Something really bothers me about this post; I'm having trouble articulating just what.
It's correct. But it's obvious. Or, should be obvious here in 2022. The grim conformity imposed by socialism is a bog-standard trope of how socialism (esp. in the USSR and Mao's China) is perceived in the West - we see it in Hollywood movies (Hollywood is hardly a bastion of free-market thinking) and video games (think Half-Life and Gordon Freeman). It's in Orwell's 1984. We all know that communist countries ruthlessly suppressed rock and roll, homosexuality, non-standard individual expression of most every type, etc.
And we've known this for a long time. The arguments made here go back at least to Mises in the 1920s (probably further).
So - most everyone reading this blog (Westerners familiar with standard Hollywood tropes, video games, literature, etc.) should find this obvious, or at least not needing much argument.
Yet, somehow, that's not the case. Not only do we have Corey Robin, who might be some crazy outlier, but we also have the editors of the New York Times who must have perceived some plausibility in it.
I don't know what to make of this. The argument made here is a commonplace of economics, familiar to everyone who's taken even a single course in the subject. Has been for at least 70 years. And the conclusion is part of the standard fictional and literary tropes we're all familiar with - even those who know nothing about economics.
Socialism's often very unclearly defined. But I think it's safe to say that the people arguing for it are not arguing for any of the communist regimes that we've seen so far.
I'd add that one person's 'arbitrary domination' is another person's freedom. If I find tattoos disgusting (and usually I do) then I should be free to dine in restaurants where I don't have to see them. Robin would deny me this freedom because, I assume, he believes my preference is invalid. But then socialism is not about freedom at all, but about picking and choosing which preferences the socialist believes are valid, and requiring their indulgence, and which ones aren't valid, and outlawing their indulgence. But the market at least allows for niches due to the plurality of preferences, so the tattooed waiter can still probably find a job at a restaurant that caters to clientele who don't care, but in Robin's socialist society where (I'm assuming, perhaps I'm wrong) rules restricting such policies are enforced society-wide, imposing the values of the central authority on everyone, there is no such plurality of options, and thus there is much less freedom. But the freedom of the consumer is, I gather, less than an afterthought to socialists.
Robin's argument fails on its own terms: Capitalist societies that we know of provide ample opportunities to avoid individually, or collectively, the type of domination that Robin highlights principally.
Something really bothers me about this post; I'm having trouble articulating just what.
It's correct. But it's obvious. Or, should be obvious here in 2022. The grim conformity imposed by socialism is a bog-standard trope of how socialism (esp. in the USSR and Mao's China) is perceived in the West - we see it in Hollywood movies (Hollywood is hardly a bastion of free-market thinking) and video games (think Half-Life and Gordon Freeman). It's in Orwell's 1984. We all know that communist countries ruthlessly suppressed rock and roll, homosexuality, non-standard individual expression of most every type, etc.
And we've known this for a long time. The arguments made here go back at least to Mises in the 1920s (probably further).
So - most everyone reading this blog (Westerners familiar with standard Hollywood tropes, video games, literature, etc.) should find this obvious, or at least not needing much argument.
Yet, somehow, that's not the case. Not only do we have Corey Robin, who might be some crazy outlier, but we also have the editors of the New York Times who must have perceived some plausibility in it.
I don't know what to make of this. The argument made here is a commonplace of economics, familiar to everyone who's taken even a single course in the subject. Has been for at least 70 years. And the conclusion is part of the standard fictional and literary tropes we're all familiar with - even those who know nothing about economics.
And yet here it is. How is this possible?
Check also this regarding sweat shops in the global south https://glibe.substack.com/p/libertarianism-and-markets-morality
I dont think this would really convince any socialists/leftist people. idk
"The socialist argument against capitalism isn’t that it makes us poor. It’s that it makes us unfree".
Seriously? ... are "us" freer in China, Cuba or North Korea?
Are lesbian and gays more likely to be employed in China?
What is Robin talking about?
Is the NYT publishing every nonsense they are aware of?
Come on ...
Reference-level post. Useful generalisation of the "every flaw in consumers is worse in voters" adage to a wider class of issues.
Socialism's often very unclearly defined. But I think it's safe to say that the people arguing for it are not arguing for any of the communist regimes that we've seen so far.
I'd add that one person's 'arbitrary domination' is another person's freedom. If I find tattoos disgusting (and usually I do) then I should be free to dine in restaurants where I don't have to see them. Robin would deny me this freedom because, I assume, he believes my preference is invalid. But then socialism is not about freedom at all, but about picking and choosing which preferences the socialist believes are valid, and requiring their indulgence, and which ones aren't valid, and outlawing their indulgence. But the market at least allows for niches due to the plurality of preferences, so the tattooed waiter can still probably find a job at a restaurant that caters to clientele who don't care, but in Robin's socialist society where (I'm assuming, perhaps I'm wrong) rules restricting such policies are enforced society-wide, imposing the values of the central authority on everyone, there is no such plurality of options, and thus there is much less freedom. But the freedom of the consumer is, I gather, less than an afterthought to socialists.
Robin's argument fails on its own terms: Capitalist societies that we know of provide ample opportunities to avoid individually, or collectively, the type of domination that Robin highlights principally.