Why Not Capitalism?

by Jason Brennan

Most economists believe capitalism is a compromise with selfish human nature. As Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Capitalism works better than socialism, according to this thinking, only because we are not kind and generous enough to make socialism work. If we were saints, we would be socialists. In Why Not Capitalism ?, Jason Brennan attacks this widely held belief, arguing that capitalism would remain the best system even if we were morally perfect. Even in an ideal world, private property and free markets would be the best way to promote mutual cooperation, social justice, harmony, and prosperity. Socialists seek to capture the moral high ground by showing that ideal socialism is morally superior to realistic capitalism. But, Brennan responds, ideal capitalism is superior to ideal socialism, and so capitalism beats socialism at every level. Clearly, engagingly, and at times provocatively written, Why Not Capitalism? will cause readers of all political persuasions to re-evaluate where they stand vis-à-vis economic priorities and systems―as they exist now and as they might be improved in the future.

Genres: Philosophy, Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, History, Society

120 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Jason Brennan is the Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. His books include Against Democracy and The Ethics of Voting.

Reviews

[K · Rating 2 out of 5]

Brennan's writing is characterized by a fairly non-confrontational tone and a semi-empirical approach. He accepts the importance of Cohen's political thought and does his best to portray Cohen's views as best as possible. This is an honest work, and some of the arguments offered here are not half-bad. Unfortunately, I think Brennan commits two serious errors that end up undermining everything.

First, Brennan misinterprets Cohen's original argument. The ideal does not consist in the imaginary trip per se -the trip is considered ideal in a restricted sense, similarly to an ideal weekend, or ideal meal etc.- but in the fact that many of us take for granted that any other way of organizing it(especially a capitalist one) would turn out to be a disaster. Hence, many camping trips (some of which I've participated myself) are practicing Cohen's principles of socialist equality and community. The ideal consists in trying to establish an economic system which takes advantage of the trip's ethical foundations. Therefore, Cohen is not actually comparing ideal to real, but, rather, real to real, and this comparison leads him to conclude than since the socialist trip is more desirable than the capitalist, it then follows that a socialist society is more desirable than a capitalist one. Whether this follows remains an open question but I won't pursue this point here. In any case, Brennan's first objection falls apart.

But Brennan offers a second argument, namely that ideal capitalism might indeed be better than ideal socialism. This is a positive contribution that should be examined separately. I suppose one way to debunk it is to claim that Brennan is conflating a political philosophy with an economic system, hence making a category error. Libertarianism might allow central planning and communes, but if capitalism transforms itself to socialism, then it's not capitalism anymore. So, at best, he's making the argument that libertarianism (the political philosophy) is inherently more desirable than socialism (the political philosophy) in ideal circumstances. That might be true but that wasn't the argument made here. Nevertheless, in this light, libertarianism is an incoherent basis for any socioeconomic system since it can spawn practically everything. One can claim that libertarianism is compatible with a corporatocracy. But does that make any sense?

Plus, I seriously doubt Brennan's claim that, on his grounds, ideal socialism will not, at some point, allow private property. Even real existing socialism in the USSR, with its obvious limitations and wrongdoings, established some limited private property in the N.E.P.-era after some years of war communism. If socialism is understood as a political ideal instead of a strict economic system, then it could be viewed as a direct descendant of enlightenment values that aimed at human liberation. A previously socialist collective might change its mind and decide, through a referendum, that the best way to run a society would be under principles of private property and free-trade. If someone disagrees, then she is free to join another collective. I mean why not? Of course, this would mean that the term 'socialism' immediately loses all of its particular characteristics (workers' control over production, values of solidarity, cooperation etc) and becomes an incoherent notion that's just as open to interpretation as Brennan's 'libertarianism' is.

[Janet Bufton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short book presents the clearest moral argument for capitalism that I've read or heard. While I don't expect it to convince everyone (to some people, much of Brennan's argument will just feel wrong) it's well worth reading if you're concerned with the question and is a fantastic companion to Cohen's Why Not Socialism?. Seldom will you learn so much in under 200 pages of text. Brennan's treatment of Cohen with charity and respect strengthens the book and its argument.

Brennan's writing is exceptionally clear and concise and his argument fits with my priors, so I was expecting to agree with this book, but I have to admit upon finishing it that I wasn't expecting to be so impressed. But I was.

Why Not Socialism? left me feeling underwhelmed because it seemed unable to take seriously the idea of capitalists with virtuous moral intuitions and motivation. Brennan grasps the problem—Cohen is comparing ideal people in the imagined socialist world he advocates with realistic people in the capitalist world as it exists, so he is bound to run into problems of double standards and asymmetric assumptions. This is devastating to Cohen's argument, and it's a shame he's not around to respond.

