PDF Download The End of Socialism, by James Otteson
Keep your means to be right here and also read this resource finished. You can take pleasure in looking the book The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson that you really describe obtain. Right here, obtaining the soft documents of the book The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson can be done effortlessly by downloading and install in the link page that we provide right here. Certainly, the The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson will be all yours quicker. It's no have to get ready for guide The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson to obtain some days later after acquiring. It's no need to go outside under the heats at center day to go to guide establishment.
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson
PDF Download The End of Socialism, by James Otteson
The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson When creating can change your life, when composing can enrich you by providing much cash, why don't you try it? Are you still quite baffled of where understanding? Do you still have no concept with just what you are visiting compose? Now, you will require reading The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson An excellent author is a good viewers at once. You can specify exactly how you write depending on just what books to review. This The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson can aid you to fix the trouble. It can be one of the best sources to establish your writing ability.
Getting guides The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson now is not kind of challenging means. You could not just opting for e-book store or library or borrowing from your friends to read them. This is a very basic way to specifically obtain the publication by online. This on-line book The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson could be one of the choices to accompany you when having leisure. It will certainly not squander your time. Believe me, the e-book will reveal you new point to review. Merely invest little time to open this on the internet book The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson and review them wherever you are now.
Sooner you get guide The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson, earlier you could delight in checking out guide. It will certainly be your turn to keep downloading and install the publication The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson in supplied link. By doing this, you could actually decide that is offered to obtain your own e-book on the internet. Below, be the very first to obtain guide qualified The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson and be the initial to understand just how the writer suggests the notification as well as expertise for you.
It will have no uncertainty when you are visiting choose this publication. This inspiring The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson publication can be checked out entirely in specific time relying on how usually you open and also read them. One to bear in mind is that every e-book has their very own manufacturing to acquire by each reader. So, be the great reader and also be a much better individual after reading this e-book The End Of Socialism, By James Otteson
Is socialism morally superior to other systems of political economy, even if it faces practical difficulties? In The End of Socialism, James R. Otteson explores socialism as a system of political economy - that is, from the perspectives of both moral philosophy and economic theory. He examines the exact nature of the practical difficulties socialism faces, which turn out to be greater than one might initially suppose, and then asks whether the moral ideals it champions - equality, fairness, and community - are important enough to warrant attempts to overcome these difficulties nonetheless, especially in light of the alleged moral failings of capitalism. The result is an examination of the "end of socialism," both in the sense of the moral goals it proposes and in the results of its unfolding logic.
- Sales Rank: #689266 in Books
- Published on: 2014-09-29
- Released on: 2014-09-29
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 8.50" h x .51" w x 5.43" l,
- Binding: Paperback
- 240 pages
Review
"Distinguishing between what socialism has meant 'in principle' and what it has meant 'in practice', James Otteson deftly dissects the key claims that underlie the resurgent reliance on the state in society. In doing so, he harks back to a pre-Marxist conception of 'socialism', finessing a narrow focus on state-owned enterprise. This debate - the real debate - over socialism is as old as Plato, and as new as tomorrow's newspaper. A serious treatment of a serious subject."
Michael Munger, Duke University
"James Otteson is a very rare beast: he combines profound understanding with crystal-clear writing. This book is a devastating elucidation of the practical and theoretical difficulties that have caused the repeated failure of all systems of centralized planning, and socialism in particular."
Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist
About the Author
James R. Otteson specializes in political philosophy, the history of economic thought, and political economy. He is the author of Adam Smith's Marketplace of Life (Cambridge, 2002) and Actual Ethics (Cambridge, 2006), the latter of which won the 2007 Templeton Enterprise Award. He is also the editor of The Levellers: Overton, Walwyn, and Lilburne, five volumes (2003). His most recent book is Adam Smith (2013). Otteson is Executive Director and Teaching Professor in the School of Business at Wake Forest University, Research Professor in the Department of Philosophy and in the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom at the University of Arizona, and Senior Scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, DC.
Most helpful customer reviews
33 of 36 people found the following review helpful.
The End of Socialism
By David C. Rose
Suppose someone asked you if there was a book you could recommend that would provide a persuasive argument for why socialism is a bad idea. There are many good books to choose from. But I submit that the answer to that question has just gotten much simpler: read James R. Otteson's The End of Socialism. This book is a delight to read even for non-specialists while having a number of new things to say to specialists at the same time.
