Post Scarcity - Free Market Communism?

forward this to Alvin

From: Marshall Barrington <marshall.bar@gmail.com>

Date: July 25, 2023 at 12:53:19 PM CDT

To: Sparrowsmith Sparrowsmith <yvonne.sparrowsmith@washburn.edu>

Subject: forward this to Alvin



CAUTION: External email. Do not click on links or attachments unless known safe.

This is a good video giving some of the data from history that shows things are not getting better.  In fact, we are at all time historical lows by many metrics.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yuZp5JX2mI

Marshall 

(305) 389-7004

From: Sparrowsmith Sparrowsmith <yvonne.sparrowsmith@washburn.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 7:25 PM

To: Alvin Jones <alvin.jones@washburn.edu>

Subject: Fwd: forward this to Alvin

 

From Marshall 

Best regards,

Yvonne Theresa SparrowSmith

J.D. Candidate 2023

Begin forwarded message:

On Jul 26, 2023, at 2:14 AM, Alvin Jones <alvin.jones@washburn.edu> wrote:

Yes, I've seen this video before (and many others from this guy). 

A lot of what he says is true, but I think he misses some things, but that is beside the point. 

Even if his predictions and everything else he says was completely accurate, it doesn't counter what I said at all. 

What I said was that the life of the average human is better today than at pretty much any other time in history. 

It's one thing to look at the current doldrums in America, but when you look at most of the rest of the world, you can't miss the recent drastic improvements for most of the population.

But I get it. There is nobody more annoying these days than an optimist, even if they prove the pessimists wrong 99 times out of 100. Apparently, pessimism is a beneficial survival trait that has been heavily selected for, because the doomsayers sell plenty of bestsellers despite their near zero percent prediction track record.

From: Sparrowsmith Sparrowsmith

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 12:33 AM

To: Alvin Jones

Subject: Re: forward this to Alvin

            If I cede your point for the sake of the argument, that the “human is better today than pretty much any other time in history,” it still does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that humanity will organically evolve to a “post-scarcity” society or the socialist collectivist society you mentioned.  The logical steps supporting this argument are still unclear and seem to be an illogical leap.

 

           But first, whether pessimistic or optimistic, a person’s philosophical outlook or view on life should not be conflated with historical facts.  The ad hominem argument you made at the end of your response is a logical fallacy unrelated to our discussion.  Optimism or pessimism does not determine the validity of an argument.

 

            If we are to consider it, I might agree that humans may have evolved to struggle rather than thrive, but even that does not necessarily reflect a philosophical outlook on life—it is evolutionary fact that you can see scientifically exhibited in all lifeforms. Quite frankly, life itself is a struggle against entropy. It’s a dance between order and disorder, a constant push pull that shapes everything.  What happens when we stop fighting entropy? We die. So therefore, we evolved to struggle. To struggle is not necessarily ‘bad’ or something we should wish to avoid. 

 

            Looking at historical data from the past is fact and neither pessimistic or optimistic. Nor is it a belief.  It is a fact.  Besides that, looking at the past cannot be pessimistic or optimistic. By definition, both optimism and pessimism look towards the future.  Looking at the future, Marshall says he is optimistic. History as it pertains to the wealth and progression of humanity is not a linear function, where it starts low and progressively gets better as time goes.  It is more like a sine wave.  It goes up and falls and back.  It is rising now and then will collapse again. It has nothing to do with belief or hope—optimism or pessimism.

 

            By resorting to ad hominem arguments, logical reasoning is avoided and allows the taking of fallacious shortcuts.  While this may be effective in rhetoric with the general population, it is inappropriate in a dialectic.

 

            I would like to focus on strengthening our arguments, free from logical fallacies, and delve deeper into the heart of the matter.  But, first I will address your ad hominem argument that we are merely ‘pessimists’ and that you are an ‘optimist.’  Because the ad hominem argument that we are pessimists now seems to be part of your argument, I asked myself, “Is it pessimistic looking at history to say that humanity is incapable of a post-scarcity socialist collectivist society?” The question invites us to inspect humanity’s historical trajectory and potential for future evolution.  To address this query, defining the key terms is essential.

 

            Post-scarcity refers to a hypothetical economic situation in which goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor, making them freely available to all.  A socialist society is one where the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the community (the government—typically the ruling elite) as a whole. 

            

Collectivism prioritizes group goals over individual ones, emphasizing community and cooperation.

