Socialism Response Paper, Week 2
Bellamy’s interpretation of a socialist world is, in my opinion, very compelling. It made me ask
myself (again) why we as humans cannot simply work together. Is it because it’s in human nature
to prioritize one’s own survival and let survival of the fittest take over? Our society right now is not
in a state of real scarcity, and it seems like with our resources, the innovations that “capitalism has
achieved,” and the innovations to come, we could genuinely make it work. Why stop then? And we
also don’t know. Is there a way to know?
Lanchester’s paper mentions the difficulties in overcoming the inertia of the current financial
system (and I would add social). It made me wonder how one can overcome this, either through a
more gradual process of policymaking and educating or a more abrupt one. I was initially inclined
to think that we cannot induce such a big change in the mentality of humans gradually, and that
contradictions would stop the transformation process or lead to chaos. However, I see that, even
though there are some intergenerational shocks, several mindsets shifts we have undergone
(especially regarding diversity or the “empathy” in terms of being able to think about people we
don’t know in the abstract that come from modernization) have been pretty successfully
implemented, although probably not voluntarily, in a gradual manner. Also, in terms of financial
reforms, in terms of getting money for UBI, apart from diverting cash from different kinds of more
“social” public spending, why aren’t diversions from more problematic uses considered? Why is it
easier to imagine cutting welfare than cutting subsidies for harmful industries (e.g. fossil fuels,
defense spending, or as a more niche example the carried interest loophole)?
Something else that comes with the mindset shift that gave rise to Bellamy’s society is the
transition from competition to collaboration and therefore the change in the perception of the value
of labor. Is there a way to get rid of (mechanize) all undesirable jobs? Isn’t undesirability of certain
jobs an obstacle in terms of doing so? I believe that Lanchester points out that maybe we should
not have those undesirable jobs. First comes the practical issue of seeing whether all of them can
be mechanized, and then the question (asking for a more specific understanding of what the value
of labor should be), if undesirable jobs can be mechanized or automated, should they be? Or does
removing them risk eroding some people’s sense of purpose and dignity? Should we protect these
senses of dignity? This is related to the question of how change can be made and the possible
psychological impacts on the masses that things could have.
