Why Socialism?
Personally, I would classify what billionaires often engage in as philanthropy rather than as altruism.
This distinction is crucial for understanding the genesis and ubiquity of altruism in biology, as studied extensively through Game Theory. As often acknowledged, humans are capable of being both altruistic and selfish simultaneously. This duality is not unique to humans; it is a fundamental feature across biology.
To understand how the interplay between altruism and selfishness settles into stable equilibria in both biological nature and human societies, I highly recommend Robert Axelrod and William D. Hamilton's classic and readable book, The Evolution of Cooperation.
Specific to human societies, it is entirely possible to shift the Evolutionary Stable State (ESS) more toward altruism and away from selfishness.
However, such a shift requires intentional governance and institutional design — specifically, through government initiatives that actively reward altruistic conduct while imposing a tangible cost on selfish behavior. Both forces must coexist in any stable system; what we can alter is the stable ratio where they balance each other.
This systemic balance works best when governments are democratically sustained through the vote. When the option to peacefully vote out a government — especially one that upsets the equilibrium by tilting toward excess selfishness — is constrained or threatened, street protests become a vital corrective tool.
Ultimately, the goal of a progressive social ideology ought to be building a social structure that institutionalizes these incentives: rewarding cooperation and altruism while curbing the excesses of selfishness.
"Profit motive" needs to be tempered with policies that distribute wealth accumulation before it reaches a scale where a few individuals can rely on paternalistic "philanthropy" to steer public priorities. For want of a better word, I would refer to this ideology as "socialism"!
Comments
Post a Comment