Socialism vs. capitalism; generalized reciprocity vs. markets

I've been reflecting a lot over the last few weeks on the quandaries of capitalism, socialism, and the various quaint exchange systems in use by primitive cultures (maybe not so much anymore, but certainly whenever it was that the anthropology texts I'm reading were written).

Frankly, it irritates me that much of the anthropology texts that I've been reading seem to be so negative about the American way. It's almost like the phenomena that occurs when a believer comes to reject--viciously, angrily, bitterly--a religion he used to be a member of. I know what that's like because it's how I catch myself feeling about Mormonism from time to time. 

That complain aside, though, the qualms I have center around the obvious respect the anthropologists who're writing these ethnographies have for some of the social-building exchange systems certain cultures use. For example, the Ju/'hoansi (Ju'twasi/!Kung) people use a couple different systems for exchanging goods and sharing--all of which are designed to foster social connections, and spread risk.

Some, like my dear friend Julie, would probably think that such systems are the way that all of society should be operated. That we should all do a lot more "sharing" without concern for immediate gain (or, especially, profit).

I think that's ultimately the goal of average citizen-socialists (like those in America): a much more sharing oriented, everyone helps one another, type system. They view capitalism as evil because it revolves around profit margins (which, in turn, require paying people less than they're worth). Capitalism, to them, seems like a dog-eat-dog system.

I suppose it can be.

However, socialism, historically, just doesn't work. Even modern examples of "socialism," when even remotely successful, are often hybrids of systems: largely capitalistic with some socialism bolted on haphazardly. Truly socialistic systems crash and burn time and time again, but not before driving their populace into utter, equal, misery.

But then you look at societies like the Ju/'Hoansi. They have this wonderful community thing going on--exactly the same thing that socialists desire. The ideal socialist world is one in which everyone works hard doing whatever they love and sharing their production with everyone else equally. Everyone else, of course, is doing this too and so we all live the happiest, most connected, most affluent lives we can imagine.

Problems become readily apparent: not all of us can produce as much in any given task as anyone else. Some of us are lazy and are happy to let others take care of us; some of us are stupid or have significant health problems which reduce our production possibilities. Some of us work faster, slower, or produce better or more fully-featured products. Make everyone equal on the output/production side (everyone gets the same) and you reduce the incentives for those who really rock at DOING stuff to perform remotely near their capacity. Much of Europe is already facing problems of this sort. They've got all this unemployment, welfare, and so on, and they're surprised when they have 30%+ unemployment and a flagging economy--as everyone who's still working wakes up one day and realizes, "hey, why the heck am I working when my neighbors on both sides of me aren't? They get to sit at home watching TV all day, while I pay them to do it. I want to sit at home and watch TV all day and get paid to do it, too!"

There aren't many Americans who're THAT socialist though. Most American socialists are of the sort that wants access to free healthcare for everyone; access to free legal services for everyone; and so on. Not being a heartless monster myself, I too, idealistically would love it if it were possible to have such things available for free to everyone. But I've learned a lot in economics that reveals that it's simply a pipedream to wish for such things. The reasons healthcare and legal services cost a lot is that the principle of scarcity: there aren't enough doctors, lawyers, drugs, and court time to drive costs down. If there were a lot more doctors and lawyers than costs would be cheaper. The number of doctors and lawyers directly correlates to the demand for doctors and lawyers (including, as a variable, cost of service). So as price goes down for such services, demand goes up, as does available supply of lawyers and doctors. Which means that people are attracted to take on the massive student loans and years of extremely arduous school because they believe it will pay off. When prices start dropping because of a glut of providers of services then less people want to take that risk (years of school, hundred of thousands in education debt).

You try to force the market to be "free" and all the sudden you've got an extreme drop in qualified service providers. So, in order to keep providers/practicioners around you (the government) have to heavily subsidize these "free" services through taxes, which means that they aren't actually "free"--they just look like they are. We're still paying just as much for all these services, it's just that we're paying more for them (because the government is unavoidably inefficient) and paying in aggregate--everyone's paying for them out of their paychecks, right up-front.

