I was recently on an NPR panel on “Capitalism” with a pair of self-identified socialists – Kristen Ghodsee and Vivek Chibber. The hosts asked us a wide range of questions, including several of the form: “What would you say to a person with problem X?” For example, they played a statement from someone who really disliked her job as a COVID nurse. What should she do?
Literalist that I am, I tried to offer helpful, relevant advice. I started with the First Law of Wing-Walking: Keep your current job, but intensively search for a better position. As I’ve explained before:
Happily settle for your first tolerable job offer… but only temporarily. Once you’re secure in your new position, at least keep your eyes open for a better opportunity. Something’s bound to come along eventually – and when it does, you can bargain with confidence.
Better yet, virtually any job yields valuable experience and career connections. As a result, you have more than happenstance on your side. Month after month, year after year, the odds tilt more and more in your favor – especially if you strive to impress your whole social network with your professionalism.
Since the unhappy nurse disliked her irregular hours, I pointed out the wide range of nursing positions. Some nurses have totally regular hours in a doctor’s office or school. Others pull all-nighters at the ER. Switching from one track to another takes time, but with determination and flexibility, any qualified nurse can probably pull it off in a matter of months.
The socialist panelists, in contrast, bizarrely claimed that such efforts were hopeless, and told the nurse that left-wing political activism and/or unionization were the only viable remedies. When I pointed out that such methods are notoriously ineffective (when they don’t lead to total disaster), they doubled down. I pressed them further. If a young family member asked for career advice, would they seriously tell them that self-help is futile and steer them toward collective action instead? As far as I recall, my counterparts refused to engage this challenge.
Late in the interview, one of the hosts asked something like, “Is belief in the efficacy of self-help the fundamental difference between you?” The socialists quickly affirmed that it was. I probably just said, “It is one important difference.” After the recording session ended, however, this issue stayed in my mind. Any individual obviously has the power to unilaterally mess up their own lives. Just become a violent drunk on the job for a day and watch your career die. How then can you imagine that the opposite path of self-improvement is a waste of time?
After a few days, however, the tension between socialism and self-help became clear.
Suppose you’re very power-hungry. Do you want people to think they’re able to fix their own problems? Of course not. If individuals can help themselves by doing a good job, learning new skills, making friends, and keeping their eyes peeled, what do they need you for? In contrast, if people believe that collective action is the path forward, the collectivity will clearly need leaders. And who will fill these leadership positions? The socialist activists, naturally.
Yes, this is a lurid picture: Power-hungry pundits push the absurd position that collective action is more likely to succeed than self-help – and then get to rule whatever collectivity they manage to inspire. How many socialists consciously embrace this master plan? Since I lack telepathy, I honestly don’t know. Still, the frequency with which bleeding-heart socialists become bloodthirsty tyrants reassures me that I’m not paranoid.
READER COMMENTS
David Henderson
Jun 22 2021 at 6:53pm
Nicely done.
Parrhesia
Jun 22 2021 at 7:35pm
I am not sure if this is an instance of desire for control as this idea of lacking agency is fundamental to left-wing thinking. Left-Wing thinkers are more inclined to believe in determinism and question meritocracy. They view bad situations as more of a consequence of society than personal failing. Those at the bottom lack agency or control over their lives due to the exploitation of others. The oppressor groups are the ones that face the blame. For socialists, this is businesses and the wealthy. I think they genuinely believe it rather than want power but some probably want power.
Also, socialists won’t want to concede that switching jobs is reasonably easy. If you talk about coercion in the libertarian sense, they will suggest that the employer-employee relationship is coercive too because it is so hard to leave. If switching jobs was a reasonable expectation then that does not make socialism look as warranted.
Jason Ford
Jun 22 2021 at 8:18pm
I used to be a socialist. Power is certainly a motivation for many socialists. But two other motivations are common as well:
1. The desire to make a huge difference in the world. If one embraces free enterprise, maybe one’s work can make the price of bread a nickel cheaper. That’s worthwhile, but doesn’t seem as worthwhile as saving millions from oppression. And anyway, the credit for any improvement one makes in products or services has to be shared across the company or companies. Much of socialist rhetoric glorifies the individual or small group working for change. Iconic images of Che Guevara are far more popular than iconic images of Jeff Bezos.
2. A feeling that one can’t succeed in a competitive environment. This feeling of inner worthlessness drives people to socialism.
I personally abandoned socialism after observing that collective action rarely helps people. Furthermore, I gained enough skills that I lost that feeling of inner worthlessness.
Many academics hang on to socialism. I wonder if many of them are so highly driven that they still have inner feelings of worthlessness because they fail to achieve what they feel they should achieve. If one is driven enough to get a doctorate, one might expect to be a leader in their field. But not everyone can be a leader.
Floccina
Jun 23 2021 at 4:54pm
Good points. I’d add.
3. I also think socialism appeals to people who are not so diligent.
4. People who are fearful seeking economic security, who think Government can and will take care of them.
Jason Ford
Jun 23 2021 at 6:03pm
Agreed! Thanks!
