If you’re doing anticapitalist advocacy for EA reasons, I think you need a really clear understanding of why such advocacy has caused so much misery in the past, and how your advocacy will avoid those traps.
I’d say what’s needed is not anticapitalist advocacy, so much as small-scale prototyping of alternative economic systems that have strong theoretical arguments for how they will align incentives better, and scale way past Dunbar’s number.
You don’t need a full replacement for capitalism to test ideas and see results. For example, central planning often fails due to corruption. A well-designed alternative system will probably need a solution for corruption. And such a solution could be usefully applied to an ordinary capitalist democracy.
I concede that AI companies are behaving in a harmful way, but I doubt that anticapitalist advocacy is a particularly tractable way to address that, at least in the short term.
Yes. That’s why I only scoped my comment around weak anticapitalism (specifically: placing strong restrictions on wealth accumulation when it leads to market failures), rather than full-scale revolution. I’m personally probably more reformist and generally pretty pro-market, but anti-accumulation, FWIW.
As I said, I think that instead of siloed advocacy in distinct cause areas, EAs could realise that they have common cause around opposing bad economic incentives. AI safety, farmed animal welfare, and some global health concerns come from the same roots, and there are already large movements well-placed to solve these problems on the political left (ex. labour unions, veganism, environmentalism, internationalist political groups). Indeed, vegan EAs have already allied well with the existing movement to huge success, but this is the exception.
Frankly, I don’t see how that leads to bread lines but I am open to a clearer mechanism if you have one?
That’s why I only scoped my comment around weak anticapitalism (specifically: placing strong restrictions on wealth accumulation when it leads to market failures), rather than full-scale revolution.
For what it’s worth, it is the mainstream view among economists that we should tax or regulate the market in order to address market failures. Yet most economists would not consider themselves “anticapitalist”. Using that term when what you mean is something more similar to “well-regulated capitalism” seems quite misleading.
Perhaps the primary distinction between anticapitalists and mainstream economists is that anticapitalists often think we should have very heavy taxation or outright wealth confiscation from rich people, even if this would come at the expense of aggregate utilitarian welfare, because they prioritize other values such as fairness or equality.Since EA tends to be rooted in utilitarian moral theories, I think they should generally distance themselves from this ideology.
“anticapitalists often think that we should have very heavy taxation or outright wealth confiscation from rich people, even if this would come at the expense of aggregate utilitarian welfare”
What’s the evidence for this? I think even if it is true, it is probably misleading, in that most leftists also just reject the claims mainstream economists make about when taxing the rich will reduce aggregate welfare (not that there is one single mainstream economist view on that anyway in all likelihood.) This sounds to me more like an American centre-right caricature of how socialists think, than something socialists themselves would recognize.
What’s the evidence for this? I think even if it is true, it is probably misleading, in that most leftists also just reject the claims mainstream economists make about when taxing the rich will reduce aggregate welfare
To support this claim, we can examine the work of analytical anticapitalists such as G. A. Cohen and John E. Roemer. Both of these thinkers have developed their critiques of capitalism from a foundation of egalitarianism rather than from a perspective primarily concerned with maximizing overall social welfare. Their theories focus on issues of fairness, justice, and equality rather than on the utilitarian consequences of different economic systems.
Similarly, widely cited figures such as Thomas Piketty and John Rawls have provided extensive critiques of capitalist systems, and their arguments are largely framed in terms of egalitarian concerns. Both have explicitly advocated for significant wealth redistribution, even when doing so might lead to efficiency losses or other negative utilitarian tradeoffs. Their work illustrates a broader trend in which anticapitalist arguments are often motivated more by ethical commitments to equality than by a strict adherence to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.
Outside of academic discourse, the distinction becomes less clear. This is because most people do not explicitly frame their economic beliefs within formal theoretical frameworks, making it harder to categorize their positions precisely. I also acknowledge your point that many socialists would likely disagree with my characterization by denying the empirical premise that wealth redistribution can reduce aggregate utilitarian welfare. But this isn’t very compelling evidence in my view, as it is common for people among all ideologies to simply deny the tradeoffs inherent in their policy proposals.