I'm sympathetic to the review by K, who points out that capitalism is properly an economic system, rather than a political philosophy, but disagree that Cohen doesn't make the same error (if it is an error) as Brennan in treating capitalism as a political philosophy. I read Cohen as arguing that capitalism is a fallen political philosophy that prioritises material wealth and productivity and so supports a capitalist economic system. Socialism, says Cohen, is a political philosophy that values equality and community, as we would if only we were not fallen, and therefore supports a socialist economic system. This is not unique to Cohen, but describes how nearly all discussions of capitalist morality I've witnessed treat the words. Perhaps it would be useful to have different words for the philosophies, but we don't.

If K's distinction causes problems for Brennan, it causes much bigger problems for Cohen. Cohen explains why we use (and maybe even, says Cohen, ought to use) a capitalist economic system in the real world: to secure material well-being. But to implement a socialist economic system we need both socialist moral intuitions and to overcome what Cohen refers to as a "design problem"—we don't know how to produce what everybody wants and needs in an extended order without market prices. Cohen betrays that he didn't understand the depth of the design problem when he advocates market socialism as a possible workaround. The same problems that cut the legs out from under socialist economic systems were shown to apply to market socialism decades ago.

Had he understood the design problem (economists call this the 'calculation problem') better, he may have provided an answer to the charge that, ceteris paribus, we should want the highest possible material well-being. Cohen takes for granted that we should want to overcome the design problem if we could impose a desire for equality and community onto the market order. It does not logically follow and cannot be taken for granted. This is an argument I hadn't considered at all before reading this book and is an important one that socialists political philosophers will need to address, if they can, with social science.

Also discussed are moral arguments for defending private property and economic rights and a discussion of allowing multiple utopias. It's no surprise that I find these appealing, and I'm unsure how convincing they will be to a sceptical reader.

Finally, I enjoyed Brennan's defence of Cohen's broader project to argue for utopian theories of justice—he stands with Cohen against no less than Rawls to explain why it's worth discussing what justice in a world of perfectly just people (and not only realistic, flawed people) would look like and makes a compelling case for why you should care about this pair of texts.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

After reading *The Ethics of Voting*, I already started with a bad impression. The writing style is dry. The purpose of the previous book was just climbing the academic rungs to hit the jackpot of governmental pension plans.

This books opens with:

> My mentor David Schmidtz once said, in conversation, “Don’t concede the moral high ground.”

And this is all what this book is about. Brennan on a high horse.

[Hemen Kalita · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even most capitalists agree that capitalism is the practical but may not be the most moral system out there. In Capitalism, we compromise flawed human nature.

But here, the author, upended this notion by claiming that capitalism is not only practical but also a moral system. He tried to put forth his main idea from the perspective of private property. Private property is essential for the overall wellbeing of an individual. Hence, private property enabled by capitalism is a better moral choice rather than socialism where properties are communally owned.

[Anthony J. Toumazatos · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short yet illuminating response to G.A. Cohen's famous pamphlet Why Not Socialism? Brennan's writing is clear and engaging, cleverly using Cohen's own style against him. In short, Brennan argues that ideal capitalism would outperform ideal socialism and that, as such, "Utopia" would incorporate free-market elements. Captivating stuff, really—what an interesting dimension to the centuries-old ( millennia-old if we include Plato's Republic, which I would) Utopian writing tradition.

I won't belabor my review by summarizing his arguments, but the book is a worthwhile read—not only for its sharp deconstruction of Cohen's claims but also for Brennan's skill in articulating why "Utopia" would feature markets and private property.

Even if you don't agree with him (though I very much do), it's intellectually stimulating to be exposed to his arguments. He offers a modern, relevant, and strong defense of the free market. Also, you can finish it in a day if you like. To me, this is a modern classic, and I'm so glad to have picked it up.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've had the pleasure of meeting Professor Brennan. He's creative, smart, and incredibly knowledgeable on philosophy and economics (his Alma Mater is #1 in political philosophy, after all). This book is an appropriate example of the prior features I mentioned above.

Brennan goes head-to-head with G.A. Cohen, the expert imitator (view his YouTube videos), the political philosopher, and arguably the most effective critic of capitalism philosophy has ever seen. He uses the same style of thought experiment (using a Disney TV show called, “The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village") as Cohen in “Why Not Socialism?" to show, not only that his thought experiment fails, but how it inadvertently strengthens Brennan's argument for capitalism.