This book considers the costs and benefits of socialism through the lenses of practical feasibility and moral desirability. This integrated approach allows Otteson to reach an unambiguous conclusion about the efficacy of socialism despite the fact that the socialist experiment has never actually been run in what advocates of socialism would regard as a fair test. This is a huge achievement because many advocates of socialism view the past failures of socialism not as a call to rethink their positions but as evidence of the need to double-down their efforts.
Otteson has figured out how to refute socialism a priori, which is the only way to beat an argument for which evidence of adverse outcomes is viewed as evidence of the need to do more of what produced those adverse outcomes. Otteson makes his case through prose that is thoughtful and fair, and is never preachy or polemical.
In what follows I will not summarize the details of the argument because doing so could not do justice to Otteson's own presentation. You owe it to yourself to see how artfully Otteson weaves existing literature into his own argument. Instead, I will offer my interpretation of the overarching nature of what he has accomplished with this book so as to insure this review encourages readers to actually read the book itself.
Since there is no point in advocating a system that is worse, even under ideal conditions, than the system one already has, it is obvious that a proposed system's ultimate desirability should be evaluated. For advocates of socialism, at the top of the list of desirable attributes would be moral desirability. Otteson begins by stacking the deck against the rejection of socialism by focusing on moral desirability.
What if a system is desirable in the abstract but not in practice because it requires duties that cannot be performed? In this case no matter how desirable it is in principle it is a bad system. This is why a prevailing view in moral philosophy is that one cannot assert that we "ought" to have a given system unless we "can" do what is required to have it. Because of this "ought-can" principle Otteson treats the issue of feasibility as lexically primary to the issue of desirability, so after attending to some definitional issues (I especially like his discussion of people and systems that are not socialist by the old hardcore definition but are nevertheless socialist-inclined) he begins his analysis with feasibility.
Significantly, Otteson does not conclude that socialism is not feasible because it requires duties that are impossible for actual humans to fulfill. But not requiring impossible duties is just one element of feasibility. Just because people can do something doesn't mean they will have what they need to do that thing well or at reasonable cost. In the case of economic planning, one thing people must have is accurate and continuously updated information to make good choices from society's point of view about resource allocation.
This information problem is the crux of the "calculation debate" that was initiated by Mises and Hayek. The basic argument is that the price system addresses the pervasive problem of localized knowledge associated with decentralized economic activity. Absent market failure, market prices compel everyone to pay the full social opportunity cost of using any given resource. By making decisions in light of externally determined prices that everyone faces, people who don't know each other can simultaneously adjust their behavior in socially optimal ways without having to coordinate with each other. The problem with central planning is that central planners have to make resource decisions without the benefit of market determined prices that achieve this coordination without having to centralize activity.
For this reason central planning is incredibly inefficient, but it is not impossible. Central planners can, however imperfectly, direct resources and can even come-up with prices. The problem is that having central planners do so is so inefficient that it is very socially costly relative to having the free market system do so. But even if one system is far more costly than another, it does not necessarily follow that the more costly system does not produce greater net benefits.
Socialism's lack of market pricing is more costly than necessary in two distinct ways. The first is alluded to above and can be thought of as a static account. But socialism is also more costly in a dynamic sense, which Otteson discusses in terms of what he calls the "day two problem." After central planners have done what they need to do to achieve their objectives they will have, by construction, bumped society off an already efficient path. This marginally reduces output which intensifies the very problems that were believed to require intervention in the form of central planning in the first place. This calls for additional modifications, which creates yet another "day two" problem, and so on. The metaphor of the "day-two problem" cleverly shows us that bad as socialism is in a static sense, it produces inefficiency that feeds on itself over time. In this way, evidence of failure produces ever more impetus to do more of what produced the failure.
This almost seems like a sufficient argument to stop and not bother examining the inherent desirability of socialism. But all the foregoing does is explain why socialism is significantly more costly than the free market system. We could still conclude that the benefits are so great that they nevertheless exceed the costs, so socialism is still a better system.
Lest free market advocates conclude that this is so unlikely that there is no reason to bother reading the second half of Otteson's book, note that an advocate of socialism could read Otteson's discussion of why socialism is so costly relative to the free market system and then assert that it implicitly assumes an unchanging institutional environment.