What I find most compelling here is that, based on my experience, the vast majority of anticapitalists do not ground their advocacy in a framework that prioritizes maximizing utilitarian welfare. While they may often reference utilitarian concerns in passing, it is uncommon for them to fully engage with mainstream economic analyses of the costs of taxation and redistribution. When anticapitalists do acknowledge these economic arguments, they tend to dismiss or downplay them rather than engaging in a substantive, evidence-based debate within that framework. Those who do accept the mainstream economic framework and attempt to argue within it are generally better categorized as liberals or social democrats rather than strong anticapitalists.
Of course, the distinction between a liberal who strongly supports income redistribution and an anticapitalist is not always sharply defined. There is no rigid, universally agreed-upon boundary between these positions, and I acknowledge that some individuals who identify as anticapitalists may not fit neatly into the categorization I have outlined. However, my original point was intended as a general observation rather than as an exhaustive classification of every nuance within these ideological debates.
Yeah sorry, to emphasise further, I’m referring to the position where we should place strong restrictions on wealth accumulation when it leads to market failures. The difference between this and the mainstream (in this conception) is that mainstream views take more of a siloed approach to these outcomes, and prefer income taxes or laws to remedy them.
An anticapitalist view contrasts with this by identifying wealth accumulation / concentrated ownership of the means of production as a root cause of these issues and works to restrain it in a more preventative capacity. As you identified, such a view typically advocates for policies like wealth taxes, worker co-determination on boards, and high tax surveillance.
Also loosely on your claim that anticapitalism is incompatible with EA because anticapitalists foreground equality over utility—I disagree. First, EA is scoped to ‘altruism’, not to ‘all policy worldwide’, so a view that aims to maximise altruism also maximises equality under regular conditions. Second, it’s not necessarily the case that there is a tradeoff between equality and global utility, and highly socialist societies such as the Scandis enjoy both higher equality and higher utility than more capitalist countries such as the United States or the UK.
(I’ve read Piketty and don’t remember him ever suggesting he would trade one for the other; can’t speak to the other authors you cite)
and highly socialist societies such as the Scandis enjoy both higher quality and higher utility than more capitalist countries such as the United States or the UK.
While Scandinavian countries generally are less capitalist than the US or UK, the difference is small. Here are their rankings on the Economic Freedom index:
Rank
Country
Score
5
United States
8.09
6
Denmark
8.02
12
United Kingdom
7.88
13
Finland
7.87
14
Iceland
7.84
25
Sweden
7.61
28
Norway
7.58
All of them are comfortably in the top quartile, and Denmark is actually above the UK in the rankings.
At least 8 years ago though, Finland and Norway had relatively high levels of state ownership of enterprises, much higher than the US. If that’s not a much higher level of real socialism, it’s hard to say what is. That suggests to me that whatever the Economic Freedom Index measures it’s not how little socialism there is in a country. Nonetheless, it could be the freedom not the socialism that’s responsible for Finland and Norway doing well, of course.
Norway is a petro state so arguably it doesn’t really count, but Finland isn’t.
I am trying my hardest to disambiguate ‘market/economic freedom’ from ‘unrestrained accumulation of wealth’. Europe produces a huge amount of tax revenue (see below; I don’t have an anticapitalism index at hand so this is as close as I could get in a 5 minute search) while maintaining similar levels of economic freedom to the US, and manages much higher life satisfaction and equality despite lower GDP per capita. That’s insane!
Anticapitalism in a strict economic sense is merely the opposition to unrestrained accumulation of wealth and/or concentration of ownership of the means of production in private hands. It doesn’t have to take a position on anything to do with markets. (Obviously, the popular Western conception of anticapitalism is also often anti-market, but actually-existing-anticapitalism in Europe is pro-market!)
I am trying my hardest to disambiguate ‘market/economic freedom’ from ‘unrestrained accumulation of wealth’.
You mentioned scandinavian countries specifically, but Swedish Wealth Inequality is as high as the US and higher than the UK. In general european countries raise large amounts of tax/GDP by having higher taxes on middle income people than the US, not by having higher taxes at the high end.
This opens a bit of a can of worms. FWIW, the World Inequality Database (founded by Thomas Piketty, and OWID’s main source on wealth data) reports Sweden as having a top-10% wealth share of 58.9%, on the lower end and much less than the US’ 70.7%:
I looked at the source for the infographic you linked, which is UBS’ Global Wealth Report (presumably from 2023, but undated). [Here’s the full data](https://rev01ution.red/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/global-wealth-databook-2023-ubs.pdf). Table 4–5 reports Sweden’s top-10% share at 74.4%, which would make it a highly unequal country, much more on par with the U.S, and much higher than their neighbours.
