tullworthington Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Both Socialism and free markets looked good on paper when I studied them long-ago.. So I ask myself why has Socialism proven to be an abysmal failure? The greatest difference between the two is in the fundamental assumptions as to the nature of Man. Socialism assumes man's nature to be better than it is....that man is giving sharing and altruistic in nature. That man's nature is to be fair and deep in understanding. This is the fundamental flaw of Marxism - man is not these things...and so to make the system work at all everything must be done through coercion , the heavy hand of government. Even at its best, the resistance between man's nature and socialism grinds an economy to a halt with the only solution the lash. Free markets on the other hand does not read nearly so noble as Socialism....relying on greed and fear to reach never ending rebalances of supply and demand. But, it works. Not because it is great or noble in ideals...but that it is consistent with man's nature of self interest, greed, envy and fear. These are the real motivators of Man. It is a case of a lesser idea executed in concert with nature beats a loftier plan carried forth only grudgingly under the lash.
csekavec Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Is not the greater thing that which more closely accords with reality?
dsayers Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 So I ask myself why has Socialism proven to be an abysmal failure? ... to make the system work at all everything must be done through coercion This is the answer you seek. The initiation of the use of force cannot be universalized. Not sure where the word noble ties in. Nobility denotes superiority while a free market is between equals. 2
tullworthington Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 Idea continued... No matter how much socialism is reintroduced or repackaged....it is fataly flawed at the most basic of levels. The assumption about man's nature is wrong and therefore the predictions arrived at from the theory or wrong. Might it be more effective to argue against Marxism based on this most fundamental of flaws? Would it not be more convincing an argument for the average person?
Cuffy_Meigs Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I am not sure it is the nature of Man that is the main problem but the Economics. Even if we ignore the ethical component and assume the best possible motives for everybody involved, socialism still requires that there is somebody somewhere whose ability to allocate economic resources is more responsive, more efficient and satisfies peoples' desires better than happens in a free market with millions of individuals signalling their preferences via their spending. Such an individual could only be a god. Then there is the problem of how to set prices. Marx tries - and fails - to circumvent this with his Labour Theory of Value. There are of course other motivations for liking socialism - domination, envy or a misguided sense of "justice" - but unless your motives are bad, I suggest Socialism/Marxism fails both logically and empirically.
Carl Green Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Could you please share your definition of the "nature of man"?
tullworthington Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 nature of man is like what motivates him. Is he motivated by altruism or by greed.
Carl Green Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Does the same thing motivate all humans universally?
tullworthington Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 economics is a social science...not a hard science...it is the interactions of man in exchanges. If you get the basic understanding of man wrong, as i beleive marx did, then his theory is wrong. Comparing the outcomes of marxism and capitalism is good...however, i beleive that marxism should be confronted on its base premise....that man is intrinsically good. when it comes to scarce resources..i would say the overwhelming number are guided by greed and fear...that is why capitalism works. clarification: marxism relies on man being intrinsically good to work, whereas capitalism relies on self interest (selfishness) to work.
Hannibal Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Free markets on the other hand does not read nearly so noble as Socialism....relying on greed and fear to reach never ending rebalances of supply and demand. But, it works. Not because it is great or noble in ideals...but that it is consistent with man's nature of self interest, greed, envy and fear. These are the real motivators of Man. You don't see nobility in living free and granting all others that same courtesy? What greater kind of nobility can there be than that? Anything else requires violent compulsion.
Cuffy_Meigs Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I accept that almost everybody outside of this community perceives socialism as compassionate and capitalism as nasty and brutal, partly because that is what they were taught in the education system. I am less sure that these perceptions are based on any fundamental assumptions behind the two systems. I am no Marxist scholar but my understanding is that Marx was clear that he didn't blame those he deemed exploiters but, on the contrary, felt that anybody would behave the same if put in a similar situation. So in a sense socialism was a reaction against Man's base nature. Capitalism on the other hand does not have an individual we can identify as its founder (maybe Adam Smith comes closest but it could hardly be said that he devised it) so it is harder to ascribe underlying assumptions. Sure we'd all rather be rich than poor but I think both consumers and producers have more complex motivations than greed or fear. Self-interest is a better term but regrettably in most people's minds this implies '...to the detriment of others'.
dsayers Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 nature of man is like what motivates him. Is he motivated by altruism or by greed. The only things human nature can refer to are about the same for all lifeforms: They adapt to survive. Both altruism and greed are products of consciousness and not innate.
tullworthington Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 nobility perhaps is not a great word for what i am trying to describe. Marx argued to redistributing according to need...a great equaling of society...or at least that was the way it was sold to the common. A great sharing of resources. Whereas, naked capitalism is basically a survival of the fittest...it looks good to those who are most fit (usually highly talented) but less so for those who can not compete on a level so high. "to the detriment of others" - most transactions in business are zero sum games. Even when there is a win-win situation...it is at the expense of another party who did not get to advance his position. Self interests is a kinder way of describing the animal spirits of greed and fear. My background: I am for free markets; undergrad finance and mba; religion - calvinist chrisitian; have always lived in the rural south of USA; have worked as farm labor all the way to commerical finance. So perhaps i come at problems from a slightly different angle than most here. I am not a philosopher....as you may have guessed. But, i have enjoyed the discussion nonetheless.
Mister Mister Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Socialism assumes man's nature to be better than it is....that man is giving sharing and altruistic in nature. That man's nature is to be fair and deep in understanding. This is the fundamental flaw of Marxism - man is not these things...and so to make the system work at all everything must be done through coercion , the heavy hand of government. Even at its best, the resistance between man's nature and socialism grinds an economy to a halt with the only solution the lash. Free markets on the other hand does not read nearly so noble as Socialism....relying on greed and fear to reach never ending rebalances of supply and demand. But, it works. Not because it is great or noble in ideals...but that it is consistent with man's nature of self interest, greed, envy and fear. These are the real motivators of Man. What is ignoble about self interest, greed, and fear? Without those natural emotions, which are essential to evolution, we wouldn't be here. Also, there are other motives of people, like the desire to be accepted and connect with others, the desire to think of oneself as "good", and the aversion to see others suffer. This is part of our biology whether we live in capitalism or socialism. Man IS giving and sharing, to a certain extent, under the right circumstances. But people don't like being stolen from, and having every part of their life micro-managed, which is why socialism is so abhorrent. Free market economics, particularly the Austrian School, a la Mises' Human Action, don't assume anything about human nature, except that human beings act to achieve a particular desire. Deeper motivations, Mises argues, are the purview of psychology, not economics. This recent podcast on the Tom Woods show dealt with this issue, you might find it interesting. You are conceding the point that, in a perfect world, socialism is morally superior to capitalism, just that it's incompatible with human nature. Many socialists actually accept this, they just think they can change human nature through "education". But by conceding the moral argument, and just arguing capitalism from an efficiency standpoint, you are taking the wrong approach I think.
Recommended Posts