Bhasker calls himself a “democratic socialist” but I maintain that this is an aspirational label rather than one that can be understood in theory or demonstrated in practice. While the left attempt to grapple with their history of actually-existing-socialism, I think it is wise to go with capitalism, which is the only system that seems to work so far. It’s also notable that Bhaskar’s magazine, The Jacobin, is well designed and popular, but routinely misrepresents free market economics and is geared towards activism rather than serious enquiry.
Regardless of collectivist aspirations, this interview recognises that the essence of socialism is a centrally planned economy. Mack uses camping trips as a model of “the good society” but I think this suffers from three flaws. When it comes to a camping trip, the participants already know each other; everyone has consented to participate; and there’s no need to create resources (camping trips are primarily about consumption rather than production. If you want to drink a beer, you bring it with you having paid for it with previously expended labour). This reveals that most socialist visions are utopian and don’t solve the real world problems of how to create human flourishing in an extended social order. Ultimately, socialism is a collectivist philosophy that requires subjection of the individual to the whole. Therefore it should be rejected by anyone whose fundamental concern is the dignity and sanctity of the individual.
This interview makes clear that the main tragedy of socialism is that it is unintended. The results are inconsistent with the stated goals of the advocates, implying the problem is an intellectual one. Hence the need for scholarly enquiry and public education. They also recognise that a centrally planned economy may function better than a market economy during times of war, but this should not be the model. After all, a stable peace is as important a social objective as greater wealth. This interview also captures Pete Boettke’s biggest contribution to economics: in the absence of the “three P’s” of property, prices, and profit and loss you have to rely on political power to allocate resources. Therefore, a socialist society will be riddled with rent-seeking and the other inefficiencies associated with “politics without romance“, giving rise to the nomenklatura and priviledge. He also makes the point that prices are embedded in institutions, and institutions are embedded in broader social relations. We therefore need to understand law, politics and society, as a coherent social science. Finally, I like the point made that a free market economy lets ordinary people do extraordinary things. It doesn’t rely on extra ordinary people controlling and directing a vast bureaucracy.