Before setting out his thought experiment, he summarizes Cohen's thought experiment. It is a very simple thought experiment that is nearly impossible to misinterpret (unlike a different reviewer claims Brennan does). He then adds a few things to strengthen the thought experiment of Cohen's. Simply put, Cohen invites us too imagine how we act on camping trips. Very often things are distributed equally, people act in unison to help each other in need, etc. It's a very accurate depiction (in my experiences) of camping trips.

Brennan's thought experiment is similar in nature, but represents a capitalist society. Since this is a review and not a summary, I'll leave it to the reader to read this and look for themselves if they were interested in reading the book.

The two main arguments of Brennan are: first, Cohen makes a comparison of a real mixed economy (or as some people misperceive it, “capitalism") against an ideal socialistic society (this is also true, he claims, for Rawls's work). His second argument is that Cohen equates socialism with virtuous values (voluntary cooperation, love, etc) while simultaneously condemning capitalism with immoral emotions (greed, fear, etc).

The second is interesting and worth noting. Brennan complains (and justly so) that Cohen never actually explains how socialism necessarily equates to these virtues nor how capitalism always equates to greed and fear. He makes the case that Cohen falls victim to armchair philosophizing when he should be looking at empirical data. Brennan presents data that shows Cohen's intuitions are false. These mixed economies often have a higher ranking in trust, cooperation, etc (note that the less interventions governments make, the higher the ranking).

The remainder of the book is a defense of private property which I won't delve into here.

Does Brennan succeed in his arguments? I think so. For instance, does it appear that Brennan is right to say that Cohen is comparing ideal scenarios with real scenarios? Yes. Is it perfect? No, but it's damn close.

It won't convince a socialist to stop being a socialist (although I'm not sure what would), but if somebody who is just interested, or merely on the fence about the topic, I think Brennan makes more compelling arguments for the case of capitalism (pure capitalism or a mixed economy).

[Christopher Hudson Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his short book Why Not Capitalism? Jason Brennan makes a moral case for capitalism while also responding to G.A. Cohen’s Why Not Socialism? Most people, including defenders of capitalism, believe capitalism may hold instrumental value, but that it rests on human shortcomings, compared to socialism which may be unfeasible but desirable absent human shortcomings. Brennan uniquely argues that the features we associate capitalism (e.g. private property, market exchange, etc.) are ethically desirable & preferable in utopia with morally perfect actors. Brennan is the strongest when describing how, in a perfect world, ownership rights & voluntary exchange allow us to best live out our potential & treat others with respect. However Brennan’s critique of Cohen is somewhat mixed. Brennan intentionally structures his book to mirror Why Not Socialism? to best illustrate its flaws, but while Cohen typical comes across humble, Brennan occasionally comes across arrogant. One example is how a section of Cohen’s book wrongly compares utopian socialism with real world capitalism. Brennan on the other hand compares utopian capitalism with cartoonish caricature socialism. This is meant to parody Cohen’s thought experiment to expose a clear fallacy, but in my opinion it’s more likely going to turn off readers as Brennan not engaging seriously with socialism. I believe Brennan successfully makes a strong moral case for capitalism, but it’s unclear if the case is ‘stronger’ than the moral case for socialism. In my opinion this is because while Brennan defends capitalism based on its structural features, Cohen sidesteps the structural specifics & defends socialism based on general commitments to equality & community, neither of which Brennan really engages with. This was disappointing for me because it’s possible that Brennan’s version of capitalism (or a slightly altered market system) could potentially fulfill Cohen’s socialist standards, but this was left unexplored by Brennan. Nonetheless, Why Not Capitalism? provides a clear moral defense of capitalism that even anti-capitalists should take seriously. I would recommend reading this book along with Cohen’s Why Not Socialism?

[Sabine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an exceptional book that takes on a difficult topic and explains it in way that is accessible to people who are being exposed to these ideas for the first time, as well as old hands who would like a refresher on the positives of capitalism. And it does all of this in under 100 pages.

I read this after finishing GA Cohen's Why Not Socialism. Brennan does a great job of responding to each and every argument that Cohen makes, even going as far as to use his own examples and imagery to show that what Cohen is actually doing is making an even stronger case for capitalism

The book is humorous and sometimes takes dark turns, but this imagery is necessary to remind the reader what real socialism looks like, rather than the singularly rosy picture presented by Cohen.

For a more in-depth look at both books, I recommend Janet Bufton's post here: http://revealedpreferences.net/2018/0...

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is meant to be a response to G. A. Cohen's book titled "Why Not Socialism?", and so I would recommend reading it or my summary of it before reading this review.

