Do Socialists Need a Blueprint?

and some related reflections

One assumption which commonly features in discussions surrounding capitalism and socialism is that, if one is to be a socialist, then it is incumbent upon them to provide and defend some particular model for a socialist economy (or, at the very least, a general outline of some such model). The viability of socialism as a political and economic ideology, in other words, is often taken to hinge on the existence of an identifiable socialist “blueprint” whose desirability and feasibility can be conclusively demonstrated.

Indeed, I can recall a number of former socialist friends and content creators who have more or less expressed publicly that they abandoned their commitment to socialism precisely because they lost faith in the existence of some particular socialist economic model which can be adequately defended. Let’s consider, for instance, a few comments from the online neoliberal commentator Micah Erfan on his transition away from socialism which I think perfectly illustrate the assumption that I wish to discuss in this article.

Micah says¹:

I used to be a market socialist, and I studied pretty much every single market socialist model that has been devised… the Schweickart model, Yanis Varoufakis’ corpo-syndicalism, the Roemer model, all of it. And I kept running into issues with all of the different models for differing reasons, and I basically came to the conclusion that while we can increase social ownership as a percentage of wealth, we can’t get rid of the basic private property framework

Repeating the same sentiment again later in the conversation Micah says:

I don’t see any reason why I should agree with this narrative that eventually socialism will work, because for every single model that can be provided, there seems like there’s major issues in it…

My goal here is not to ridicule Micah, who I think is a smart and respectable guy- again, I am citing his comments because they express a very common view among capitalists and socialists alike. In my opinion, however, such views are myopic and misguided.

This common mistake, however, is at least an instructive one. As we will see, by thinking about the necessity or lack there of of a blueprint, a number of important insights regarding how to justify and pursue a socialist political program will begin to emerge.

---

I can see two kinds of reasons that one might have for thinking that being in possession of a so called blueprint is necessary in order to be a socialist. The first kind of reason is epistemic: one might question how you could be justified in believing that a socialist society is preferable to capitalism if there’s not some particular proposal for a socialist society that you can point to as proof of concept. The second kind of reason is practical: what does pushing for socialism even mean if we don’t have a specified end goal in mind? How would we know, in that case, what to push for?

Before addressing these concerns, however, it’s important to distinguish between two different concepts that we might have in mind when we talk about a “blueprint for socialism”. On the one hand, we might mean some model of socialism that we would consider to be the ideal or optimal realization of our values in a complex human society. On the other hand, one might have something weaker in mind, such as a model of socialism that we think would be at least preferable to capitalism, even if there’s some potentially better socialist model of which we are not yet aware.

According to me, the possession of a blueprint in either of these two senses is not necessary in order to affirm the desirability of socialism, nor is it necessary to push for socialist goals in the political arena. Note, however, that I am not saying that thinking about and devising such blueprints is epistemically or practically irrelevant. In fact, on weaker understandings of what we mean by “blueprint”, I think that doing so can be quite fruitful. But I will return to these points in time.

For now, let’s turn to the two aforementioned reasons that one might have for affirming the necessity of a blueprint for socialist politics, beginning with the epistemic concern.

---

In order to address the epistemic concern, let's consider an argument to the effect that socialism is all things considered preferable to capitalism, and then evaluate whether one would need to be in possession of a blueprint in either of the aforementioned senses in order to justify the premises of that argument. 

Following G.A. Cohen, I will split my argument for socialism into two basic stages: the first stage seeks to show that socialism is, in principle, morally preferable to capitalism. The second stage posits that the realization of socialist principles in a complex human society faces no insoluble design problem- that is, that socialism can be made to work in practice more or less as intended, without significantly diminishing living standards or social/economic efficiency or any other crucial and mutually acknowledged social/economic desiderata.

Clearly, the provision of a blueprint will not be necessary in order to demonstrate stage 1 of our argument- that is, to demonstrate that socialism is morally preferable to capitalism in principle. For that task, all that should be necessary is to 1) identify some plausible intrinsic moral value or values that can be credibly shown to recommend public ownership of the means of production (at least, assuming that an economy can be made to work along those lines) and 2) resist any attempts from the capitalist to do the reverse (that is, to identify intrinsic moral considerations in favor of capitalism).

