The Nonlinear Library EA - Why not socialism? by NikhilVenkatesh
May 15, 2024
09:19
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why not socialism?, published by NikhilVenkatesh on May 15, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
I. Introduction and a prima facie case
It seems to me that most (perhaps all) effective altruists believe that:
1. The global economy's current mode of allocating resources is suboptimal. (Otherwise, why would effective altruism be necessary?)
2. Individuals and institutions can be motivated to change their behaviour for the better on the basis of concern for others. (Otherwise, how could effective altruism be possible?)
(1) suggests that we should explore alternative ways of allocating resources. (2) suggests that alternatives involving more altruistic motivation, and less of the self-interested motivation that dominates our current mode of resource allocation, could be both feasible and superior.
There is an old name for the movement and ideal associated with pursuing an economic system based on more altruistic motives: socialism.[1] This is a prima facie case for EAs to engage with socialist thought and politics. However, I see little of this kind of engagement.[2] In this post I ask why that might be and how I think EAs might best engage with socialism. My aim is to start a productive conversation, and all comments are welcome.
II. Why not socialism?[3]
a. Scepticism about the tractability systemic change
The first reason for the lack of effective altruist engagement with socialism is that effective altruists care about the tractability of interventions. Perhaps a socialist utopia would be much better than our current world. But it seems difficult to get from here to there.
Tractability is often interpreted as tractability for individuals. It is difficult - perhaps impossible - to see or evaluate how an individual could radically change an economic system.[4] So, the focus of much effective altruism has been piecemeal improvements under capitalism.
But radical change is more tractable on the level of large social groups and movements. These non-individual agents can (and have) changed the world in ways that individuals could not, including large-scale changes to the economic system.
Effective altruism's emphasis on the individual has been much criticised[5] and effective altruism has become increasingly less individualistic.[6] Longtermism has contributed to this change, since many of the interventions that could plausibly affect the very far future are changes at the political, institutional or structural level.
Thinking in terms of group rather than individual agency makes transition from capitalism to socialism appear more tractable.
b. 'Socialism doesn't work'
The second possible reason for the lack of effective altruist engagement with socialism is the widespread belief that socialist economies do not work as well as capitalist ones.[7] This, however, is far from clear. Of course, one would rather have lived in West Germany than East Germany, and the human costs of some socialist experiments and failures were immense.
But the same can be said of some instances of capitalism (especially if colonialism and climate change are taken - as many think - to be closely connected with capitalism). And some socialist economies have had some successes (human development in Kerala, economic growth in China, the USSR's role in space technology and smallpox eradication, Cuba's healthcare system).
In addition, socialist influence or pressure has played a vital part in reforms within capitalism - such as the expansion of public services, redistribution and decolonisation - which have almost certainly been positive for welfare.
Moreover, even if we think that twentieth-century socialism was an utter failure, it is not obvious that with more time and research and better technology, socialist economies couldn't work better - and better than capitalism - in the future. Recall the pr...
I. Introduction and a prima facie case
It seems to me that most (perhaps all) effective altruists believe that:
1. The global economy's current mode of allocating resources is suboptimal. (Otherwise, why would effective altruism be necessary?)
2. Individuals and institutions can be motivated to change their behaviour for the better on the basis of concern for others. (Otherwise, how could effective altruism be possible?)
(1) suggests that we should explore alternative ways of allocating resources. (2) suggests that alternatives involving more altruistic motivation, and less of the self-interested motivation that dominates our current mode of resource allocation, could be both feasible and superior.
There is an old name for the movement and ideal associated with pursuing an economic system based on more altruistic motives: socialism.[1] This is a prima facie case for EAs to engage with socialist thought and politics. However, I see little of this kind of engagement.[2] In this post I ask why that might be and how I think EAs might best engage with socialism. My aim is to start a productive conversation, and all comments are welcome.
II. Why not socialism?[3]
a. Scepticism about the tractability systemic change
The first reason for the lack of effective altruist engagement with socialism is that effective altruists care about the tractability of interventions. Perhaps a socialist utopia would be much better than our current world. But it seems difficult to get from here to there.
Tractability is often interpreted as tractability for individuals. It is difficult - perhaps impossible - to see or evaluate how an individual could radically change an economic system.[4] So, the focus of much effective altruism has been piecemeal improvements under capitalism.
But radical change is more tractable on the level of large social groups and movements. These non-individual agents can (and have) changed the world in ways that individuals could not, including large-scale changes to the economic system.
Effective altruism's emphasis on the individual has been much criticised[5] and effective altruism has become increasingly less individualistic.[6] Longtermism has contributed to this change, since many of the interventions that could plausibly affect the very far future are changes at the political, institutional or structural level.
Thinking in terms of group rather than individual agency makes transition from capitalism to socialism appear more tractable.
b. 'Socialism doesn't work'
The second possible reason for the lack of effective altruist engagement with socialism is the widespread belief that socialist economies do not work as well as capitalist ones.[7] This, however, is far from clear. Of course, one would rather have lived in West Germany than East Germany, and the human costs of some socialist experiments and failures were immense.
But the same can be said of some instances of capitalism (especially if colonialism and climate change are taken - as many think - to be closely connected with capitalism). And some socialist economies have had some successes (human development in Kerala, economic growth in China, the USSR's role in space technology and smallpox eradication, Cuba's healthcare system).
In addition, socialist influence or pressure has played a vital part in reforms within capitalism - such as the expansion of public services, redistribution and decolonisation - which have almost certainly been positive for welfare.
Moreover, even if we think that twentieth-century socialism was an utter failure, it is not obvious that with more time and research and better technology, socialist economies couldn't work better - and better than capitalism - in the future. Recall the pr...