In short, any economist will tell you straight-up: there is NO FREE LUNCH.

Let's take a look at the Ju/'Hoansi again. They have these cute, community-oriented systems like the sharing of the meat, and hxaro. These systems would really well for them. They keep everyone from becoming too proud, or attaining a position of prominence (which could jeopardize stability in the society), and keep the overall culture from becoming stratified. The Ju/'Hoansi live relatively good lives in which they don't have to work too much (20 or so hours a week) and are still able to live comfortably. That said, they don't have the average American's lifespan, XBox, TV, microwaves, books, or most of the things we enjoy. They don't have our access to healthcare, or education. Why is this? Mostly because, as economists point out, those with high living standards have high average labor productivity, which is a result of specialization in a society. The Ju/'Hoansi don't specialize. Specialization leads to trade which leads to social stratification potentially. Everyone basically is a jack-of-all-trades master of none. Which means there's no greater demand for anyone's goods over anothers.

Would we give up our capitalistic ways which have provided much greater healthcare access, educational opportunities, and an extraordinary level of comfort in daily life just to have a tighter social/community web? I doubt it. Capitalism, on the whole, does a better job of providing for the needs of everyone than socialism. 

So, although these foraging (typically) systems of ensuring equality, risk distribution, and so on work okay for those with primitive lifestyles, expectations, and needs; they wouldn't work at all for society build on incentives. Until someone figures out how to match socialism and incentives (and not the gun-to-the-head variety)  we'll just have to continue onward as capitalists.

I chose this

I have a tendency to victimize myself. That's a problem in and of itself, but it's more of a problem because normally I don't realize that's what I'm doing. Tonight I caught myself getting into that mindset. You know the one (or maybe you don't): waaaaa, I've got so much to do--a paper to rewrite, a test to study for (lots of reading to catch up on in preparation for it as well as flash cards to make and study), economics homework, journals for psychology (due tomorrow). Ugh. 

The key thing that I need to learn to remember is that this is all voluntary on my part. I chose to come to school, chose to be a good student, chose to be up late at night studying and writing papers, chose to give up time with friends and family, chose to give up some current consumption possibilities (see I *am* learning! hah! Take that econ!) for greater future consumption.  I'm only here by choice. I am no victim at all.

Seeing myself as a victim has a lot of ramifications: stress level (which weakens my immune system, causes tension headaches), loss of satisfaction and happiness and optimism, and reduced performance in school (not as relaxed while studying, not enjoying studying means I don't absorb and learn as much).

How to circumvent this tendency? The simplest solution is just to make a "note to self" on my mental whiteboard as well as a "save for later" addendum. Hopefully this way I'll catch myself sooner before I get too stuck in ruts of such thought.

Also, I can really take a hard look at school and ask the "scary" questions: is it really that unpleasant? Is it making me miserable (or am I making myself miserable)? What are my goals? Is school still important in the attainment of those goals? What about school is causing me stress?

Obviously, it isn't school itself that's making me stressed and miserable, it's me. School is just education. Now if classes had a prerequisite of a lab of torture, that would be a real legit way in which school would be at fault for stress and misery. I'm making myself miserable because I'm allowing myself to feel like my self-worth is bound up in the grades I get, or don't get. I'm allowing myself to feel like my worth is dependent upon how great of a student I am. I need to refocus on the ideas I came into college with. The most important of the things I was thinking when I am into college were:

1) Work hard, study hard, and don't worry about the grades.
That is, what matters is the effort, not what is out of my hands (and in the hands of the professors). Hard work and effort and all I can do won't always be rewarded with good grades, so I need to separate the two.

2) Be in class, every class, on-time.

3) Complete and turn in all homework.

4) Study for, and take all tests.

This semester I've been kicking ass at #1, #3, and #4. On the whole I'm doing really well--especially considering that I'm a high school drop-out and two-time college drop-out (dropped out of the same college I'm currently attending twice before, both times within the first 7 weeks). My grades are also representative of my effort so far. But I cannot allow myself to focus on them. I won't. Now I'm going to go do some more studying. It's Econ time!