Ana Amistad

Bad and Boujee ft. Socialism:

An Analytical Paper on Economic Inequality
Throughout the course of history, various countries have adopted the ways of socialism
because of its promise of equality. Time and again, they find that it perpetuates tyranny and is a
recipe for disaster. Since socialism is multifaceted, I will process this paper in four stages
namely: An Overview of Socialism, An Enticing Idea, “Is the promotion of equality desirable in
any society?”, and “Does socialism provide for just social arrangements?”.

An Overview of Socialism
G.A. Cohen (2009) contextualizes socialism in terms of a camping trip metaphor;
imagine a nonhierarchical group of friends going on this trip to have fun. By virtue of
egalitarianism, there is a mutual understanding that everything is commonly owned, from the
tents, tools, food, to deck of cards. To imagine otherwise and enforce a fine on every personal
object that someone else would use would destroy the spirit of equality and community.
Placing socialism on a greater scale, socialists believe that society should have common
ownership over the means of production. However, there are no incentives for the people, a
possible driving force for them to do better in their business. The government makes economic
decisions by imposing how much of a product should be produced although, governments can be
wrong. Since production is influenced by need and not by profit, freedom of choice becomes
restricted. Moreover, according to Edward Nell and Onora O’Neill (1972), when socialism is
juxtaposed with capitalism, two notions of justice emerge, namely:
1. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” the Socialist
Principle of Justice.
2. “From each according to his choice, given his assets, to each according to his
contribution,” the Laissez-Fair or let it be Principle of the Capitalists.
The main differences of the two schools of thought are their beliefs on economic equality and
government intervention. Socialists believe that the government should take responsibility on
alleviating economic inequalities via programs that benefit the poor such as free education and
higher taxes on the rich. On the other hand, capitalists see to it that the government has minimal
control over enterprises and the exercise of the free market should prevail. This brings up the
idea that when it come to private ownership— the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Both
socialist and capitalist principles of justice have a common defect; it cannot be assumed that each
will operate in a way that aggregate output is sufficient to meet all needs without surplus.

An Enticing Idea
Through a historical lens, many countries have attempted to integrate principles of
socialism. In the commentary of Lee Edwards (2019), he talks about three nations that adopted a
socialist way of thinking as an economic model after World War II— Israel, India, and the
United Kingdom (UK). Israel experienced an economic annual growth rate of more than 10
percent. In spite of this increase, it had a major recession in 1967 ensuing skyrocketing
unemployment rate, inflation, and debt. As for India, the government restricted domestically
made products from being imported and regulated economic inequality through taxes with the
highest personal income tax rate being approximately 98 percent. Accompanied with other
external factors such as the wars with Pakistan and an oil crisis, it reached a point wherein
majority of the population was living below the poverty line. Lastly, in the case of the UK, then
trade unions demanded an “increase in the size of the public sector and public expenditures to
59% of the GDP.” As their government could not fulfill this, the strikes continued to incapacitate
the country’s transportation and production. Consequently, all three nations abandoned their
socialist ways and transitioned to reforms revolving around capitalism and the free market.
Furthermore, in 2018, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) in the United States of
America found that the one crucial defect of the socialist system is that it ignores incentives,
reducing the quantity and quality of a country’s output. It is apparent in the historical evidence
that the opportunity costs were worse living conditions and hindrance to the economy from
determining consumer needs and wants. This begs the question “Do socialists recommend
reducing [the] living standards for poor and middle-income families if it serves the purpose of
making the top 1 percent… worse off too?”

Is the promotion of equality desirable in any society?

Equality is normative; it claims some special respect that all humans are to be treated in
the same way. In Plato’s Republic, a society is just when the division of labor is based on the
capabilities of an individual. For Aristotle, equality meant the “same treatment of similar
persons”, meaning people of the same status are to be treated alike (Capaldi, 2002). With these in
mind, I find that the promotion of equality is desirable in all societies because this would
gradually extirpate discrimination and prejudice. There would be no exploitation of the
capitalists towards the working class, and an effort to redistribute resources without any caveats.
Everyone would ideally enjoy proper living conditions and just treatment. After all, who would
not want the same chance to get ahead as the next person?

Does socialism provide for just social arrangements?

Unfortunately, there are social problems that are entrenched in the system. Take for
example the case of the most disadvantaged and discriminated against say, for instance, African
Americans. Due to ethnic differences, it has been proven that they have poorer economic
conditions as compared to whites; without drastic systemic changes, many forms of inequality
will continue to persist (H. Magdoff & F. Magdoff, 2005). Socialism may ostensibly advocate
justice for the poor but it fails to address issues similar to the said situation.

As an adage puts it, “Live simply so that others may simply live”. Just like any other
economic theory, socialism has its advantages and drawbacks. Given the benefit of hindsight, it
was revealed that it just simply never works in the long run; it ignores the power of incentives
and destroys the human spirit. While it may promote equality amongst the classes in its own
way, it does not give answers for greater social narratives like socioeconomic structures. Each
system has its faults and shortcomings as it tries to achieve its objectives. Does this make one
superior over the other? Only time can tell but we can only hope that it does not come at the
expense of the poor and the exploited. (Though, I wish it does on the friend who imposes a fine
on everything during a camping trip.)

References
Capaldi, N. (2002). The meaning of equality. In T. Machan (Ed.) Stanford, CA: Hoover
Institution Press.

Cohen, G. (2009) Why Not Socialism?. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Edwards, L. (2019, October 16). Three Nations That Tried Socialism and Rejected It. The
Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from
https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/ commentary/three-nations-
tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

Magdoff, H., & Magdoff, F. (2005). Approaching Socialism. Monthly Review, 57(3). doi: https://
doi.org/10.14452/MR-057-03-2005-07_2

Nell, E., & O'Neill, O. (1972). Justice Under Socialism. In Justice Under Socialism (Vol. 18).
Dissent Publishing Corporation.

The Council of Economic Advisers. (2018). The Opportunity Costs of Socialism. The Executive
Office of the President of the United States.