 

            From a philosophical perspective, thinkers like Marx and Engels theorized a future where the means of production are communally owned, and each person contributes what they can and receives what they need. In this utopian vision, the exploitation inherent in capitalism is eradicated, leading to a classless, stateless society. However, this theory relies heavily on the assumption of abundance and equal distribution, which can be unrealistic considering resource limitations and differing human capabilities and ambitions.  Marx and Engels contend that capitalism creates artificial scarcity and class struggle, suggesting that a post-scarcity, socialist society is not only possible but inevitable.

 

            Contrary to Marx and Engels, Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Hayek argue that competition and self-interest are inherent to human nature, making pure collectivism unattainable.  Hobbes, in his seminal work "Leviathan," presents a view of human nature as innately self-interested and competitive. He argues that without a strong central authority (the Leviathan), society would descend into chaos, a state he famously described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  Hayek, a prominent 20th-century economist and philosopher, also argued against collectivism. He believed that central planning and control over the means of production inevitably lead to tyranny and economic inefficiency. He asserted that free markets, driven by individual choices and competition, are the most efficient way to allocate resources.

 

            Hobbes and Hayek advocate for a free-market economy. Hobbes, recognizing the inherent self-interest in human nature, argued for a strong authority to prevent societal chaos. Hayek expanded on this, arguing that free markets, driven by individual choices and competition, are the most efficient way to allocate resources. They both saw human nature as fundamentally competitive and believed that harnessing this competitiveness through free markets would lead to innovation and growth.

 

            Historical evidence supports the superiority of free-market economies. Countries with freer economies, such as the United States, have seen remarkable innovation and prosperity. The tech industry, fueled by competition and minimal government intervention, continually drives technological advancement and economic growth. Conversely, attempts to implement Marx and Engels' vision, such as in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, or Mao's China, resulted in economic stagnation and widespread human rights abuses.

 

            The prospect of humanity evolving into a peaceful, collectivist society in a post-scarcity world remains uncertain and probably implausible.  While technological advancements may make resource scarcity a thing of the past, the historical implications of political systems, cultural beliefs, and economic structures suggest that the transition to a global, collectivist society would be complex.  Peace is also not guaranteed by the mere absence of resource scarcity.  History may not repeat…but it sure rhymes.

 

            While Marx and Engels' vision of a post-scarcity society may appeal to our desire for equality and fairness, the theories of Hobbes and Hayek are more compatible with human nature and historical evidence. A society rooted in these principles would foster innovation, reward individual effort, and provide opportunities for prosperity. This does not dismiss the need for some level of regulation and social safety nets to address market failures and inequality, but it emphasizes the importance of maintaining economic freedom as the primary driver of societal progress.

 

            Despite one’s philosophical outlook on life (pessimism or optimism), the history of collectivism is marked by more failures than successes.  History is filled with collectivist ideologies, championed by socialist and communist regimes, which have often been started to reduce social inequalities which lead to economic collapse, injustice, human rights violations, parades of horrors, and civil unrest.  It does not make me a ‘pessimist’ if I point out that this history makes me shudder and might make a global shift (particularly an organic shift) towards an entirely collectivist society less likely.

 

            Cultural beliefs, shaped by religion, tradition, and historical experiences, significantly influence societal structures.  Individualistic cultures, such as the United States, focus on personal freedom and self-reliance, while collectivist cultures, like many in Asia, emphasize community and cooperation.  These cultural differences could pose significant challenges to the universal adoption of a collectivist society—especially an organic one.

 

            A peaceful society is appealing, but achieving it is complex.  While a post-scarcity world could reduce resource conflicts, it won’t necessarily eliminate conflict.  Differences in ideology, power struggles, and human nature itself can still lead to discord.  Discord doesn’t work well in collectivist societies.  Again, pointing these things out, pointing out history, does not merely make one a ‘pessimist’—nor does being as optimistic as you claim to be—mean that pigs will fly (or that there might be a pink unicorn under the dining table lol).

 

            Finally, the feasibility of achieving a post-scarcity world is debatable.  It assumes unlimited resources and technological capabilities we currently do not possess.  Even with advancements in technology, some resources remain finite.

 

            While it may seem pessimistic to suggest that humanity cannot achieve a post-scarcity socialist collectivist society, it could also be viewed as a realistic appraisal based on historical evidence.  That said, this doesn’t preclude the possibility of progress.  By learning from past mistakes and adapting our economic and social systems, we can strive for a society that, while perhaps not entirely post-scarcity or collectivist, is still more equitable and cooperative than the one we have today.  I do not think it is something we will organically evolve to, and I do not believe that makes me a ‘pessimist.’ Calling me that is merely dismissing my argument based on your assumed assessment of my philosophical outlook on life and not the merits of my argument.