My suspicion from this read is that the UBS report is extrapolating from 2007 data (since this is the latest Sweden-specific dataset they cite). 2007 was the last year that Sweden had a wealth tax (which, FWIW, [they had from 1911–2007](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/DuRietzHenrekson2015.pdf)) and so would produce good official estimates of the wealth distribution, but they might be skewed, especially because the wealth tax only applied above a threshold. Whereas the WID appear to be taking into account income tax data from capital gains ([this paper finds a top 10% share of 65.9% in 2012 using this methodology](https://www.ifn.se/media/wbldgg0m/wp1131.pdf)) and a bunch of other normalisations.
But I really wanna emphasise that I’m less sure, I would generally lean toward trusting the WID on this over UBS, but that’s probably not enough to make a point on the internet about Scandi anticapitalism.
Agree that I don’t think anticapitalism is tractable for anticapitalism’s sake, never mind as a solution to specific AI companies’ behaviour.
I also agree that it’s worth understanding why various anticapitalist regimes—most obviously Marxist-Leninism - failed[1]. Perhaps the biggest cautionary tale is that self-styled “revolutionary” Marxist-Leninist regimes ultimately evolved from extrapolating trends into a theory of a big, happy future after radical change. But two of the biggest reasons Marxist-Leninism failed, corruption and authoritarianism, are not unique to socialism, and the most distinct reason (centrally planned economies didn’t allocate enough resources to serving consumer demand and rewarding work ethic and ingenuity) lose significance in a hypothetical long term future in which resources aren’t particularly scarce, human work ethic isn’t a constraint and maybe the “ingenuity” comes from computer-based processes you probably don’t want to restrict to capital owners. If you think an era of AI-driven growth taking us close to post-scarcity is near,[2] it probably doesn’t make much sense to worry about preserving the twentieth century growth model. But at the same time, also too early to experiment with putative replacements.
The track record of anticapitalist advocacy seems quite poor. See this free book: Socialism: The failed idea that never dies
If you’re doing anticapitalist advocacy for EA reasons, I think you need a really clear understanding of why such advocacy has caused so much misery in the past, and how your advocacy will avoid those traps.
I’d say what’s needed is not anticapitalist advocacy, so much as small-scale prototyping of alternative economic systems that have strong theoretical arguments for how they will align incentives better, and scale way past Dunbar’s number.
You don’t need a full replacement for capitalism to test ideas and see results. For example, central planning often fails due to corruption. A well-designed alternative system will probably need a solution for corruption. And such a solution could be usefully applied to an ordinary capitalist democracy.
I concede that AI companies are behaving in a harmful way, but I doubt that anticapitalist advocacy is a particularly tractable way to address that, at least in the short term.
Yes. That’s why I only scoped my comment around weak anticapitalism (specifically: placing strong restrictions on wealth accumulation when it leads to market failures), rather than full-scale revolution. I’m personally probably more reformist and generally pretty pro-market, but anti-accumulation, FWIW.
As I said, I think that instead of siloed advocacy in distinct cause areas, EAs could realise that they have common cause around opposing bad economic incentives. AI safety, farmed animal welfare, and some global health concerns come from the same roots, and there are already large movements well-placed to solve these problems on the political left (ex. labour unions, veganism, environmentalism, internationalist political groups). Indeed, vegan EAs have already allied well with the existing movement to huge success, but this is the exception.
Frankly, I don’t see how that leads to bread lines but I am open to a clearer mechanism if you have one?
For what it’s worth, it is the mainstream view among economists that we should tax or regulate the market in order to address market failures. Yet most economists would not consider themselves “anticapitalist”. Using that term when what you mean is something more similar to “well-regulated capitalism” seems quite misleading.
Perhaps the primary distinction between anticapitalists and mainstream economists is that anticapitalists often think we should have very heavy taxation or outright wealth confiscation from rich people, even if this would come at the expense of aggregate utilitarian welfare, because they prioritize other values such as fairness or equality. Since EA tends to be rooted in utilitarian moral theories, I think they should generally distance themselves from this ideology.
“anticapitalists often think that we should have very heavy taxation or outright wealth confiscation from rich people, even if this would come at the expense of aggregate utilitarian welfare”
What’s the evidence for this? I think even if it is true, it is probably misleading, in that most leftists also just reject the claims mainstream economists make about when taxing the rich will reduce aggregate welfare (not that there is one single mainstream economist view on that anyway in all likelihood.) This sounds to me more like an American centre-right caricature of how socialists think, than something socialists themselves would recognize.
To support this claim, we can examine the work of analytical anticapitalists such as G. A. Cohen and John E. Roemer. Both of these thinkers have developed their critiques of capitalism from a foundation of egalitarianism rather than from a perspective primarily concerned with maximizing overall social welfare. Their theories focus on issues of fairness, justice, and equality rather than on the utilitarian consequences of different economic systems.
Similarly, widely cited figures such as Thomas Piketty and John Rawls have provided extensive critiques of capitalist systems, and their arguments are largely framed in terms of egalitarian concerns. Both have explicitly advocated for significant wealth redistribution, even when doing so might lead to efficiency losses or other negative utilitarian tradeoffs. Their work illustrates a broader trend in which anticapitalist arguments are often motivated more by ethical commitments to equality than by a strict adherence to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.
Outside of academic discourse, the distinction becomes less clear. This is because most people do not explicitly frame their economic beliefs within formal theoretical frameworks, making it harder to categorize their positions precisely. I also acknowledge your point that many socialists would likely disagree with my characterization by denying the empirical premise that wealth redistribution can reduce aggregate utilitarian welfare. But this isn’t very compelling evidence in my view, as it is common for people among all ideologies to simply deny the tradeoffs inherent in their policy proposals.
What I find most compelling here is that, based on my experience, the vast majority of anticapitalists do not ground their advocacy in a framework that prioritizes maximizing utilitarian welfare. While they may often reference utilitarian concerns in passing, it is uncommon for them to fully engage with mainstream economic analyses of the costs of taxation and redistribution. When anticapitalists do acknowledge these economic arguments, they tend to dismiss or downplay them rather than engaging in a substantive, evidence-based debate within that framework. Those who do accept the mainstream economic framework and attempt to argue within it are generally better categorized as liberals or social democrats rather than strong anticapitalists.
Of course, the distinction between a liberal who strongly supports income redistribution and an anticapitalist is not always sharply defined. There is no rigid, universally agreed-upon boundary between these positions, and I acknowledge that some individuals who identify as anticapitalists may not fit neatly into the categorization I have outlined. However, my original point was intended as a general observation rather than as an exhaustive classification of every nuance within these ideological debates.
Yeah sorry, to emphasise further, I’m referring to the position where we should place strong restrictions on wealth accumulation when it leads to market failures. The difference between this and the mainstream (in this conception) is that mainstream views take more of a siloed approach to these outcomes, and prefer income taxes or laws to remedy them.
An anticapitalist view contrasts with this by identifying wealth accumulation / concentrated ownership of the means of production as a root cause of these issues and works to restrain it in a more preventative capacity. As you identified, such a view typically advocates for policies like wealth taxes, worker co-determination on boards, and high tax surveillance.
Also loosely on your claim that anticapitalism is incompatible with EA because anticapitalists foreground equality over utility—I disagree. First, EA is scoped to ‘altruism’, not to ‘all policy worldwide’, so a view that aims to maximise altruism also maximises equality under regular conditions. Second, it’s not necessarily the case that there is a tradeoff between equality and global utility, and highly socialist societies such as the Scandis enjoy both higher equality and higher utility than more capitalist countries such as the United States or the UK.
(I’ve read Piketty and don’t remember him ever suggesting he would trade one for the other; can’t speak to the other authors you cite)
While Scandinavian countries generally are less capitalist than the US or UK, the difference is small. Here are their rankings on the Economic Freedom index:
All of them are comfortably in the top quartile, and Denmark is actually above the UK in the rankings.
https://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/28/nordic-socialism-is-realer-than-you-think/
At least 8 years ago though, Finland and Norway had relatively high levels of state ownership of enterprises, much higher than the US. If that’s not a much higher level of real socialism, it’s hard to say what is. That suggests to me that whatever the Economic Freedom Index measures it’s not how little socialism there is in a country. Nonetheless, it could be the freedom not the socialism that’s responsible for Finland and Norway doing well, of course.
