This was a really good read. I have been feeling sympathetic to Market Socialism lately and this along with the writings of G.A. Cohen have greatly contributed to that.
The real problem with communism is its anarchism and overemphasis on conflict, as if there were nothing between extreme inequality and radical egalitarianism. I believe that inequality should be limited rather than abolished and that business and state should be seperated. We also need a broader framework than just conflict theory and a broader array of values including, but not limited to, liberty and equality. The government might suppress revolutions at first, which is partially understandable because revolutions can easily go wrong, as in the case of the French and Russian revolutions, but, as in the case of slavery, it starts with reform and continues with a large-scale change in societal norms. Here are are some alternatives that I believe show more promise than both capitalism and socialism:
Reformist leftism seems compatible with radical centrism simce RC is basically just a form of reformism that's both pluralistic in it's values (it allows for competing principles to coexist, or at least try to coexist) and emphasizes evidence-based approaches.
Interesting points. The Nordic countries are indeed prosperous. As an American who has spent time in Sweden, I enjoyed their high regard for intelligence, diligence, education, and health - noticeably better than in the States. Regarding their welfare programs, I have heard even an Objectivist podcaster admit that they are more efficient than ours. Sweden is also known as being economically freer for starting a business. It has been said that theirs is a "high trust" society, presumably higher in trust than the American. Such a distinction may offend some, but from my own experience there, I think it's something to consider.
G. A Cohen was a clown and it's meaningless to make "moral" assessments of purely abstract concepts which you haven't even established can be implemented in the real world. Everyone knows this but some people want to pretend really hard that they don't.
Is it really "meaningless to make 'moral' assessments of purely abstract concepts which you haven't even established can be implemented in the real world?" Because if that's true, we have to throw out a lot of moral philosophy, which is often based on abstract thought experiments that are very unlikely to actually come about in the world, much less be purposefully implemented. I think the utility monster, repugnant conclusion, and the experience machine are still useful and can motivate moral views.
This was a really good read. I have been feeling sympathetic to Market Socialism lately and this along with the writings of G.A. Cohen have greatly contributed to that.
Thanks!
I enjoyed this (and largely agree), thanks!
Thank you!
I clicked on this article because you told me that it was causing a buzz.
It is... for instance it already has one comment
The real problem with communism is its anarchism and overemphasis on conflict, as if there were nothing between extreme inequality and radical egalitarianism. I believe that inequality should be limited rather than abolished and that business and state should be seperated. We also need a broader framework than just conflict theory and a broader array of values including, but not limited to, liberty and equality. The government might suppress revolutions at first, which is partially understandable because revolutions can easily go wrong, as in the case of the French and Russian revolutions, but, as in the case of slavery, it starts with reform and continues with a large-scale change in societal norms. Here are are some alternatives that I believe show more promise than both capitalism and socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_utilization_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralist_commonwealth
Reformist leftism seems compatible with radical centrism simce RC is basically just a form of reformism that's both pluralistic in it's values (it allows for competing principles to coexist, or at least try to coexist) and emphasizes evidence-based approaches.
Interesting points. The Nordic countries are indeed prosperous. As an American who has spent time in Sweden, I enjoyed their high regard for intelligence, diligence, education, and health - noticeably better than in the States. Regarding their welfare programs, I have heard even an Objectivist podcaster admit that they are more efficient than ours. Sweden is also known as being economically freer for starting a business. It has been said that theirs is a "high trust" society, presumably higher in trust than the American. Such a distinction may offend some, but from my own experience there, I think it's something to consider.
G. A Cohen was a clown and it's meaningless to make "moral" assessments of purely abstract concepts which you haven't even established can be implemented in the real world. Everyone knows this but some people want to pretend really hard that they don't.
This is a laughably silly comment that’s both on its face moronic and also directly addressed in the post
Idk why people don’t have shame anymore
Lol
Is it really "meaningless to make 'moral' assessments of purely abstract concepts which you haven't even established can be implemented in the real world?" Because if that's true, we have to throw out a lot of moral philosophy, which is often based on abstract thought experiments that are very unlikely to actually come about in the world, much less be purposefully implemented. I think the utility monster, repugnant conclusion, and the experience machine are still useful and can motivate moral views.