As a book for a general audience defending capitalism, this book isn't terrible. Unfortunately, it is meant to be a response to Cohen's, and its success in that endeavor is trickier to judge. On the one hand, it really does reveal that Cohen's defense of Socialism isn't as straightforward as Cohen makes it out to be. He points out quite rightly in chapter 3 that Cohen is defending a kind of idealized socialism against real capitalism, which is obviously unfair. Brennan argues that if we are allowed to simply idealize, then capitalists can invoke idealizations too, and he imagines a kind of liberatarian utopia which wouldn't require a state and centralized coercion, and yet display the values of "voluntary community, respect, reciprocity, social justice, and beneficence." His stance (laid out in chapter 4) is that:

Contrary to Cohen, capitalism is not just something we are stuck with because people are too selfish, greedy, and fearful to make socialism work. Rather, even if people had morally perfect motivations, we would still have grounds to prefer capitalism. Capitalism is not merely better economics than socialism for the real world. Rather, even in utopia, capitalism occupies the moral high ground.

One problem with the book is that Brennan simply isn't a good reader of Cohen in an important way, which is that he doesn't really seem to understand what Cohen is trying to do. Although Cohen talks about "socialism", he isn't talking about a specific social arrangement of property rights as much as the fundamental motives for exchange. He thinks it is valuable to be able to think that "I serve you not because of what I can get in return by doing so but because you need or want my service, and you, for the same reason, serve me", instead of on the basis of "cash reward".

Brennan is right that Cohen is invoking a kind of ideal, but he's wrong about what kind of ideal it is. It isn't he case that "Cohen asked us to imagine a fictional socialist microsociety in which all of the participants are stipulated to have (more or less) perfect moral character and behavior", but rather he wants us to start by thinking about how this fundamental mode of exchange of "communal reciprocity" is morally superior to exchange for personal gain. A good point that Brennan makes is that often markets need trust, so even in cases where people exchange for personal gain, they can still wish their buyers well. But Cohen can reasonably push back, and point out that markets work by individuals trying to make as much as they can off their buyers, and living with the knowledge that other sellers are doing the same to you. That these are embedded in societies which also bear goodwill to each other in some abstract sense doesn't erase this horrifying truth.

Unable to grasp what Cohen is really doing, Brennan argues about all sorts of things:

We must be careful not to equate socialism with moral virtue or community spirit. Capitalism and socialism are simply ways of organizing the ownership of property. In capitalism, individuals may own the means of production. In socialism, they may not—the means of production are owned collectively (or by the representative of the collective, such as the State). Socialism is not love or kindness or generosity or oceans of delicious lemonade. Socialism is not equality or community. It’s just a way of distributing the control rights over objects.

But Cohen is using "socialism" specifically to address "exchange" that abides by his principles of equality and community, that's why he spends so much time of them! If Brennan doesn't want to call that "socialism", fine, but that's just a minor linguistic point.

This is also why it's nonsensical to claim that "Cohen says that an advantage of socialism over capitalism is the kind of motivations it engenders and relies upon." Brennan switches mid-way from arguing against Cohen-style socialist principles to arguing against socialism-as-joint-ownership.

But Brennan's argument also fails for a slightly different reason. He seems to think Cohen just invents some imaginary paradise with all the values that are desirable, and so produces a scenario of his own. But Cohen's scenario seems realistic, in that we can imagine such a trip actually happening (surely, some people have even been on similar ones). Meanwhile, Brennan's particular vision of utopian capitalism as "a voluntaryist, anarchist, non-violent, respectful, loving, cooperative society" seems far more unlikely, at least on the long run.

To see why, let's go back to Cohen's book, to where he introduced the principles of equality to ensure that no one gets rich for reasons that they didn't choose. There's still a question about whether choosing to work more is permitted, which would lead to inequality, but the point is that Cohen is deeply sensitive to the effects inequality can have. He realizes that money offers power and freedom, and so people with massive amounts of unequal money can't really share community. Brennan, on the other hand, treats money like just fancy coloured paper:

In the [capitalist utopia], there may be differences in wealth. Clarabelle seems to own many different stores, while Donald does not. She may be ten or ten thousand times richer than Donald. Not everything is held in common. But, unlike in our world, the villagers do not mind. They have no thirst for material equality. They do not suffer from the socially destructive emotion of envy. (Even less would they attempt to build an ideology around it.) So, while there may be differences in wealth, this does not interfere with their community spirit, their friendship, their common experiences together, or their ability to love and empathize with one another. For them, this is just another difference—in the same way that Donald is a better dancer than Goofy or that Minnie has more commonsense than Daisy. It does not drive them apart. This is unlike our world, in which some people are so envious and resentful of others’ good fortune that they could not form a community with those much richer than themselves, and in which some people are so supercilious and lacking in empathy that they cannot form a community with those much poorer than themselves.