Cohen’s own approach with respect to (1) appeals to the values of distributive egalitarianism (more specifically luck egalitarianism) and community. I think that these are compelling arguments, although they of course only scratch the surface of leftist moral theorizing. Other moral stances on the basis of which socialists have argued that we should oppose capitalism include republicanism, social egalitarianism, conservatism, and many more.

Of course, socialists are not the only ones who have a priori moral arguments for their view. Capitalists commonly argue for their view by appealing to negative freedom, desert considerations, Lockean theories of property, whatever the fuck Ayn Rand was talking about, and many more. This is where (2) comes in- socialists must argue against these views, or at least the application of these views to defending capitalism.

While accomplishing (1) and (2) in any detail would take me well beyond the scope of this article, my own view is that many of the moral arguments for socialism are extremely compelling, while the moral arguments for capitalism more or less all fail upon examination. Whether one agrees with me on this, however, the point at present is just that any attempt to demonstrate such a conclusion will be essentially an exercise in moral philosophy, rather than economic system building or policy design.

Perhaps more plausibly, then, a blueprint is thought to be necessary for a socialist to justify the feasibility premise. Ok sure, socialism sounds nice on paper, one might say, but how can we be confident that it will work in practice if you can’t provide a sketch or model of a socialist economy that can be examined for flaws and shown to be efficacious?

Firstly, even if one can’t point to any single blueprint whose viability one is confident in, one might still be able to point to a range of models which have a reasonable probability of being viable, and thus have some reason for affirming that some socialist model or another ends up being viable. In other words, one need not strongly affirm any particular blueprint in order for the existence and plausibility of some such blueprints to provide support for the feasibility premise.

Yet another source of support for socialism’s viability can be found in the empirical success of various policies and institutions which could plausibly play a role in the development of a fully socialist economy (or which indicate the feasibility of other policies/institutions that could). Examples include the nationalization of certain industries, worker cooperatives, social wealth funds, index funds, betting markets, internal planning of corporations, sectoral unions, and more. The fact that so many potential “ingredients” of a future socialist society have been successfully beta tested under capitalism to some degree should clearly give us hope that socialism can work, even if you’re unsure exactly how these ingredients could be effectively pieced together in order to create a fully socialist economy.

A related and perhaps even stronger source of support for the feasibility premise comes from the existence of societies that have successfully integrated many of these policies and institutions to a strong degree- that is, societies that, even if not fully socialist, have taken significant strides towards socialism and seen success. Perhaps the best examples of societies of this sort are the Nordic countries, which are both some of the most economically left wing countries on the planet, as well as some of the most prosperous.

The empirical results mentioned in the foregoing discussion, moreover, should give us even more confidence when we consider just how little of possibility space we have explored with respect to socialist policies and institutions, and ways of integrating them. New models of worker firm ownership for instance are being devised and practiced every day in developed economies. Figuring out how to make socialism work is a project which so little brainpower and social effort has gone into, the fact that we’ve already seen the success we have might be thought highly encouraging.

Furthermore, there is a point to make about priors here. Regarding the relative functionality of capitalism and socialism, there are three possibilities- socialism could be significantly more functional than capitalism, capitalism could be significantly more functional than socialism, or there could be no major difference between them. The success of my feasibility premise is consistent with the first and third options, while its failure is only consistent with the second. It follows, then, that in the current dialectical context, the capitalist must defend a less modest claim than the socialist in order to vindicate their position.

Of course there is much more to be said on all of these issues, but I hope to have at least by now made clear that a reasonable case can be mounted for the proposition that some version of socialism will be all things considered preferable to capitalism, even in the absence of some particular blueprint for such a model being advanced.

---

This brings us, finally, to the practical concern. Perhaps we are justified in thinking that some socialist model or another represents the best way to structure a modern industrial economy, but what are we supposed to do about that if we don’t know what said model looks like? Would we not then be lost at sea, sentenced to sit around idle-y contemplating the potential of a better future, with no recourse for actualizing it?

