, yes, I have thought about things like worldview and human nature. My idea of human nature is that it is neither good nor evil, but it is self interested. I dont think that you can encourage people to be high minded and selfless.
I think capitalism better meets humans where they are, at least as far as capitalism (markets) vs socialism (state control) goes. And given that's how this convo started, those are the definitions I'm working with. The thing is when you seek to replace one system with another, you need to think about the logistics to make things functional. And the problem a lot of socialists dont think about is those logistics. You can preach theory all day long but if you can't put your ideas into practice in a workable way, your ideas don't deserve further consideration. Because those ideas don't work, and the reason communism sucks so bad is, in part, because it doesnt have a functional incentive structure and just relies on raw coercion.
I don't think it's a surprise that most states that have tried socialism have become authoritarian nightmares. Because that's the logical next step to get people to do things that they wouldn't do on their own.
Capitalism uses more humane incentive structures, and while even I have issues with them (it's actually a core problem I have with capitalism), again, my solutions are fundamentally different. I focus more on maximizing liberty, rather than just having another approach to work in. I think work in itself sucks and is an evil. A necessary evil in many cases, but still, an evil to be minimized as much as possible. And my idea is to try to liberate people from work as much as possible, and to ensure the only ones who do so are voluntary participants (incentivized in positive ways, but not coerced). I dont care about the structure, I dont think, if only businesses were democratic and workers own the means of production, that I would suddenly be pro work. Work sucks no matter what system you're in.
As such, even though I am somewhat anti capitalist in my rhetoric, I still am largely pro capitalism in my actual ideology and policies. I think it's perfectly fine to critique a system without wanting to throw it all out. A lot of systems I endorse not because those systems are perfect, just the "least bad" option. And I believe that capitalism, like democracy, is the least bad option.
Honestly, I also feel like leftists get obsessed with rhetoric and theory too. I just had that poster message me quoting an article where i talked about human centered capitalism that that's leftism. But you know what? I've had a lot of people crap on yang's iteration of the concept (which he quoted) because "he's still a capitalist." Like, a lot of leftists are so blustery with their theory and rhetoric that they bash ideas they technically align with.
For the record, I dont think leftists are ideologically the same as HCCs though. I mean, leftists emphasize socialism and owning the means of production, whereas I'm agnostic at best and mildly pro capitalist at worst (mostly agnostic but lean toward capitalism or market socialism). Whereas my problem is more with work itself, and i recognize issues both with capitalism and with socialism. If you remove coercion to work from the equation, I could find either system perfectly acceptable. And since socialism doesn't seem to address that concern, but sees work as a given, I fear that it's just replacing one bad system with another. Socialists love to promise a lot but push comes to shove, i feel like they offer the wrong analyses and policy prescriptions at times. Too busy reading dead guy literature from the 19th century.
But yeah. I just want every socialist who wants to engage in some long winded philosophical debate with me that yes, I understand socialism, Im not a huge huge fan of socialism. I think at best it's indistinguishable from social democracy, and at worst is far worse. And I think the real problems come from coercion to participate in the work force and that this problem transcends the capitalist socialist divide. I also think capitalism is ironically often the more humane system since in terms of the more statist forms of socialism the coercion is a lot more overt and oppressive, whereas under capitalism its more passive.
Still, I recognize the problem exists under capitalism and I am a critic of it. I just dont think who owns the means of production is as important as having one's needs met and being free to participate or not. No one can functionally boss anyone around if their livelihood doesnt automatically depend on laboring for someone else for sustenance.
No comments:
Post a Comment