JK Brown
Jun 23 2021 at 8:14pm
In 1909, in Scribner’s Magazine, “Socialism a Philosophy of Failure”, Laughlin, J.L. appeared. It is a very good discussion of your second point. That socialists feel they can’t compete in the current economic environment so seek to overturn it so they can gain wealth.
Vejas
Jun 22 2021 at 8:41pm
Is there the NPR recording?
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jun 22 2021 at 9:07pm
The contrast seem silly. At a personal level a Socialist could act on the self-help opportunities they find while participating in as many union drives and protest marches as they can. And a libertarian might still seek occupational certification in his field or work for a public sector institution while doing research showing the costs of various kinds of state intervention.
I do not see how a lust for power has anything to do with it.
KevinDC
Jun 23 2021 at 11:23am
Well yes, this set of options exists in the logical space – by Bryan’s whole point was that this set was also explicitly rejected by the socialists on the panel. Hence the whole bit where Bryan said:
So yes, seeking career improvement is not mutually exclusive with marching in favor of unions or whatever, but the panelists in this discussion actively stated that the former was pointless and all efforts should be focused on the latter. So the message was “Even though you could spend time on both, any time and effort you spend trying to improve your own prospects is a pointless waste which will never amount to anything, the only real hope you have is to help people like me take power, and then count on us to take care of you.”
So either they genuinely believe that efforts at self improvement are futile (or nearly so), or they do believe such efforts are effective, but are actively telling people to not make any such efforts and instead concentrate all their energy on helping socialists seize power. And given that they danced around the question rather than answering it directly when Bryan pressed them on it, I suspect the second is the case.
Gene
Jun 23 2021 at 2:34pm
How many socialists with a lust for power does it take? Just because, arguably, a majority of socialists might have no personal lust for power, only a relative few leaders are necessary. And those without the personal lust clearly must understand that the use of power–in many cases an overwhelming amount of it–will be required to effect the changes that committed socialists will want.
Jeffrey
Jun 23 2021 at 7:51am
RPLong
Jun 23 2021 at 10:36am
If a capitalist thinks you need his help, he’ll try to sell you something.
If a socialist thinks you need his help, he’ll start calling the shots.
It’s a big difference.
Evan Sherman
Jun 23 2021 at 10:57am
On this subject – what economic system works best to help the most people maximize their material standard of living – I continue to be amazed by the historical illiteracy prevelant among not only radical progressives but also the center-left mainstream liberals that so often defer to the radicals.
It might be have been interesting to have this conversation on the level of ideas in, say, the mid-19th century, pre-2nd industrial revoloution. By then, evidence of the relative efficiency of markets existed, but it was not quite in-your-face obvious. (E.g. Pre-modern information, communications, and transportation technologies made all systems inefficient, so it was harder to see what was actually better.) Discussions on the level of theory might have contained mutliple credible positions. You could talk Marx vs. Smith and not be laughed out of the room by a reasonable observor.
But now, in 2021, after the last 150 or so years? I feel like it’s reasonable for free market advocates to invoke history and pretty much just say “scoreboard”.
To be clear, I am humbled on a daily basis by how much I have to learn about macro-economic theory from trained economists, on this site and elsewhere. It is useful to understand the mechanics of how the free market produces better outcomes than collectivist economic policies – vs. just recognizing those outcomes as end-results – and I will continue to read and try to learn more about the how and the why.
But I don’t think you need to be an econ expert to check the big picture scoreboard, or to see the common sense truth of what Bryan is saying here.
KevinDC
Jun 23 2021 at 11:46am
This post of Bryan’s reminds me of something I read in Muhammed Yunus’s book Banker to The Poor. The book recounts the origin and operations of the Grameen Bank, which specializes in providing small loans to poor people in developing countries that helps them establish small businesses and become financially self sufficient and independent. This project has been making significant progress at reducing poverty.
However, Yunus also noted that his efforts in this area were actively opposed by socialists! They were upset with him, because by helping the poor improve their lives and become self sufficient (using free market means, no less!), this meant, in the words of one professor, that the formerly destitute could now “sleep peacefully and don’t make any noise. Their revolutionary zeal cools down. Therefore, Grameen is the enemy of the revolution.” If helping people improve their lives, become self sufficient, and escape from grinding poverty somehow undercuts the socialist’s quest for power – then, well, at least we know which one they consider to be the higher priority.
David Seltzer
Jun 23 2021 at 12:38pm
Well reasoned and rendered. It seems to me the evidence for the failures of government intervention, as a form of statism, can be seen in housing, healthcare and education. Rent controls and zoning restrictions have limited housing supply.
Market forces have been acutely restricted in healthcare and government run schools graduate half their students. Some of those who do graduate are credentialed but unqualified.
Daniel Klein
Jun 23 2021 at 3:39pm
It’s greed and selfishness, but not necessarily of the ambition-to-be-a-powerful-bully sort, I think.