Of course, this concern will only have force if you think that the realization of a socialist society must occur via the sudden implementation of some fully worked out scheme. But that, I think, is not correct. Indeed, many socialists argue that, instead, the path to socialism should be charted via incremental change and cautious experimentation. This prominent yet frequently demonized position is, in the leftist cannon, known as reformism.

Reformists traditionally argue that given the tremendous complexity of modern society and the sheer amount of tacit knowledge built into its myriad of institutions, there is simply no way of knowing in advance what second order effects any given sweeping social change will induce. Better, then, to slowly turn the dials of society in what we suspect might be a more healthy direction, observe the results, and adjust our plans accordingly.

Clearly, a socialist who favors such an approach will not have reason to be particularly worried by their lack of a blueprint. Sure, we may not know what a functional socialist society might look like right now, but who cares? That is a question which is to be figured out via a process of gradual reform. And surely initiating such a process in the first place doesn’t require the possession of a blueprint.

This point has been articulated lucidly by Noam Chomsky (among others), who says:

Well, I suppose I don’t feel that in order to work hard for social change you need to be able to spell out a plan for a future society in any kind of detail. What I feel should drive a person to work for change are certain principles you’d like to see achieved. Now, you may not know in detail—and I don’t think that any of us do know in detail—how those principles can best be realized at this point in complex systems like human societies. But I don’t really see why that should make any difference: what you try to do is advance the principles.

Chomsky goes on to add:

Now, that may be what some people call “reformism”—but that’s kind of like a put-down: reforms can be quite revolutionary if they lead in a certain direction. And to push in that direction, I don’t think you have to know precisely how a future society would work: I think what you have to be able to do is spell out the principles you want to see such a society realize—and I think we can imagine many different ways in which a future society could realize them. Well, work to help people start trying them.

There is, moreover, broad agreement among socialists regarding what types of immediate incremental changes would effectively advance socialist principles- such changes include the redistribution of resources through taxes and transfers, the strengthening of unions, the encouragement of worker cooperatives, the proliferation of nationalized industries, and so on.²

---

So far I have argued that the possession of a so called blueprint is not necessary in order to be a socialist, either intellectually or practically. This is, I think, a fairly weak claim. What I have not said is that the presence or absence of some blueprint is irrelevant to one’s socialism in either of the two aforementioned senses. As suggested previously, I think that the contemplation of blueprints (at least in the weaker sense) can have significant epistemic and practical import.

Epistemically, there is no doubt that if one can point to a particular fleshed out model of a fully socialist economy whose feasibility one is confident in, then this should raise one’s confidence in the socialist view. Practically, a commitment to some blueprint for socialism, even if one is a reformist, will presumably influence what policies one supports and pushes for. A socialist who can articulate a blueprint may thereby be instructed to support reforms which are conducive to the realization of the blueprint that they have in mind.

Relatedly, a socialist who affirms some specific model of socialism will presumably be open to more rapid social change than one who thinks that the question of how to make socialism work is more open. Of course, this is unlikely to matter in a political context where leftists struggle to pass even minor socializing reforms, but it is nevertheless worth bearing in mind. For these reasons, I do not have anything against those socialists who spend their time debating and drawing up blueprints.

Personally, I am not particularly confident in or eager to defend any detailed blueprint for a socialist society, and I certainly wouldn’t stake my support for socialism on one. Of course, however, the extent to which one is willing to offer and defend a blueprint is more of a spectrum than a binary. I can, for instance, mention a range of institutions which I think, in some combination, could fully socialize the economy in a way that proves viable. I do not, however, claim to know with any confidence how exactly these institutions should be combined to that end.

For the most part, however, my purpose in writing this article is not to explicate my own views. The point, rather, is that it would be a mistake to infer a lack of justification for one’s commitment to socialism from the absence of a blueprint. One reason it is important to highlight this, moreover, is that by doing so we can highlight a variety of other avenues for justifying a socialist viewpoint, as well as some valuable reflections regarding how socialism might be pursued as a concrete political project.

1. These quotes have been altered slightly so that they read better, but the content has not been changed in any meaningful way.

2. I should note that you could theoretically be a socialist without being in support of almost any modern day socialist policy proposals, although this would be a fairly awkward and unusual position to hold.