See ya in class Friday,

Theresa

 

Best regards,

Yvonne Theresa SparrowSmith

J.D. Candidate 2023

This email message, including any attachments, is confidential, intended only for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender by return email or by calling 785-670-1191, and delete this message from your computer. Thank you.

Alvin Jones

Sparrowsmith Sparrowsmith

Ok, I probably didn't communicate very well what I was thinking at 2 in the morning... either morning...

As for the "ad hominem", I was referring not to you or Marshall, but to the YouTube video itself and more specifically to the books that the YouTuber listed as his references. It's more about the subject matter than the well-paid and oft-feted punditry that perpetuates such prognostications. 

Speaking of the video itself, it had very little data and was full of the author's own perspectives and musings about his own anecdotal observations. He peppered it with a fair amount of his personal political slant and then seemed to conclude with a refutation of his own premise - basically that our coming revolution will be nothing like the French Revolution that he had spent the whole video telling us was inevitable, even though the majority of his anecdotal evidence seemed tangentially connected, and missed some of the more major contributing factors.

As for my poorly communicated premise from the other night... (during which you were both trying to get me drunk..:):

First of all, I don't recall saying that we would organically evolve to a "socialist collective," certainly not the type of collective that most people think of when they discuss the topic. Regardless, any future "collective" to which I may have referred will look very little like collectives of the past or present.

As for post-scarcity, I think we are already on our way there, but I do agree that this is heavily debated, and I do not discount the overall skepticism. Many things could certainly spoil the progress we have made.

As for economic philosophy, I'm afraid I am guilty of confusing the issue again. Admittedly, by using the word "communism" I helped you conjure up an entire set of ideas that are typically attached to the modern understanding of the subject, which you so ably outlined in your response.

I did try to make it clear the other night,  that I was not referring to the Marx / Engels version of communism, but rather some less corrupted, much more general concept, but I obviously failed in that attempt.

As many economists and philosophers have remarked, Marx and Engels in many ways hijacked the ideals of proto communism to create an entirely new thing, which in practice had very little resemblance to the ancient cooperative societies that were models for Seneca, Plato, Pythagoras, etc.

In many ways, the free market is a much more direct descendent of those ancient societies than Marxist communism is.

For me, the future societies, if we are to have any at all, will likely be a fulfillment of many of the free-market ideals, not the Marxist ones. 

As we touched on before, while many people emphasize the competitive aspect of the free market as a major driving force in capitalism, and it is true. However, this is true of every economic system in practice. It is in no way unique to capitalism. 

Free market capitalism is somewhat unique, however, in that the freedom to compete is layered over the freedom to cooperate, which is much more fundamental. The very concept of markets and trade imply cooperation at least as much as they do competition.

Without a free market, competition is still driving things, but there is much less cooperation, and also less prosperity.

Historically, free markets have enabled cooperation to balance out the effects of dog-eat-dog competition. This trend has only grown stronger since the industrial revolution, breaking the Malthusian trap and leading to a much less scarcity-driven world than before.

That is where we are now.

I don't know the future. 

What I am saying (or trying to say) is that, based on historical trends, with all of its bumps, dips, cycles and what have you, it appears that mankind on average is gradually becoming less afflicted with war, disease, disfigurement, slavery, crime etc. and also, generally have more time, access to education and many of the positive incidentals of advancing civilization.

(This doesn't mean that every person alive today is better off than their parents, or even better off than some classes of people in some ancient civilizations.)

If the premise in bold is accepted (which apparently it is not), then the next premise would be that we may very well continue to become less scarcity-driven leading to even more cooperative organization generally. I believe you can see this happening with industrialization, globalization, the internet, etc. even with all of their many downsides. 

It could very well be true that the downsides of human and societal development lead to apocalypse or even to extinction. Those are two possible, maybe even likely branches of possibility. 

But IF the tree continues to branch upward, I think it is then also likely that our own best interests could also become the best interests of society as a whole.

As for which branch is more likely, I can't say, but I am relying on the understanding that the success of humanity has almost entirely been due to our society and our incremental and collective technology. My hope is that our strong instinct to survive and thrive as a species will continue.