Except being good at dance or having commonsense do not by themselves yield power, influence, and (Cohen would say) freedom to do more. So it isn't that Cohen is saying rich and poor people would feel disconnected, but that the difference in lives they would obviously lead would make them too cut off from each other. I suspect this is pretty obvious to just about anyone who's actually been or been around poor people. So when Brennan reconstructs Cohen's point as saying

Cohen claims that we cannot be fully in community with one another if we are unequal. After all, if I am rich and you are poor, then I just can’t fully understand your problems. Inequality prevents us from empathizing with one another.

he's completely missed the point.

Taking this effect on inequality seriously, we can ask Brennan how he would either stop inequalities from piling on each other, especially since unequal distributions can spawn more inequality. His capitalist utopia seems incredibly unsustainable, collapsing into monopolies thanks to luck. Sure, there are logical possible worlds where everyone just grows wealthier without too much difference, but there's no reason given to think this is likely.

So not only does Brennan read Cohen uncharitably, his own proposal seems incredibly poorly thought out. That brings us to what is probably the worst aspect of the book. Brennan is right in the charge from above that "Cohen does not try to solve the problems critics see in Carens’ work", but Cohen is open about it. Cohen admits that the social technology that would allow us to live by reciprocal caring (presumably including what ownership would look like) is unknown to us, and he is agonizing about the current state of affairs and our inability to think ourselves out of it. If there are confusions (in what he calls "socialism"), these are confusions I'm quite inclined to forgive, an honest perplexity. Brennan, on the other hand, comes in as though he has the answers, "parodies" Cohen and offers a shitshow instead of a convincing counter-argument. He really shouldn't have tried to punch above his weight.

[Elliott · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is a direct response to G.A. Cohen’s Why Not Socialism? The conceit though of Jason Brennan’s Why Not Capitalism? is that if socialism is allowed to imagine things ‘within a perfect world,’ that capitalism ought to be allowed that same leeway. This is such a slick turnaround that well-meaning sorts would let it pass without question- which is indeed what happened.
But if we are talking about ‘a perfect world’ why even bother with capitalism? Hell, why not magic? A magical world would indeed be a perfect world a far more perfect world than even Jason Brennan allows and a magical world would be even more moral than Jason Brennan’s. In magic no one has to die after all and therefore wronging someone is simply not possible. But a philosophical treatise: Why Not Magic? is useless. Magic doesn’t exist and thus my hypothetical Why Not Magic? cannot have any guidance on the real world which is the raison d’etre of philosophy. Jason Brennan is allowed to daydream, and certainly to write about it. But dragons are not real, nor are wizards, nor is the philosopher’s stone. I can also imagine a perfect world where arms can detach themselves from bodies to perform tasks in another room, and to reattach once complete. It’s fun to imagine, and certainly superior to arms in philosophy that cannot do such things- but equally not possible in the real world. Did G.A. Cohen describe a perfect world in Why Not Socialism? Cohen described a hypothetical camping trip in that short book. This is a situation that he considered ‘perfect’ which is more akin to ‘preference’ rather than literal perfection. Accordingly, it is plausible and thus has a real core of truth to be brought back to the real world. The people in Cohen’s fable are not held to be perfect. Everyone bringing the things that are needed for a camping trip is also hardly the pinnacle of perfection. Indeed, it’s kind of the bare minimum. There’s plenty of room for one or all of the people in Cohen’s book to be flawed individuals, or maybe even terrible individuals and yet still fulfill their portion to make the trip enjoyable.
Jason Brennan on the other hand imagines the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse to be the best representation of capitalism. This is not plausible. Granted it’s tongue-in-cheek, but laissez-faire capitalism itself is a mythological concept as fake as arms detaching from bodies, or magical world. For one Mickey Mouse arguably runs a market not The Market and this is a misconception that libertarians use to mischaracterize what capitalism is and is not. Markets of course are very old and predate capitalism. The Market on the other hand, the capitalist market, is of more recent provenance and emerged through very specific historical events. It is subordinate to the social forces that created it and still nurture it. It is not superior to them. You cannot for instance dismantle government interference into finance or banking and still have capitalism would collapse as it is dependent upon the state. The state however is not dependent on capitalism.
Socialism on the other hand works on a microlevel as Cohen shows. It can also succeed on a macrolevel. The socialist experiments of the 20th century, though characterized as inefficient succeeded in turning what had been a relatively minor economic power into the world’s second strongest economy in 60 years despite two world wars, and a particularly destructive civil war. Meanwhile central planning is utilized by corporations presently. In public hands rather than private the same mechanisms at work today would be used for public good rather than private gain.

