What seems to be pretty clear is that some kind of mix of socialism and capitalism is the best it can get here on the BBM, perhaps like others have suggested, some socialism at the government level, i.e. redistrubtion of reasonable taxes to fund health care and education (although not necessarily with a government designed curriculum) and infrastructure and capitalism (without is focus on rampant materialism) as an individual and collective work ethic that encourages creativity. It's just the crazy knee-jerk reaction, mostly from Americans, to any idea of socialism that is pretty perplexing and looks like evidence of some kind of brainwashing.
I think that's the most realistic way of looking at it. To go with your earlier idea of looking at ideal or 'pure' outcomes, I'm not sure how useful that would be, just because I think it is almost impossible to imagine - my brain can't handle that many variables! For example, do we keep the nation state model? Money? What about foreign relations? International trade? Are there limits on private property? How much? I don't know enough to even begin to speculate much here, but I can't picture a world without at least some degree of 'free-market capitalism'. And here I'm not necessarily talking about 'capitalist speculators', just basic concepts and practices like private property, voluntary contracts, market competition at the most basic level of multiple people producing and selling their wares for some degree of profit, specialization, unskilled (and skilled) labor, trade with other regions, etc.
As I said previously, it's probably not very productive to talk at a practical level of how these systems are implemented today because they are corrupted by pathology, but rather in their 'ideal' implementation. In an ideal scenario socialism would be encouraged or facilitated by the state, i.e. there would be no impediments to people cooperating with others, it would be facilitated and encouraged. To do that, people would have to be free of unnecessary suffering brought on by the selfishness and ruthlessness of others. Again, we're talking about an ideal society here, and in an ideal society I don't think anyone would disagree that a "me first" or "dog eat dog" mentality has no place.
Can't disagree with that! I'd just add that if there are no impediments to people cooperating, what about competing? Of course there's healthy competition and then there's being a selfish jerk. But even in healthy human pursuits and interactions there is an element of competition, even if it's only implicit. We do that every time we display or recognize excellence, talent, skill. We compete with ourselves and with others. And if money exists, should we place an upper limit on what people can make as a result? For example, should a best-selling author be allowed to make several times the profit of what his 'competition' makes? Or a specialist of some sort who is leagues ahead of her peers at whatever it is she does? To reference Haidt's work, is that "fair"? And even in a world without psychos, we'll still have conservatives for whom the answer will be no, it's not fair. Yeah, that will lead to some level of inequality, but that's life and nature. Some people will always be better than others - at everything - and that will be reflected in all kinds of ways - economic, social, interpersonal, even spiritual...
Socialism, in essence, is based on Haidt's 'care foundation' and focuses on the group or "greater good". Capitalism is based on Haidt's loyalty and 'ingroup' and 'fairness' foundations and focuses on the individual. As a 'caring' system, socialism requires the input of compassionate, critical thinking humans to modify it so that it does not become totalitarian in its care. As an 'individual' system, capitalism requires the input of compassionate, critical thinking humans so that it does not become ruthless and totalitarian in its promotion of 'individual rights' and materialism. BUT, if you have to choose one or the other, and with the ALL important understanding that human beings themselves are self-serving by nature, which of these approaches would be the more appropriate basis on which to form a society that is made up of materialistic and self-service inclined humans?
I think you already answered this in your latest post above, but why do you have to choose? I think one of the great implications of Haidt's work is that we can't ignore these other taste buds (and it's actually liberals who choose one over the other, and conservatives who try to balance them all). Actually, I think an 'ideal' state has to take all this into account, i.e. by giving each value its due: fairness, care, etc. And I think this is what humanity has actually done for millennia. We haven't necessarily done it
well, of course. But we're constantly navigating this world of meanings/values, weighing them in the moment, balancing and re-balancing, and sometimes wrecking things almost completely.
I know that the above can come across as awkward since the middle age is depicted so systematically as such a dark age. I'm not saying it was perfect but that is the unexpected picture I got from this period by reading various books, the latest one being "Montaillou, an occitan village 1294-1324". I mention it because it's based on hundreds of testimonies by local villagers "thanks" to the inquisitor of the time, Fournier, who interrogated the villagers and wrote down their testimonies over a period of 30 years.
Thanks for the recommendation! I bought it last year after seeing a recommendation from Nassim Taleb, but haven't gotten around to it yet. And it reminds me of what Collingwood wrote about the medieval worldview in the first chapter of
Speculum Mentis. Maybe someone can find it and post it. If not, I'll try to get to it this week.