This is a strong point because no infeasibility argument can preclude the possibility of future changes to technology and/or institutions that might reduce these costs. So even though the local knowledge problem is currently insurmountable without the benefit of free market pricing, it does not necessarily follow that this problem will always remain insurmountable. An advocate of socialism could therefore argue that we should be patient because no one said heaven on earth would be an easy or quick thing to build.
We did not, of course, have capitalism anywhere on earth 2000 years ago and this was because for capitalism to exist, certain background conditions must be met. Institutions of private property and contracting must be in place. Monetized exchange must be in place. Humans had to live in large enough groups for market pricing to meaningfully exist, and so on.
An advocate of socialism could argue that it is not fair to expect out of socialism in less than 200 years the required modifications to culture and institutions that capitalism needed 2000 years to achieve. So a cost-benefit evaluation of the efficacy of socialism has a real problem with converting the socialist inclined among us because they naturally presume that with just a little more time and effort we might evolve and devise institutions that will allow the implementation of socialism at low enough cost to produce net gains given the ample social benefits arising from its inherent moral desirability.
The bottom line is that no matter how costly socialism is as a system, as long as the cost is finite we cannot dispense with the evaluation of desirability. Here Otteson shifts gears to help us see that socialism is not a heaven on earth that happens to not be possible or that happens to be excruciatingly costly relative to the free market system. Socialism is, in fact, nothing like heaven at all, at least not for actual humans. Even if we set aside the problem of feasibility and consider life under socialism in the abstract, Otteson explains why it takes us to a place most of us don't want to go, at least not if we are serious when we say things like "I want to be free."
Otteson's analysis of desirability brought the following metaphor to mind. Suppose you could buy any house you wanted at no cost so you worked up plans attending to every detail - its location, the exterior design, the interior features, and so on. Then you build the house but after 6 months or so you find yourself less happy than before. You thought you wanted to live in the country, but now you never see your friends. You thought you wanted more space, but now you feel like you are living in an impersonal museum. And so on. You miss your old house.
When we think carefully about what humans are actually like and what it takes for most of them to be happy and fulfilled, we find that socialism robs them of the means by which actual humans achieve both things. It does so with the best of intentions, but it does so nonetheless. I cannot do Otteson's analysis justice here, but rest assured his arguments don't just pull together the best available thinking on the matter from others - he pulls in elements of his earlier work and offers many completely new insights, which I don't want to spoil here.
The main point, in any case, is that even if we set aside concerns about feasibility, socialism doesn't take us where we want to go. Now his book has come full circle. Socialism, like any political economy system, has costs and benefits. If the question is whether we should try to move to a socialist system from the one we already have, then the system we already have provides an obvious point of comparison for the computation of those costs and benefits.
Otteson has shown us that costs associated with implementing and running a socialist system are clearly much higher than the costs associated with the mostly free market system we already have. This alone does not doom the socialist enterprise, but let's call it strike one.
Otteson has also shown us that the benefits associated with having a socialist system - and this includes many of the laudable moral intentions of that system - are not what they seem, are often internally inconsistent, and are almost certainly lower than the benefits we already enjoy from the free market system we already have. This alone does not doom the socialist enterprise, either, but let's call it strike two.
Now put the two together. No matter how bad the current system is, if you move to another system and the expected costs go up while the expected benefits go down, then that new system is not better than what you have. There is no way out of reaching this conclusion.
By having both sides of the argument in play, Otteson has overcome the problem of not being able to provide empirical measures of change that would satisfy both sides of the debate with respect to the costs and the benefits involved. In doing so, he has ended the free ride that advocates of socialism have enjoyed by keeping their analysis trained on isolated margins. By considering both the feasibility and desirability of socialism in an integrated way, his qualitative analysis alone is enough for Otteson to throw strike three and that's the end of socialism.
Otteson concludes with a reference to Aesop's fable about the fox and the grapes. In the fable the fox can't reach the grapes even after trying repeatedly. He tries so hard because he's convinced they are sweet. But after giving up he says to himself that the grapes were probably sour anyway.
