I liked Samuel Gregg’s piece at Public Discourse for several reasons but most of all for this succinct description of the American economy in the 21st century:
In short, it’s an error to argue that the capitalism of much of the contemporary West—a blend of cronyism, neo-mercantilism, and markets—is effectively capitalism. There are many manifestations of capitalism, and their specific forms are more influenced by different ideas and cultural dispositions than we sometimes realize.
The emphasis is mine. What I find so astonishing about the modern day is the almost complete absence of public virtue. You see that everywhere, not just in the government but in businesses, religious institutions, entertainment, do I need to go on?
Capitalism in the absence of virtue has little to recommend it over socialism in the absence of virtue. It does have a little: socialism in the absence of virtue has killed more people than all wars put together.
The essential question is if the absence of virtue is a permanent feature of the way we live now, what sort of society would best preserve us? I’ve answered that question dozens of times.
Personal character – or collectively, virtue – and economic systems are separate matters, forced to intersect and coexist only out of practicality. We aren’t independent caveman hunters anymore. The absence of Mother Teresa’s, the presence of Bernie Madoff’s, or the replacement of marauding Vikings by African warlords today reflect the character of individual or groups of people, but do not inform us as to how to organize economic transactions.
I’d like to think what I do/did for a living provides general societal welfare. Taking the underperformer and maximizing its potential is, it seems to me, objectively worthwhile and beneficial. But I’d be delusional if I denied knowledge of attendant personal economic gain. I suspect you feel the same about what you do.
That said, do you have an alternative economic system in mind, the state of virtue notwithstanding?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=milton+friedman+virtue&view=detail&mid=4C65ABCDBB5C504478674C65ABCDBB5C50447867&FORM=VIRE
I do think that capitalism in the absence of virtue has something to recommend it over socialism. Capitalism leverages individual vices like avarice for the public good. Socialism is quite the opposite, and relies on individuals choosing public good over personal vices.
The problem as I see it is that cronyism and corruption have eroded the features of capitalism that make it work that way.
My very point is the intersection between economics and public virtue. Socialism with public virtue would be better than capitalism in its absence.
My own view is that lack of public virtue is an endemic disease and under the circumstances the best system is one of small institutions—small companies, small governments, small unions, etc. in a largely free market system. Relative to where we are now that would be as revolutionary as instituting a communist dictatorship would be. More so, maybe.
The $64 trillion question is what to do in an environment of Big Business, Big Labor, and Big Government? I think that the “Blue State model”, as Walter Russell Mead calls it, the idea of Big Business and Big Labor collaborating to run things under the direction of a benevolent Big Government, is a bust.
“Socialism with public virtue would be better than capitalism in its absence.”
Perhaps, maybe even hell yes. But it doesn’t and never has existed. Ever. I’d like mine with unlimited tapioca pudding and chocolate cake………..and doesn’t make you fat. But I’m not holding my breath.
“My own view is that lack of public virtue is an endemic disease and under the circumstances the best system is one of small institutions—small companies, small governments, small unions, etc. in a largely free market system.” etc
Well I, for one, would certainly agree. But as of right now, maybe starting in the 60’s, the philosophy of large government has facilitated large companies, and expansive central control. Its now a mess, and the little guy gets screwed. That was predictable, and predicted. The primary reason today that I’d like to leave my daughter a large inheritance is to give her a leg up and room to navigate in this morass. I don’t believe she will have the opportunities I had coming of working age in the 80’s.
You said you did not watch the Burns Viet Nam documentary. But a theme is that people went from not believing their government would lie to them to believing it routinely lied to them. (snicker) Yet today those same people are the primary advocates of Big Government. Either they are flat damned stupid or, more likely, they fully understand the power of controlling government and simply desire to use it to dictate their own “good” (double snicker) ends. Just feed the peasants enough to keep them from rioting.
The problem with socialism is that everywhere it’s actually been tried it becomes state capitalism. I do agree with the gist of your argument though – which I’ve taken to mean that public virtue is a necessary element to control and stem the vices of any economic system.
The definition of socialism was corrupted by Stalin in the 1930’s and it’s still how most people view it. But Marx never wrote that socialism was having government own and do things. In fact he wrote almost nothing about the state.
Is your title intentionally referencing a YA novel (and movie) about an obnoxious American girl who visits her relatives in England, and then after a nuclear war falls in love with her cousin?
It’s hard to tell these days.
It’s intentionally referencing the title of a satirical novel written by Anthony Trollope in 1875.