6 ms·

The subtler arguments against socialism are not amenable to sound bites. The one that was initially penned in the 1920s and has stood the test of time the best

The subtler arguments against socialism are not amenable to sound bites. The one that was initially penned in the 1920s and has stood the test of time the best is "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"[1]. This kicked off the Socialist calculation debate[2] which was on-going during the 20th century. It was largely settled in favor of the anti-central planners with the collapse of communism and Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms in China. [1]https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth/html https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-com... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate

sien 10y ago
It is remarkable how little attention this gets. Marxism has nice slogans, but very little attention is given to the details of what is the value of good quality paper clips or whatever. The assumption of perfect knowledge and that wise central planners can beat bottom up and local knowledge is wrong. It's interesting what a common assumption it is too. Even though government and large organisation inefficiency is often remarked about.
- marklgr 10y ago
  In the same vein, very little attention is given by capitalism to the details of what is the value of things that don't have a price, like, ecosystems, or human dignity. The assumption of perfect efficiency and that the free market magically leads to the best outcome for all is wrong. It's a very common assumption too. Even though the absurd level of inequalities or the ultra short-sighted plundering and wreaking of natural resources are often remarked about.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Marxism has nice slogans, but very little attention is given to the details of what is the value of good quality paper clips or whatever. Even less attention is given to those (and more important things, like the environment) by liberal capitalism. The market will sort it all out.
wahern 10y ago
It really all comes down to pricing theory, right? Marxism says that labor has intrinsic economic value. That's fundamental to Marxist communist thought, from economics to social theory to theories of history. Liberal economic theory says that there's no such thing as intrinsic economic value. See Diamond Fallacy. Optimal price signaling through a free market would be a necessary corollary. (And I think the Halting Problem could be used to prove that.) Neither seem right to me, but Marxism definitely seems far more wrong. Nonetheless, concepts like dignity and justice wouldn't exist if labor and other activities didn't have some kind of intrinsic value, however indefinite or indeterminable. The vast majority of people in capitalist societies, especially those in ultra capitalist societies, and particularly Americans, believe in an intrinsic worth to labor. And human concepts such as dignity, justice, and "the value of human life" exist precisely to define what we perceive as intrinsic value. And perhaps that's what democracy is about--a hack bolted onto free market capitalism to aggregate (in a very poor manner) our normative assessments of different kinds of intrinsic values, and to pay those costs more optimally than capitalism alone could manage.
- narrator 10y ago
  The truth is is that all labor is of equal COST, that being one hour of a person's time, but all labor is not of equal VALUE. Someone building a machine to do something is more valuable then the equivalent time spent doing the task by hand for example. The calculation of whether the machine should be built and then what it should be used for, especially if its function is very non-specific, such as a lathe, is where socialism gets messy and capitalism does better.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Touch of ableism here.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > Nonetheless, concepts like dignity and justice wouldn't exist if labor and other activities didn't have some kind of intrinsic value, however indefinite or indeterminable. I think this is wrong. You're trying to derive human worth from economic value. You can't do it. (And even if you succeeded, it would be at the price of reducing humans to their economic output, which is really dehumanizing.)

sien 10y ago

It is remarkable how little attention this gets. Marxism has nice slogans, but very little attention is given to the details of what is the value of good quality paper clips or whatever. The assumption of perfect knowledge and that wise central planners can beat bottom up and local knowledge is wrong. It's interesting what a common assumption it is too. Even though government and large organisation inefficiency is often remarked about.

marklgr 10y ago
In the same vein, very little attention is given by capitalism to the details of what is the value of things that don't have a price, like, ecosystems, or human dignity. The assumption of perfect efficiency and that the free market magically leads to the best outcome for all is wrong. It's a very common assumption too. Even though the absurd level of inequalities or the ultra short-sighted plundering and wreaking of natural resources are often remarked about.
coldtea 10y ago
>Marxism has nice slogans, but very little attention is given to the details of what is the value of good quality paper clips or whatever. Even less attention is given to those (and more important things, like the environment) by liberal capitalism. The market will sort it all out.

wahern 10y ago

It really all comes down to pricing theory, right? Marxism says that labor has intrinsic economic value. That's fundamental to Marxist communist thought, from economics to social theory to theories of history. Liberal economic theory says that there's no such thing as intrinsic economic value. See Diamond Fallacy. Optimal price signaling through a free market would be a necessary corollary. (And I think the Halting Problem could be used to prove that.) Neither seem right to me, but Marxism definitely seems far more wrong. Nonetheless, concepts like dignity and justice wouldn't exist if labor and other activities didn't have some kind of intrinsic value, however indefinite or indeterminable. The vast majority of people in capitalist societies, especially those in ultra capitalist societies, and particularly Americans, believe in an intrinsic worth to labor. And human concepts such as dignity, justice, and "the value of human life" exist precisely to define what we perceive as intrinsic value. And perhaps that's what democracy is about--a hack bolted onto free market capitalism to aggregate (in a very poor manner) our normative assessments of different kinds of intrinsic values, and to pay those costs more optimally than capitalism alone could manage.

narrator 10y ago
The truth is is that all labor is of equal COST, that being one hour of a person's time, but all labor is not of equal VALUE. Someone building a machine to do something is more valuable then the equivalent time spent doing the task by hand for example. The calculation of whether the machine should be built and then what it should be used for, especially if its function is very non-specific, such as a lathe, is where socialism gets messy and capitalism does better.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Touch of ableism here.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> Nonetheless, concepts like dignity and justice wouldn't exist if labor and other activities didn't have some kind of intrinsic value, however indefinite or indeterminable. I think this is wrong. You're trying to derive human worth from economic value. You can't do it. (And even if you succeeded, it would be at the price of reducing humans to their economic output, which is really dehumanizing.)