It seems clear to me that in some cases positive systemic change is possible, even with relatively limited teams working on them.
However, systemic changes can also lead to substantial problems. Even some of the examples you gave here are far from objectively good—I note with some worry that historical attempts to place the means of production into the hands of the people have led to some of the greatestdisasters of human history.
The “downside risks” of these sorts of approaches seem very high. That isn’t to say that nobody should do them, but I would be quite cautious about supporting unusual new ventures in these areas. To some extent your category 4 (ideologically safe) seems to screen off this objection, but the fact that you put public ownership of the means of production down afterwards makes me worry about how effectively that categorization will be applied.
Even some of the examples you gave here are far from objectively good—I note with some worry that historical attempts to place the means of production into the hands of the people have led to some of the greatest disasters of human history.
Just because some of the cases where means of production were publicly owned happened in a country where lots of people were killed doesn’t imply that placing the means of production in public hands is always likely to get lots of people killed. For one thing, charity has been responsible for disasters, as well as capitalism, but we don’t think that those things are always bad just because of that.
Western democracies have a far more advanced political culture and civil society than early 20th century Asia and eastern Europe did, and we also have democratic governments rather than dictatorships, so worries over mass murder can be pretty easily tossed out the window.
Calculation problems are more interesting, and I’m not well read on the literature behind them, but the one thing I can say pretty confidently is that 21st century America/Europe doesn’t have to worry about food in the way that the 1920s USSR or 1970s China did.
To some extent your category 4 (ideologically safe) seems to screen off this objection, but the fact that you put public ownership of the means of production down afterwards makes me worry about how effectively that categorization will be applied.
I don’t think anything will satisfy all four categories well, but some could fit pretty well. Many cases of public ownership of the means of production are so ideologically safe that people don’t even realize that they are cases of public ownership of the means of production: national parks, NASA, highways, etc. Others might be more controversial (OPEC, some airlines) but still have good reasons behind them.
It seems clear to me that in some cases positive systemic change is possible, even with relatively limited teams working on them.
However, systemic changes can also lead to substantial problems. Even some of the examples you gave here are far from objectively good—I note with some worry that historical attempts to place the means of production into the hands of the people have led to some of the greatest disasters of human history.
The “downside risks” of these sorts of approaches seem very high. That isn’t to say that nobody should do them, but I would be quite cautious about supporting unusual new ventures in these areas. To some extent your category 4 (ideologically safe) seems to screen off this objection, but the fact that you put public ownership of the means of production down afterwards makes me worry about how effectively that categorization will be applied.
Just because some of the cases where means of production were publicly owned happened in a country where lots of people were killed doesn’t imply that placing the means of production in public hands is always likely to get lots of people killed. For one thing, charity has been responsible for disasters, as well as capitalism, but we don’t think that those things are always bad just because of that.
Western democracies have a far more advanced political culture and civil society than early 20th century Asia and eastern Europe did, and we also have democratic governments rather than dictatorships, so worries over mass murder can be pretty easily tossed out the window.
Calculation problems are more interesting, and I’m not well read on the literature behind them, but the one thing I can say pretty confidently is that 21st century America/Europe doesn’t have to worry about food in the way that the 1920s USSR or 1970s China did.
I don’t think anything will satisfy all four categories well, but some could fit pretty well. Many cases of public ownership of the means of production are so ideologically safe that people don’t even realize that they are cases of public ownership of the means of production: national parks, NASA, highways, etc. Others might be more controversial (OPEC, some airlines) but still have good reasons behind them.