[Oogii O · Rating 3 out of 5]

This short book is definitely worth checking out (I mean it's a pretty easy read). Although I do not necessarily agree with everything the author's points in the book I admit the book consists of many great inputs, ideas, and opinions. I jot down some notes that kept me thinking below;

"As Adam Smith puts, 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.' "

- I clearly remember reading this very sentence from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" many moons ago when I used to stare at the moon unreasonably long time for no specific reason. Well, that's is kind of irrelevant, ain't it?

"Capitalism works better than socialism, according to this thinking, only because we are not kind and generous enough to make socialism work. If we were saints, we would be socialists."

- A friend of mine, who happens to be from Italy once told me something surprisingly similar to this when I was in college. I think about this every now and then when I often feel powerless in the capitalist system.

"Socialism is not bad for us, we are bad for socialism."

- Deep, even deeper than the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench

"For instance, the 18th-century philosopher David Hume - himself a classical liberal capitalist - argued that if people had pure motivations then there would be no need for private property. Hume says that questions about justice in property arise only when there is moderate scarcity and limited fellow-feeling:"

- No explanations needed as far as I am concerned.

"In a capitalist society, everyone is an economic planner. Everyone faces a constant stream of economic choices. How people respond to these choices both reflects and helps to determine just who they are as individuals."

- Great. I just found out I am an economic planner after reading this book. Thanks author!

"In the real world, capitalism encourages entrepreneurs to provide you with the things you want at prices you can afford to pay. in the ideal world, capitalism does even better: it gives you the opportunity to live in your personal utopia."

- These two sentences generally sum up the main message the author is attempting to deliver.

[Ananda · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a clear and readable book about the moral superiority of capitalism to socialism, modeled on and in opposition to GA Cohen's book of similar title ("Why Not Socialism?"). In this book Brennan says Cohen's argument for the moral superiority of socialism fails for two reasons:

1. He says Cohen fails to compare like with like (what others have called the "fallacy of asymmetric idealization" -- comparing the ideal version of X to a realistic version of Y, and inferring that X is preferable).

2. He also says Cohen confuses values with a regime: that Cohen sometimes seems to consider socialism a mindset rather than a set of rules, and sometimes the reverse.

I found Brennan's style and argument persuasive, but I came in expecting to agree with him. He does a good job anticipating objections. I'm interested in whether socialists think it a strong challenge.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A slim volume in which Brennan successfully argues that some form of capitalism would remain the preferred system even in a moral utopia, as evinced by the bright and wonderful world of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.

The heart of the book is a brief section on the empirical research showing capitalism encourages moral behavior, while socialism corrodes it.

Logical, concise, and often funny.

[Paula · Rating 2 out of 5]

He had the Chance to do the funniest shit ever but ended up as further proof why liberals are not funny. Loved the cited study about Fairness which Was basically "so when we measure societies along the lines of our Western market values, those from western market societies bloom, what a coincidence". Lets not talking about the slave Situation (aka owning pluto lmaoo)

Anyway, this book inspired me to start the "victims of capitalism foundation" because I am so sick of this argument, will include every victim of colonialism, the healthcare System in the U.S. and me, because I am forced to read these types of books all the time

[Alexander · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't finish the book. If reading other reviews or comments on my review lead me to believe I missed something or that further along the book redeems itself I'll happily finish it. That said, Brennan sets up his Mickey Mouse Club argument as the central point of the book, all the while underlining how this argument aims to sweep the moral high ground out from under socialism, to argue from a normative and not factual standpoint. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when the bulk of said argument consisted of a heavy-handed allegory of specifically factual, historical events. It was enough for me to set down the book, possibly for good.

[Managing my virtual footprint · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a response (and for the first half a satire) of Cohen's "why not socialism?". Like Cohen's, it is short, written in very accessible language and very convincing.

Although the first few chapters take the parody of Cohen to what feels like unnecessary lengths, the second part of the book presents two simple ideas. First, Cohen's book unfairly presents a socialism where agents are morally perfect in contrast with a capitalism where they are not. Second, if you look (as Cohen would like to) at both systems if all agents are morally perfect, capitalism has many advantages over socialism (including, paradoxically, the ability to allow it).

I recommend that you read Cohen's book first and that you skip right to the second half if you have trouble getting through the first one.

[Pawan Khanal · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Socialism is not love or kindness or generosity or oceans of delicious lemonade. Socialism is not equality or community. It's just a way of distributing the control rights over objects."
"The problem is that Cohen is not comparing like to like."
These two statements are enough to argue against Cohen's "Why not Socialism?".