What Otteson has done is help us to avoid needless pain and suffering from trying to achieve socialism through endless modifications to our institutions and culture. That's incredibly important because not only will this effort not take us where we want to go, it will undermine the free market economy that has already made the good life possible. By helping us think very carefully about both the costs and benefits of socialism by considering both its feasibility and desirability, he has given us good reason for concluding the grapes are sour without enduring any further pain and suffering from continuing to reach for them. The fact that we might later discover how to build a ladder so we can reach them is also irrelevant, because we already know they are sour.
If you have already read one of Otteson's earlier books, you will find that this one is also incredibly clear and thoughtful while never being ponderous or pedantic. If you haven't already read one of his earlier books, you are in for a real treat. This is his most ambitious effort yet and it delivers. If you have any interest in political economy, political theory and philosophy, or if you just happen to care about one of them most important questions of our age, this book is a must read.
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful.
In this excellent book, Jim Otteson deftly spells out in lucid ...
By Max Hocutt
In this excellent book, Jim Otteson deftly spells out in lucid and readable prose both the economic and the moral case against socialism, central management of the economy, and for its opposite, free exchange of labor and goods under simple rules.
Reviewing an already enormous but increasing body of empirical evidence, Otteson shows in the first half of his book that the more government control there is the less economy there is, and the more freedom of exchange there is the more prosperity there is. Command economies such as the former Soviet Union collapse entirely or, as in North Korea, produce widespread starvation and misery. Welfare states such as those of Western Europe last longer because they support their redistributionist programs with limited market economies; but prospects decline as transfers increase and the markets are constricted by regulation or starved by taxation.
Citing such economists as Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, Otteson explains why this is so. Despite a common presumption to the contrary, no central authority can know enough about the needs, local situations, and talents of individual agents to be able to direct all economic activities efficiently. So the authorities make one-size rules that fit nobody and no place, or they wastefully misdirect resources and labor for political rather than economic reasons. Also, as more wealth is redistributed from a decreasing number of producers to an increasing number of rent-seeking consumers, the economic pie gets smaller and smaller.
Invoking the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant in the second half of his book, Otteson argues that a society which maximizes individual liberty is also to be preferred because of its commitment to respect for the dignity of its members. A paternalistic concern to minimize inequality by managing lives and redistributing wealth treats those on the government teat as incompetent children while milking the rest as if they were government owned cows. By contrast, allowing as many people as practicable to enjoy the goods they earn and suffer the evils they incur while living their lives as they see fit is treating them as responsible adults. Grant that, under this dispensation, productive citizens will grow richer than those less talented or industrious. The poorest will still be better off than they would be in any other society, and they will keep their self-respect.
We would all be better served if these truths were understood more widely. Otteson has done an excellent job of summarizing them.
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful.
A great book on the problems of Socialism that also examines the moral failings of Socialism
By sien
The End of Socialism (2014) by James Otteson is a book that makes the practical and moral case that Socialism is a bad idea. Otteson was interviewed on Econtalk and presents a summary of his ideas there. Otteson is a professor of economics.
Otteson first goes into the practical details of Socialism where he points out that the Knowledge problem, or Socialist calculation problem provides an incredibly difficult, probably impossible challenge to the construction of a successful Socialist society. He also points out the enormous motivational problems that a Socialist economy has. He also makes the interesting point that people who espouse Socialism rarely think about, yet alone examine, exactly how wealth would be produced under complete Socialism let alone increased.
This section on the practical details of Socialism is bolstered by all available evidence and the fact that there has never really been a wealthy socialist society.
In the second section Otteson goes into how he believes that capitalism is also a more moral system than socialism. Otteseon points out that Socialism necessarily fails to recognise and respect the moral choices made by individuals. He also applies Coatesian externality theory to point out that if luck leads to differing outcomes that it is just as unfair to take something away from one person as it is to give to another.
The book makes the practical case very strongly and easily but the moral case is one that is less often made. While Otteson is arguing against a system that, generally speaking, has failed in the real world it's still an argument worth making. Toward the end of the book he starts to criticize the welfare state somewhat. But these ideas are Otteson's ideal level of welfare are not discussed in detail.
The book is definitely worth reading and thinking through. For anyone unfamiliar with the Socialist calculation problem it's an excellent introduction to the problems involved.
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson PDF
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson EPub
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson Doc
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson iBooks
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson rtf
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson Mobipocket
The End of Socialism, by James Otteson Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar