and they seem to be down on socialism, except maybe some non-mainstream market variants.
I did try to find a survey for sociology, political science, and economics, not only today but also when I was writing my post on market socialism (I too wondered whether economists are more in favor of market socialism), but I couldnât really find one. My guess is that the first two would be more pro-socialism and the last more anti, although it probably also differs from country to country depending on their history of academia (e.g. whether they had a red scare in academia or not).
I feel like this is the kind of anti science/âempiricism arrogance that philosophers are often accused of
This is probably partly because of the different things theyâre researching. Economics tends to look at things that are easier to quantify, like GDP and material goods created, which capitalism is really good at, while philosophers tend to look at things that capitalism seems to be less good at, like alienation, which is harder to quantify (though proxies like depression, suicide and loneliness do seem to be increasing).
Not to mention, they might agree on the data but disagree on what to value. Rust & Schwitzgebel (2013) did a survey of philosophy professors specializing in ethics, philosophy professors not specializing in ethics, and non-philosophy professors. 60% of ethicists felt eating meat was wrong, while just under 45% of non-ethicists agreed, and only 19.6% of non-philosophers thought so. I personally think one of the strongest arguments against capitalism is the existence of factory farms. With such numbers, it seems plausible that while an average economist might think of the meat industry as a positive, the average philosopher might think of it as a negative (thinking something akin to this post).
I donât see why weâd expect less factory farms under socialism, except via us being poorer in general. And I feel like âmake everything worse for humans to make things better for animalsâ feels a bit âcartoon utilitarian super-villainâ, even if Iâm not sure what is wrong with it. Itâs also not why socialists support socialism, even if many are also pro-animal. On the other hand, if socialism worked as intended, why would factory farming decrease?
I donât see why weâd expect less factory farms under socialism
The comment was about how factory farms are an argument against capitalism; not about why it is an argument for other economic philosophies, so one canât conclude from this that some other specific economic philosophy (e.g., socialism) doesnât have that argument against them. It could be that, e.g. factory farms are an argument against capitalism and socialism, but not mutualism.
Itâs also not why socialists support socialism
There was no claim that this is why socialists support socialism, but even if there was, it doesnât really matter for the argument. Even if we could conclude from âfactory farms are an argument against capitalismâ that âsocialism is good for animal welfareâ, why would the motivation of socialists matter? Even if socialists created better animal welfare only unintentionally, wouldnât that still be one reason to support them? (Assuming you care about the consequences of policy more than the virtues of the participants)
except via us being poorer in general
Lastly, I want to talk about this claim. But less so to address you, and more so to address the forum users.
I donât think that socialism would make us poorer, at least not in the long run. The dynamics of capitalism are very destructive (e.g. negative externalities, regulatory capture, planned obsolescence...) and countries like the Nordic countries, with more socialist policies, tend to do better. Socialist firms were shown in meta analyses to not be less productive than capitalist firms, while being vastly moreresilient (among many other beneficialattributes), so they would help the economy grow more in the long run, making us richer. This is not all there is to say; there are many more arguments and there are many more other factors to consider, but in the end, why bother?
You could spend time and energy crafting long chains of arguments with lots of citations and data on unpopular positions (even if you werenât the person who made an assertion, like in this case) only to get vastly less karma/âvoting power than people who just assert the popular opinion. I.e., in this case, the assertion âsocialism would make us poorerâ without any sources or arguments. Which btw is fine, this is an internet comment not an academic paper, but Iâve experienced the dynamics on this forum for years; if one were to reply that it wouldnât make us poorer, also without sources, or even with some sources, you would lose karma/âvoting power. And then another person would jump in and point out that the reply didnât cover literally every aspect of the economy, and it avoided talking about this or that part, which is fine, demands for rigor are good, but the forum as a whole more often than not makes isolated demands for rigor, and the original anti-socialism assertion rarely if ever gets such a demand.
Case in point, the comment youâre replying to. It didnât even make the assertion that socialism is better, just posted some studies and data from which one could infer that he is pro-socialism, and thatâs enough to make him lose karma/âvoting power, while your stronger assertion without any studies/âdata (which, again, is fine) get lots of karma.
(Again, while the first two points are aimed at your reply, this last point is aimed at the broader EA forum user base.)
I did try to find a survey for sociology, political science, and economics, not only today but also when I was writing my post on market socialism (I too wondered whether economists are more in favor of market socialism), but I couldnât really find one. My guess is that the first two would be more pro-socialism and the last more anti, although it probably also differs from country to country depending on their history of academia (e.g. whether they had a red scare in academia or not).
This is probably partly because of the different things theyâre researching. Economics tends to look at things that are easier to quantify, like GDP and material goods created, which capitalism is really good at, while philosophers tend to look at things that capitalism seems to be less good at, like alienation, which is harder to quantify (though proxies like depression, suicide and loneliness do seem to be increasing).
Not to mention, they might agree on the data but disagree on what to value. Rust & Schwitzgebel (2013) did a survey of philosophy professors specializing in ethics, philosophy professors not specializing in ethics, and non-philosophy professors. 60% of ethicists felt eating meat was wrong, while just under 45% of non-ethicists agreed, and only 19.6% of non-philosophers thought so. I personally think one of the strongest arguments against capitalism is the existence of factory farms. With such numbers, it seems plausible that while an average economist might think of the meat industry as a positive, the average philosopher might think of it as a negative (thinking something akin to this post).
I donât see why weâd expect less factory farms under socialism, except via us being poorer in general. And I feel like âmake everything worse for humans to make things better for animalsâ feels a bit âcartoon utilitarian super-villainâ, even if Iâm not sure what is wrong with it. Itâs also not why socialists support socialism, even if many are also pro-animal. On the other hand, if socialism worked as intended, why would factory farming decrease?
The comment was about how factory farms are an argument against capitalism; not about why it is an argument for other economic philosophies, so one canât conclude from this that some other specific economic philosophy (e.g., socialism) doesnât have that argument against them. It could be that, e.g. factory farms are an argument against capitalism and socialism, but not mutualism.
There was no claim that this is why socialists support socialism, but even if there was, it doesnât really matter for the argument. Even if we could conclude from âfactory farms are an argument against capitalismâ that âsocialism is good for animal welfareâ, why would the motivation of socialists matter? Even if socialists created better animal welfare only unintentionally, wouldnât that still be one reason to support them? (Assuming you care about the consequences of policy more than the virtues of the participants)
Lastly, I want to talk about this claim. But less so to address you, and more so to address the forum users.
I donât think that socialism would make us poorer, at least not in the long run. The dynamics of capitalism are very destructive (e.g. negative externalities, regulatory capture, planned obsolescence...) and countries like the Nordic countries, with more socialist policies, tend to do better.
Socialist firms were shown in meta analyses to not be less productive than capitalist firms, while being vastly more resilient (among many other beneficial attributes), so they would help the economy grow more in the long run, making us richer. This is not all there is to say; there are many more arguments and there are many more other factors to consider, but in the end, why bother?
You could spend time and energy crafting long chains of arguments with lots of citations and data on unpopular positions (even if you werenât the person who made an assertion, like in this case) only to get vastly less karma/âvoting power than people who just assert the popular opinion. I.e., in this case, the assertion âsocialism would make us poorerâ without any sources or arguments. Which btw is fine, this is an internet comment not an academic paper, but Iâve experienced the dynamics on this forum for years; if one were to reply that it wouldnât make us poorer, also without sources, or even with some sources, you would lose karma/âvoting power. And then another person would jump in and point out that the reply didnât cover literally every aspect of the economy, and it avoided talking about this or that part, which is fine, demands for rigor are good, but the forum as a whole more often than not makes isolated demands for rigor, and the original anti-socialism assertion rarely if ever gets such a demand.
Case in point, the comment youâre replying to. It didnât even make the assertion that socialism is better, just posted some studies and data from which one could infer that he is pro-socialism, and thatâs enough to make him lose karma/âvoting power, while your stronger assertion without any studies/âdata (which, again, is fine) get lots of karma.
(Again, while the first two points are aimed at your reply, this last point is aimed at the broader EA forum user base.)