Against “Moral Communism”
Back in the 1920s, lots of smart, well-meaning people were communists. Communism sounded like a good idea. Everyone could see that many people were dirt poor, while others were incredibly rich and lived in opulent mansions. Why not just abolish private property, and confiscate all the wealth of the capitalists, for the greater good? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Of course, it didn’t work out well. The Black Book of Communism covers the extreme abuses of leaders like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, but even milder forms of communism have not been successful. Eg. Britain, which remained free and democratic but created a 98% top tax bracket, wrecked their economy and had to be bailed out by the IMF ( 1976 IMF Crisis , Winter of Discontent ). Post-colonial India was kept poor for decades under the License Raj . The Nordic countries, famous for their generous social policies and high taxes, had to reform in the 80s and 90s for economic reasons, and so on. Most people nowadays agree that, while some redistribution is good, abolishing private property and confiscating all wealth is bad for everyone. This was formalized by the Laffer curve , which notes that government revenues first go up with higher taxes, but that extremely high rates like 98% are counterproductive. No developed country now has a capital gains tax over 42%.
Although most effective altruists aren’t communists, EAs often seem to believe in a form of “moral communism” — that there is no moral right to private property, and that a perfectly good person would donate everything, beyond a basic standard of living. For example, the late philosopher Derek Parfit articulated this view: “One thing that greatly matters is the failure of we rich people to prevent, as we so easily could, much of the suffering and many of the early deaths of the poorest people in the world. The money that we spend on an evening’s entertainment might instead save some poor person from death, blindness, or chronic and severe pain. If we believe that, in our treatment of these poorest people, we are not acting wrongly, we are like those who believed that they were justified in having slaves. Some of us ask how much of our wealth we rich people ought to give to these poorest people. But that question wrongly assumes that our wealth is ours to give. This wealth is legally ours. But these poorest people have much stronger moral claims to some of this wealth.”
To my knowledge, the statement here is factually wrong — there is no way to donate (say) $40 such that, in the short term, it’s reasonably likely to save someone from death or severe disability. But leaving that aside, I think moral rules against private property are harmful for the same reason legal ones are — the accumulation and investment of capital is necessary for high productivity. Such rules are rare in the West, but there are plenty of cultures where, if someone is successful, there are strong social obligations to give all the surplus back to family members, friends in need, and so on. These rules then keep the whole country poor. For example, Kiribati has a system called “bubuti” : “Kiribati society has strong egalitarian values therefore affluence was discouraged. Equality was maintained through ostracism, shaming and sharing surplus wealth. While much sharing was voluntary the ‘bubuti’ system was key in maintaining equality as it forced those with a surplus to share it with extended family members in need. The extended family members in need could make a ‘non-refusable request’ to another family member who had to comply. Non-compliant family members would be shamed and ostracised as they were said to lack compassion.
Bubuti can act as a tax on working people and reduce their willingness to invest in business and has damaged economic growth. I-Kiribati entering into business are often subjected to the demands of bubuti from extended family members and this has led to many businesses failing. A common strategy was for families to place a non-Kiribati family member as owner or manager of the business to prevent bubuti. (…)
Kiribati is a beautiful and wondrous place with a unique culture. However, most of the population are unemployed and do not have safe drinking water, sanitation or electricity. Physical assets are lacking or are in complete disarray. Kiribati’s severe difficulties cannot all be laid at the door of climate change. Overcrowding, unemployment, dwindling fresh water, ramshackle roads, poor quality houses and disease negatively impact Kiribati. The impact of climate change might be the tipping point which in combination with these already severe problems may devastate Kiribati.”
Some might say that, since most people donate too little, it’s silly to worry about donating too much. However, to solve complex problems, it’s important to maintain good epistemology — we don’t want to wind up like 1970s environmentalists, who blocked most nuclear power plants, and wound up causing a resurgence in dirty, high-carbon coal power. It’s important to make arguments that are right, not just ones that sound convincing, or ones that support whichever side happens to be marginally more right at the moment ( Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided ).