Politics, Programming and Possibilities
21 May
I’m a fan of capitalism. But increasingly, I have begun to see socialism in a light that has softened my view somewhat.
As I blogged about earlier, you can take capitalism to its extreme and see that it doesn’t work at every level of society: what would it be like, I asked, if capitalism were employed at the family level of society? It would be absurd to not have things in common, or to let the fastest children eat first and let the others starve. But on the other hand, capitalism has clearly taken us (humanity) a long way—in fact, it is still at present the most efficient economic system in the world—but I wonder if some of its underlying assumptions might be changing.
Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is a remarkable product of the exchange that happens when an individual makes a prudent decision in behalf of him- or herself—more often than not, the decision also benefits society in a way that leads to progress for the whole. In contrast to competition in the marketplace, however, cooperation is almost always more beneficial for the individuals and the group. The problem is that cooperation does not scale.
Things are changing, though. Technology is shrinking the distance between people and cultures, and enabling us to see more, connect more, and even think better about large-scale problems (for example, see this visualization presentation by Hans Rosling on world statistics). Given this trend, what if cooperation could outsmart and outperform even the almighty market? What if cooperation could become scalable on the level of a whole country, or even the entire planet?
I think of capitalism as the most efficient system with the “lowest common denominator” for a large number of independently acting agents. Because these agents (i.e. you and I) have no way of making intelligent decisions in behalf of people whom we don’t know and don’t understand (i.e. almost everyone else), then the best possible decision we can make is whatever will most benefit us and those we are aware of. So capitalism can be a local “win” when it is moderated by good judgment and compassion. On the flip side, though, capitalism is often harmful to many people even though the people doing the harm can’t see a direct connection between a decision and its effects. (If you’d like a good example of this, see the documentary film, The Corporation. Many of the CEOs of large companies don’t know or don’t want to know what their bottom line is doing to people.)
So you have this interesting paradox where smaller communities and even smaller families work on socialist principles—for example, having access to public parks, or sharing bedrooms, toys, food, living space, etc.—while the larger communities (corporations, multinationals, each of the states, and the federal government) are primarily working on capitalist principles. Somewhere in the middle, these two ideologies meet and we have flames from both sides erupting into a firestorm of words and blame. We have the Democratic party and the Republican party. We have public schools, and private schools. We have the USPS and we have Fedex.
What I’m really curious about is whether or not technology—specifically internet-based social networking—can help bring these two apparently paradoxical ideologies into some kind of hybrid that is better than any system we’ve ever created. One inspiring video was created by a professor of Cultural Anthropology, Michael Wesch, at Kansas State University which explains where the social web is now and where it’s taking us. Have a look at Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us:
Professor Wesch brings home the idea that we are the machine. It’s not just that we are using a computer anymore: we are creating something larger than ourselves—the computer is using us too. This ties in very closely with the futurist ideas of Ray Kurzweil that I’ve been reading about. In his book, The Singularity is Near, machines are described as an extension of what it means to be human. The 1980s may have done us all a bit of a disservice by fixing us on a somewhat limited view of what a “robot” and “artificial intelligence” is. Smarter and smarter programs are becoming a part of our everyday lives… whether it’s an automated flight system, or the bartering for electricity that happens at the utility company, or the massive flow of human information now available on the web.
In short, I think it will soon be possible for us to solve the capitalism / socialism paradox by making it easier to know about and understand others and by increasing our capacity to reason about problems on a larger scale. When these two ideals meet, then perhaps we will become an even more efficient and compassionate society by capitalizing on cooperation.
Thanks to ReadWriteWeb for an excellent article on Social Media that pointed me to Wesch’s work.
Tags: capitalism, socialism, web 2.0, technology, internet, cultural anthropology
4 Responses for "Is connectedness changing the underlying assumptions of capitalism?"
It seems that socialism vs. capitalism is often framed as a good vs. evil, light vs. dark, black vs. white type of argument where either side seems to be able to frame themselves as “the good guys.”
As with all debates, both sides have valid points:
- Markets work EXTREMELY well in many situations and intervention usually results in waste, inefficiency, and rarely fixes inequalities (think of the current corn subsidies for ethanol).
- On the other hand, markets do fail in many situations (think of air-pollution that will kill us if it isn’t regulated). Markets can also cause inequalities.
To understand this better, it is helpful to remember that Adam Smith’s model of perfect competition hinges on a few key assumptions:
- Zero transaction costs.
- Zero externalities.
- No public goods.
- Perfect information (for everyone).
- People are rational (they maximize their own profit and utility).
- Property rights are well defined and enforced (at no cost).
- All goods are divisible, homogenous, and mobile.
I don’t know of a single good that fits all of these assumption perfectly (I doubt one exists). BUT, there are many that come close–think food, clothing, etc. These goods are best left to markets.
Other goods, however, don’t even come close to meeting Adam Smith’s assumptions–think coal powered electricity (huge externalities), scenic vistas (public good), and countless other things. If Smith’s model of perfect competition were forced on these goods, it would certainly fail.
So when you talk about a balance between socialism and capitalism it seems that a recognition of which goods should be left to markets and which shouldn’t would be a big step in the right direction. Maybe your “capitalization on cooperation” will get us there.
Something to keep in mind is that one of the underlying assumptions of capitalism is the principle of FREEDOM. However, socialism, as instituted by the government, always involves FORCE. I’m all for cooperation in families, church, private organizations and business because the “socialist” structure is then adhered to based on incentives and rewards (at least ideally it is)—not coercion. That’s where government and socialism don’t get along so well.
Also, I think it’s important to be careful with the idea of technology “changing” the assumptions of either one. Though I think technology facilitates VOLUNTARY cooperation in an unprecedented way, I don’t think it does anything to improve government-imposed socialism.
Much of our current foreign policy is based on assumption that technology now empowers the “bad guys” to attack us like never before (with nukes, anthrax, chemicals, airplanes, etc). It is also the justification for robbing us of Constitutional liberties through things like the Patriot Act. They argue that the bad guys are just to sophisticated for the government not to tap our phone lines. The Republicrats think that because the bad guys have the technology now to wipe out hundreds of people with one suicide bomber, we can no longer afford to take a chance with them hitting us first. We “have to” initiate a preemptive strike. However, I think technology does nothing to change the fact that preemptive war and invasion of privacy are always wrong.
@Daniel: Excellent points. You hit it right on with the aspect about freedom and voluntary cooperation.
One thing I’d like to point out though is that technology is going to bring us closer and closer to the point where any one person has the potential to cause cataclysmic effects. You cite the example of one suicide bomber killing hundreds of people… but what if it gets easier, and easier, and easier to kill?
For example, consider what will happen when biotechnology reaches the point where we can manufacture our own germs from open-source DNA data transferred over the internet. What would you do if someone released a new germ, never before seen, that killed 1M people over a weekend? It’s not as far-fetched as it seems… we are on the verge of creating life from data as we speak. Or take nanotechnology… in 2 or 3 decades it will be possible, according to Ray Kurzweil, to create self-replicating robots smaller than the eye can see. Computer “viruses” will not have the same innocent meaning at that point. These nanobots could pose an existential threat to humanity, and potentially all of life.
Anyway, I’m not saying that I have an answer, but I’m throwing that out there to consider. I think freedom is wonderful, but it must always be linked with responsibility. And in society, that means regulation (e.g. you must get a driver’s license before you can drive; you have to get a pyrotechnic license before you can buy explosive chemicals; you have to have a pilot’s license before you can fly, etc.)
I’m totally with you on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” and Habeas Corpus (fair trial w/ representation). The part I’m starting to wonder about is what kinds of measures we must take to prevent catastrophic events.
You could kind of look at it this way: because of technology, “freedom” means something different today than it did 100 years ago. A person was not free to develop chemical weapons 100 years ago—the possibility did not exist. A person was also not free to press the “intercontinental ballistic missile” button on the dashboard of a u-boat. So… I guess what I’m thinking is that with this new freedom it may be necessary to curb some freedoms that we have always thought of as inviolable.
I’m totally sounding like a fascist Cheney now. Dang. What do you think?
I don’t know what to say. Other than it’s a fine line one has to walk of protecting one’s country while maintaining rights. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “those who sacrifice liberty for security end up with neither.” But in the end, any government mechanism devised to uphold both security and liberty falls short if the people aren’t living up to their God-given responsibility to uphold righteousness. “In God We Trust” is more than a feel-good slogan. It implies living in accordance with His will. Any form of government is ultimately for not without Providential support.
Leave a reply