[Michael Kruse · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lucid and well thought out response to the philosophical presumption that socialism is morally preferable to capitalism. Brenan compares ideal socialism to ideal capitalism, in a world with thoroughly upright moral actors, and shows why capitalism is preferable (and necessary) even in utopia.

[Antonio Alegría Fuentes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es un gran libro para empezar a leer sobre el capitalismo o simplemente queremos leer sobre éste y que no sea denso.
De una forma muy inteligente, Brennan asimila el Club del ratón Mickey con un sistema capitalista derrotando al socialismo ideal y aún más importante, el real.

[Xavier · Rating 4 out of 5]

While a little repetitive, the book gives an entertaining and informative rebuttal to 'Why Not Socialism?' I especially find the idea that Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is a capitalist utopia utterly hilarious.

[Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

An exceptionally clear and cogent moral defence of capitalism. 4.5*

[Nikola Todorić · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short book is the most amusing critique of socialist arguments I have ever read. Great stuff!

[Miguel Noronha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uma curta mas bem estruturada e convincente defesa da sociedade capitalista. Um livro que todos devia ler.

[Gabriel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't think it will convince many people but the book contains some new arguments for capitalism. Worth it.

[Sunhyun Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a slim easy-to-read book that lays out an extremely convincing argument in favor of capitalism. Giving this book to my socialist friend was the tipping point in converting him to capitalism.

[nox_ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Livro espectacular, acessível a qualquer pessoa, muitíssimo bem elaborado e absolutamente irrefutável. Bravo! 🙌🙌🙌👌

[Kevin Linton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A rollercoaster, but worth finishing this short read after you have read "Why Not Socialism?".

Brennan successfully argues that free markets in practice are preferable to planned/shared economies in practice due to the issues of motivation and information sharing. He also argues that capitalism allows for different ownership structures (including socialist communes) where the opposite is not true. Thus, a utopian socialist society could be reached (albeit on small scales) within the current system should enough individuals be willing and able to cooperate.

However, Brennan does not discuss the issues of exploitation, unequal power relationships and different forms of equality, which materialise in practice in enough detail (although he is more than aware of this). It would also be interesting to understand whether Brennan believes that compounding growth poses a challenge to the environment and whether capitalism requires growth. Brennan's definition of capitalism seems limited to the idea of private property ownership.

Of more interest is the question of whether or not ideal capitalism would be better than ideal socialism. Before reading this text, I would have argued that an ideal society would derive no benefit from private ownership. However, Brennan has convinced me in that private property allows for individuals to maximise utility gained from certain pursuits which would not be possible if others were allowed to interact with the aforementioned private goods without permission. The counter argument that socialists would allow for some collective goods to remain in the exclusive use of an individual was correctly argued to be the same as a justification for private goods and, by extension, of capitalism.

However, Brennan's theoretical experiment fails for two potential reasons.
1) The issues of equality (not of goods, but of overall utility) is not sufficiently discussed. It seems that any just view of equality must be a socialist view. Even if private property exists, wealthier individuals may have an obligation to give away 'excess' capital to others with less capacity for independent capital building. If an individual fails to meet this obligation, the state may be justified in violating property rights and giving them to those who would gain more utility from the property. Thus, this is capitalism (in that private property exists) with socialist characteristics (in that the state may decide to seize property to give to others). It is unclear to me whether this is more aligned with a capitalist or socialist view.
2) Benefits derived from private property are only fully realised when there is enough private property for all individuals. For example, society may benefit from shared ownership of homes in the event of a housing shortage, even if private ownership would be beneficial when there is a housing surplus, as each individual or family can customise and build relationships with their property. It may be that a private ownership slice of pie means that others are left without any pie at all. This may be due to manufacturing supply shortages, but also due to the aforementioned natural resource constraints.

Overall, I agree that (somewhat regulated) free-markets are more utilitarian that socialist economic systems in practice. I also agree that private property is better than collective ownership for most goods in practice and in theory. However, Brennan does not discuss the moral obligation for significant capital redistribution and the issues of lack of supply which private property puts stress on.