Mark Z
Jun 23 2021 at 5:52pm
I don’t think it’s personal power-hunger, but rather the belief that they’re telling a noble lie. Any rational or numerate person understands that political activism and voting are useless in pursuing one’s individual interests. If you’re co-panelists were honest, they would’ve encouraged the caller to engage in activism on altruistic grounds, saying that, while you could improve your life more by focusing on helping yourself (no matter how pessimistic you are about self-help, because the value of activism to yourself is effectively 0 anyway), everyone would have more power to improve their lives if everyone engaged in left wing activism (their beliefs, not mine). Trying to convince someone that activism will personally help them, though, in order to corral them into one’s cause is pretty manipulative. But I doubt it’s for power’s sake. They may genuinely believe that the myth of personal political agency is a noble lie necessary to overcome collective action problems.
Cody mc
Jun 23 2021 at 6:09pm
What did you think was the biggest single difference between you if forced to choose one thing?
JK Brown
Jun 23 2021 at 8:26pm
Your conflict with the socialists reminded me of Mises’ ‘Bureaucracy’ (1945). The passage in Section VI, Ch 1 where Mises contrasts the pioneer spirit of, at least earlier America, to that of a German youth who faced taking up his position in the bureaucracy. It is a stark contrast between those of ‘self-help’ and those who face joining the collective.
Mises’ subsequent description of the German Youth Movement in the years before the Great War seems awful similar to what we see in our current ‘Youth Movement’ and even that of the 1960s. But those German youth who survived the Great War did, as part of the German administrative state, make a mark on the world, as dutiful slaves to Hitler, as we now know, for Stalin.
Devon Fritz
Jun 24 2021 at 7:04am
While I agree with your view about self-help and strongly disagree with the socialists’ response, your conclusion that it is about power is very uncharitable.
Michael Rulle
Jun 24 2021 at 8:34am
As a general proposition I do not believe power seeking per se differentiates capitalism from socialism. It might differentiate who seeks power.
For example, those who work in politics, academia and government, might be more inclined, on average, toward socialism. A tenured professor, or a level 12 Government employee, have total job security—-certainly more so than the private sector (putting aside the fact that a tenured position in academia just might be the hardest job to get!). Total job security is one of the great false promises of socialism.
But I never worked in a company where power seeking was not a significant driver of behavior.
I am not even sure I can define socialism in the modern world. Is Canada socialist? I don’t think so. But it is a redistributionist country. So is the US—-but in a different way. Is Germany Socialist? I don’t know.
Socialism is an idea or belief that government can optimize happiness and security for all. By force.
Jose Pablo
Jun 25 2021 at 2:21pm
Are Canada, US, and Germany socialist countries?
Yes, they are. All this governments confiscate between 40 and 50% of all the good and services (their monetary value to be precise) produced by the country in any given year?
This is equivalent to have a 40-50% public ownership of all the means of production in the country + having the ability of employing forced labor for half your working time.
That’s the very definition of “Semi-socialism” a la Marx, just disguised to make everybody believe you work for someone else and some else owns the means of production. This delusion is politically clever and convenient
Paul
Jun 24 2021 at 1:15pm
In your wing-walking piece (where comments are closed) you say “Never let hold of what you’ve got until you’ve got hold of something else.” I think you actually mean “never let go of”. As written, it doesn’t really make sense. I don’t think “hold” can mean “release” unless perhaps it’s one of those “I could care less” type of things, which people say all the time but is just wrong.
Jose Pablo
Jun 25 2021 at 12:28pm
I was thinking something similar yesterday while reading the news regarding the “religious effort” of Teamster Union to unionize Amazon workers.
I could not understand why anybody could prefer the path:
1.- Get a job you don’t like
2. -Unionize to transform the job you don’t like into a job you do like
3.- Stay in this “transformed” job for ever (or star all over again if your preference change or the job is transformed to satisfy the majority of your colleagues which could have a different set of preferences)
versus
1.- Get a job you do like
2.- If later on you realize you no longer like your job switch to other job you like better
The second path, apart from being far more feasible, has obvious advantages from both a personal and macroeconomic perspective.
And yet, here they are, the Teamster Union members (well, maybe just their representatives) recommending the first path with religious fervor.
After your post I now understand why.
Lee
Jun 25 2021 at 10:27pm
In regards to the nurse that was unhappy because she had to work in order to support herself, I find it strange that the panel attributes the problem solely to capitalism. As if this is a issue that only exists in capitalist countries. The panel seems to suggest that it’s somehow unfair that she has to earn income in order to pay her bills and hold on to her belongings, but they don’t offer an alternative, unionization not withstanding. It’s probably true that most of us would be happier if we didn’t have to work in order to survive, if we could just sit on a beach somewhere everyday and have all of our needs met. Or at the very least get to choose when and where we work and set our own hours and schedules. But I’m not aware of an economic system that affords such opportunities more so than capitalism. Even in socialism, people would most likely still be required to work at their government issued jobs and would probably have even less say in the type of work that they do and when they do it.
Comments are closed.