This post reminds me of a common left/socialist reaction to EA: “Charity is pointless, overthrowing capitalism is clearly the best way to increase human welfare.” This is a subset of the “politics” objection; promoting growth (in the ways economists advise) is much more controversial and uncertain than RCT-based programs. I think “uncertain” is a separate bad from “controversial”. The best reply to the left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse (although there are successes and failures from both approaches).
The best reply to the left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse
Care to explain?
As an american i think “socialist” healthcare is UK or Europe/Canada as better.
Basic education until 12 grade (hight school) in USA is free another “socialist” policy
Why are those “left/socialist” policies bad, and what is the track record that you are referring to.
The author didn’t say that all “left/socialist” policies are bad. The first sentence of his comment reads:
This post reminds me of a common left/socialist reaction to EA: “Charity is pointless, overthrowing capitalism is clearly the best way to increase human welfare.”
When he later writes that “[t]he best reply to the left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”, he is referring specifically to the empirical track record of attempts to overthrow capitalism, which is indisputably abysmal.
he is referring specifically to the empirical track-record of attempts to overthrow capitalism, which is indisputably abysmal.
The sentence ended with “(although there are successes and failures from both approaches)” which changes the meaning to me. Will wait for the author to clarify.
This is the reason I don’t like labels of left/right/socialist/communist/capitalist/fascist etc.. It is much better to discuss policy.
The track record of attempts to overthrow any system of power are abysmal, I don’t see much point in thinking or discussing overthrowing anything.
The track record of attempts to overthrow any system of power are abysmal
I think you are seriously mistaken. Attempts to overthrow monarchy do not remotely have the track record of attempts to overthrow capitalism. Compare, say, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century with the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the 20th century.
[I have edited my comment to make it less confrontational.]
From the dawn of agriculture until the industrial revolution, we were ruled by kings, dynasties came and went, but the basic structure of kings remains.
What we have today is a continuation of that old system, in a new garb.
Is decolonization an overthrow of capitalism? Yes the russian revolutions was overthrown, but the authoritarian Chinese government is still in place, as are plenty of dictatorships e.g. Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
In any case I have no interest in revolution, overthrowing systems, or even thinking about them.
My original question was asking about comparison between “capitalist” and “socialist” systems. Since it was asserted that “left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”.
OK, I don’t think he means that social welfare policies like public education and healthcare (as done in the context of a capitalist economy) are generally bad, but rather that properly socialist countries are bad. After all he did say that there are successes and failures from both approaches.
ok cool. we are in agreement that communist countries had serious problems. even so China pre-reform (1979) had good social indicators that should not be dismissed as if they dont exist.
I re-read that post kbog, I am not advocating any -isms here. However I do see a bias for capitalism/free markets on the forum and ask for clarification.
In general I dislike arguing about -isms. I think policy. For me Universal Basic Education, Universal Basic Healthcare, Universal Basic Income are policies that I strongly support.
The order is also important first Basic Education, then Basic Healthcare, then Basic Income that is how an ideal government would prioritize.
I’m the one who upvoted that comment that you made, and broadly agree with it. As I tried to make clear in the post: the main reason we talk broadly about socialism is that there is a broad socialist movement which cannot be reduced to a specific policy platform, and it can be useful to know whether we should encourage, discourage or ignore this broad movement.
It is perfectly consistent to say that the socialist movement mostly points in a bad policy direction, while also believing that real policy evaluation should be done in more specific terms, that boundaries between socialism and capitalism are fuzzy, and that there have been successes and failures from both approaches.
This post reminds me of a common left/socialist reaction to EA: “Charity is pointless, overthrowing capitalism is clearly the best way to increase human welfare.” This is a subset of the “politics” objection; promoting growth (in the ways economists advise) is much more controversial and uncertain than RCT-based programs. I think “uncertain” is a separate bad from “controversial”. The best reply to the left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse (although there are successes and failures from both approaches).
Care to explain?
As an american i think “socialist” healthcare is UK or Europe/Canada as better. Basic education until 12 grade (hight school) in USA is free another “socialist” policy
Why are those “left/socialist” policies bad, and what is the track record that you are referring to.
The author didn’t say that all “left/socialist” policies are bad. The first sentence of his comment reads:
When he later writes that “[t]he best reply to the left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”, he is referring specifically to the empirical track record of attempts to overthrow capitalism, which is indisputably abysmal.
The sentence ended with “(although there are successes and failures from both approaches)” which changes the meaning to me. Will wait for the author to clarify.
This is the reason I don’t like labels of left/right/socialist/communist/capitalist/fascist etc.. It is much better to discuss policy.
The track record of attempts to overthrow any system of power are abysmal, I don’t see much point in thinking or discussing overthrowing anything.
I think you are seriously mistaken. Attempts to overthrow monarchy do not remotely have the track record of attempts to overthrow capitalism. Compare, say, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century with the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the 20th century.
[I have edited my comment to make it less confrontational.]
From the dawn of agriculture until the industrial revolution, we were ruled by kings, dynasties came and went, but the basic structure of kings remains.
What we have today is a continuation of that old system, in a new garb.
Is decolonization an overthrow of capitalism? Yes the russian revolutions was overthrown, but the authoritarian Chinese government is still in place, as are plenty of dictatorships e.g. Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
In any case I have no interest in revolution, overthrowing systems, or even thinking about them.
My original question was asking about comparison between “capitalist” and “socialist” systems. Since it was asserted that “left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”.
That’s exactly one of the main problems with the leftist reaction that jonathanpaulson mentioned. I’m not sure what you are disagreeing about.
I am not disagreeing, I am asking for clarification for the following sentence
“best reply to the left/socialists is probably that their empirical track record is much worse”″
OK, I don’t think he means that social welfare policies like public education and healthcare (as done in the context of a capitalist economy) are generally bad, but rather that properly socialist countries are bad. After all he did say that there are successes and failures from both approaches.
ok cool. we are in agreement that communist countries had serious problems. even so China pre-reform (1979) had good social indicators that should not be dismissed as if they dont exist.
For a general look at the problems of socialism, see my post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ktEfsoGfBFGsaiY46/overview-of-capitalism-and-socialism-for-effective-altruism
I re-read that post kbog, I am not advocating any -isms here. However I do see a bias for capitalism/free markets on the forum and ask for clarification.
I asked an unanswered question on that post some time ago https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ktEfsoGfBFGsaiY46/overview-of-capitalism-and-socialism-for-effective-altruism#TuY7ouzjFpeS7zYB2
In general I dislike arguing about -isms. I think policy. For me Universal Basic Education, Universal Basic Healthcare, Universal Basic Income are policies that I strongly support.
The order is also important first Basic Education, then Basic Healthcare, then Basic Income that is how an ideal government would prioritize.
I’m the one who upvoted that comment that you made, and broadly agree with it. As I tried to make clear in the post: the main reason we talk broadly about socialism is that there is a broad socialist movement which cannot be reduced to a specific policy platform, and it can be useful to know whether we should encourage, discourage or ignore this broad movement.
It is perfectly consistent to say that the socialist movement mostly points in a bad policy direction, while also believing that real policy evaluation should be done in more specific terms, that boundaries between socialism and capitalism are fuzzy, and that there have been successes and failures from both approaches.