[Gabriel Parks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brennan presents a clever and competent response to G.A. Cohen -- but just barely. He crafts and qualifies his arguments well overall, and cites some of the best advocates for capitalism, to me, such as Dierdre McCloskey. A highlight of the book was his discussion of ideal justice theories, though this section was not connected back to his thesis as well as it could have been. (Donald Duck running a Soviet style Gulag was also pretty funny.) The book is entertaining, but I don't think it's a refutation of Cohen or socialism at all. A big issue of the book is that Brennan argues with a straw man quite often. He describes a deliberately silly and fictitious totalitarian, centrally planned state model of government and labels that 'socialism'...yeah, besides some tankies on Twitter, I'm not sure what socialist wants that. Cohen certainly does not...and that's who he is supposed to be addressing. And Brennan is aware this is an extreme example, yet he then goes on to say that in capitalism, the real value is you can CHOOSE to have either individual or collective ownership of a business, say. In socialism, according to Brennan, one has no choice. But his book is supposedly a moral argument, and many socialists don't want the state to mandate worker-owned co-ops, for example...in fact, a market-socialist wants people to choose co-op arrangements for both moral and economic (efficiency) concerns. Many socialists desire the promotion of co-ops because they believe in the moral superiority of the social, economic arrangement first and foremost. Where are Brennan's attempts to tackle the economic, let alone the moral efficiency of co-ops? He seems to evade this task by explaining how markets are good and total government interference in the economy is bad. OK, sure! Not the most insightful critique of socialism. His ending point about people being able to pursue their own personal utopias under capitalist arrangements is taken, as an ideal goal, but again, many socialists would accept that as well. The book is worth a read, and I want to read Cohen and Brennan's books again to digest them more fully. But my current conclusion from reading both of them is that the morally superior ideal is market-socialism. However, I'd like to see innovism (what McCloskey would calls capitalism, an arguably more accurate term to me) further explored and integrated into both ideal and practical discussions of attempts to push for economic democracy and social equality.

[Gabe Wisnewski-Parks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brennan presents a clever and competent response to G.A. Cohen -- but just barely. He crafts and qualifies his arguments well overall, and cites some of the best advocates for capitalism, to me, such as Dierdre McCloskey. A highlight of the book was his discussion of ideal justice theories, though this section was not connected back to his thesis as well as it could have been. (Donald Duck running a Soviet style Gulag was also pretty funny.) The book is entertaining, but I don't think it's a refutation of Cohen or socialism at all. A big issue of the book is that Brennan argues with a straw man quite often. He describes a deliberately silly and fictitious totalitarian, centrally planned state model of government and labels that 'socialism'...yeah, besides some tankies on Twitter, I'm not sure what socialist wants that. Cohen certainly does not...and that's who he is supposed to be addressing. And Brennan is aware this is an extreme example, yet he then goes on to say that in capitalism, the real value is you can CHOOSE to have either individual or collective ownership of a business, say. In socialism, according to Brennan, one has no choice. But his book is supposedly a moral argument, and many socialists don't want the state to mandate worker-owned co-ops, for example...in fact, a market-socialist wants people to choose co-op arrangements for both moral and economic (efficiency) concerns. Many socialists desire the promotion of co-ops because they believe in the moral superiority of the social, economic arrangement first and foremost. Where are Brennan's attempts to tackle the economic, let alone the moral efficiency of co-ops? He seems to evade this task by explaining how markets are good and total government interference in the economy is bad. OK, sure! Not the most insightful critique of socialism. His ending point about people being able to pursue their own personal utopias under capitalist arrangements is taken, as an ideal goal, but again, many socialists would accept that as well. The book is worth a read, and I want to read Cohen and Brennan's books again to digest them more fully. But my current conclusion from reading both of them is that the morally superior ideal is market-socialism. However, I'd like to see innovism (what McCloskey would calls capitalism, an arguably more accurate term to me) further explored and integrated into both ideal and practical discussions of attempts to push for economic democracy and social equality.

[ehk2 · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is written as a response to G.A. Cohen’s “Why not Socialism”. Cohen argued that any single move towards socialist goal of removing market relations among people should be evaluated as improvement.

I confess: Reading Brennan’s so-called “parody” of Cohen’s book made me very angry and feel disgust for him. I contemplated and prepared very strong curses for him. But the Mickey Mouse village “prestidigitation” part may have a point. At the end, it all comes up into distinction between ideal and actual; real politics (human nature, feasibility, etc.) versus utopia. My preference is for socialist utopia against both the actual capitalism and Brennan’s oxymoron “ideal” capitalism.

Brennan’s ideal capitalism –in the case of Mickey Mouse village- resembles a small-scale, self-sufficient community of private property owners and producers/entrepreneurs/traders. Where is wage-labour in that picture? Will people work for wage for others and still feel themselves “at home” in this world, feel the autonomy and security and idea of pursuing their lives and projects at their own disposal? A capitalism without wage-labour and exploitation is unimaginable. Brennan’s ideal capitalism is a disgrace to the name of utopia.

The whole point of the book was to take the task of showing us why market relations are not inherently “repugnant”. In other words, the moral goodness of capitalism. Brennan without further doubt fails to do that.