In Reply to Ben Burgis: Capitalism, Socialism, and Marx

“…one can go into business with the long-term goal of instituting a worker co-op. But the first and most fundamental aim is to supply the market with something consumers want, in as profitable a way as possible.”

Over the past nine months, philosophy professor Ben Burgis and I have been having a conversation about whether society is better off under “capitalism” or “socialism.” It began with a debate at Common Lodge over the following proposition:

Given the current mix of our economy (where some industries have greater government involvement than others), future generations would likely be better served if we trended toward an overall more capitalist economy, rather than an overall more socialist economy.

We followed that up with an amicable exchange of letters about the pros and cons of worker co-operatives. In a subsequent article, Burgis argued that human nature and socialism are compatible. In that article, Burgis drew upon an exchange of letters between me and Merion West contributor Matt McManus, in which McManus says I attributed a “human nature is actually good” sort of view to the Left. Seeking to clarify, I wrote an article arguing that the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are less important than human flourishing. Burgis followed up with an article taking me to task for “several mistakes” I supposedly made while “attempting to redirect the discussion” about whether human nature is compatible with socialism “away from a consideration of human nature and toward the notion of human flourishing.” In this article, I respond to these most recent objections.