Norway is a petro state so arguably it doesn’t really count, but Finland isn’t.
I am trying my hardest to disambiguate ‘market/economic freedom’ from ‘unrestrained accumulation of wealth’. Europe produces a huge amount of tax revenue (see below; I don’t have an anticapitalism index at hand so this is as close as I could get in a 5 minute search) while maintaining similar levels of economic freedom to the US, and manages much higher life satisfaction and equality despite lower GDP per capita. That’s insane!
Anticapitalism in a strict economic sense is merely the opposition to unrestrained accumulation of wealth and/or concentration of ownership of the means of production in private hands. It doesn’t have to take a position on anything to do with markets. (Obviously, the popular Western conception of anticapitalism is also often anti-market, but actually-existing-anticapitalism in Europe is pro-market!)
You mentioned scandinavian countries specifically, but Swedish Wealth Inequality is as high as the US and higher than the UK. In general european countries raise large amounts of tax/GDP by having higher taxes on middle income people than the US, not by having higher taxes at the high end.
This opens a bit of a can of worms. FWIW, the World Inequality Database (founded by Thomas Piketty, and OWID’s main source on wealth data) reports Sweden as having a top-10% wealth share of 58.9%, on the lower end and much less than the US’ 70.7%:
I looked at the source for the infographic you linked, which is UBS’ Global Wealth Report (presumably from 2023, but undated). [Here’s the full data](https://rev01ution.red/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/global-wealth-databook-2023-ubs.pdf). Table 4–5 reports Sweden’s top-10% share at 74.4%, which would make it a highly unequal country, much more on par with the U.S, and much higher than their neighbours.
Although I’m interested, I don’t really have the time to deep dive around the different methodologies, but some light reading through section 1.1 of the UBS report and the [WID’s methodological report](https://wid.world/document/distributional-national-accounts-guidelines-2020-concepts-and-methods-used-in-the-world-inequality-database/) makes me think the WID have the more comprehensive methodology.
My suspicion from this read is that the UBS report is extrapolating from 2007 data (since this is the latest Sweden-specific dataset they cite). 2007 was the last year that Sweden had a wealth tax (which, FWIW, [they had from 1911–2007](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/DuRietzHenrekson2015.pdf)) and so would produce good official estimates of the wealth distribution, but they might be skewed, especially because the wealth tax only applied above a threshold. Whereas the WID appear to be taking into account income tax data from capital gains ([this paper finds a top 10% share of 65.9% in 2012 using this methodology](https://www.ifn.se/media/wbldgg0m/wp1131.pdf)) and a bunch of other normalisations.
But I really wanna emphasise that I’m less sure, I would generally lean toward trusting the WID on this over UBS, but that’s probably not enough to make a point on the internet about Scandi anticapitalism.
That is insane that you can embed a OWID chart into a forum reply 😂
Just wait until you see the PRs I wanna submit to the forum software 😛
Agree that I don’t think anticapitalism is tractable for anticapitalism’s sake, never mind as a solution to specific AI companies’ behaviour.
I also agree that it’s worth understanding why various anticapitalist regimes—most obviously Marxist-Leninism - failed[1]. Perhaps the biggest cautionary tale is that self-styled “revolutionary” Marxist-Leninist regimes ultimately evolved from extrapolating trends into a theory of a big, happy future after radical change. But two of the biggest reasons Marxist-Leninism failed, corruption and authoritarianism, are not unique to socialism, and the most distinct reason (centrally planned economies didn’t allocate enough resources to serving consumer demand and rewarding work ethic and ingenuity) lose significance in a hypothetical long term future in which resources aren’t particularly scarce, human work ethic isn’t a constraint and maybe the “ingenuity” comes from computer-based processes you probably don’t want to restrict to capital owners. If you think an era of AI-driven growth taking us close to post-scarcity is near,[2] it probably doesn’t make much sense to worry about preserving the twentieth century growth model. But at the same time, also too early to experiment with putative replacements.
though I’d probably choose somewhere other than the IEA to start that research process...
personally I think we’re a long way from that, but many longtermists evidently feel differently.