Socialism’s Problems in Practice

A common view holds that socialism is superior in principle to capitalism. It may be impractical or difficult to implement, but it offers a morally inspiring vision, if only we could live up to its ideals. If it turns out that at least some measure of capitalism is required to produce the goods, so be it; but the operation of markets should be limited and canalized according to our considered moral judgments. As socialism’s moral judgments are superior to those informing capitalism, it is socialism’s morality on which we should draw to correct the excesses, exploitations, failures, or other negative consequences of, as Michael Sandel puts it, “market triumphalism” (2012: 6–8 and passim). Edward Skidelsky and Robert Skidelsky make a similar point, although from the other side, as it were, when they speak of the “Faustian bargain” modern commercial societies have made. They see in the bargain a willingness to accept morally suspect, even “repellent,” motives like selfishness and greed in exchange for the increased economic productivity that markets enabled (2012: chap. 2).

Most people who advocate any version of socialism acknowledge that it faces practical difficulties. G. A. Cohen, for example, devotes an entire chapter in his book Why Not Socialism? to its alleged “infeasibility.” There are many ways that thinkers address these practical difficulties, but perhaps the main way is by recognizing, and then accepting, a tradeoff. The tradeoff they accept is that between wealth and morality: we are willing to give up on some of our wealth—even if only some of the wealth of some of our wealthiest—if it serves, or better promotes, ends that we judge morally worthy. For example, if we think that material equality is important, or that great disparities in material possessions are worrisome, then we might be willing to tax some people’s wealth and redistribute it with the aim of raising the least among us, even at the acknowledged cost of (somewhat) lowering the wealthiest among us. If the objection to this is raised that it might lead to marginally lower standards of living, perhaps in part because the wealthiest may be marginally less willing to engage in wealth-producing activity, the response is usually to bite the proverbial bullet: we will accept slightly lower standards of living if it means slightly less inequality.