I have many friends who look at the world through that typical social democrat prism. I was wondering what book/books/articles you people think would be the best starting place for my friends. I think that the Ethics of Liberty may be a little radical for the uninitiated. It also has the drawback of lacking an historical account of how free exchange has been good for humankind while statism has been bad (as a person’s perception of history heavily influences their worldview).
It all depends on why the person is a socialist. If it’s an issue of economics (e.g., concern for the poor, inefficiency of the market, anything like that) then anything showing capitalism’s ability to produce goods better than socialist systems and actually increase everyone’s wealth would be good (for those willing to be a bit more intellectual, Mises’ classic work on the calculation problem of socialism Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth would be excellent). If it’s a moral issue, you’ll need something different, perhaps The Ethics of Liberty or Road to Serfdom, to convince them that capitalism is the more desirable system from a moral standpoint.
Thanks people. Those are all excellent suggestions.
Unfortunately I think that a lot of those books would be a little too scholarly for many of my friends. I think that the ideal book for these types would be an historical account of how capitalism/free exchange/freedom has benefitted society as many of their preconceptions are based on their understandings of history. In other words, a book that attempts to rebut the commonly taught myths (i.e. the industrial revolution) - something along the lines of Woods but less focused on American history (Canadian here).
Bob Murphy’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism is probably the book you’re looking for. It’s definitely the best nonacademic book of capitalist apologetics (particularly with regard to refuting socialist mythology) that I’m aware of. It’s not strictly historical but does give some specific examples from history where the market is frequently scapegoated to illustrate his theses.
I think Kevin Carson’s “Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly Capital: A Mutualist Synthesis” would be great suggested reading for a Socialist (I’m currently reading it myself; I also think Carson would be an interesting start for a Socialist to look into viewpoints beyond their own choir, so to speak).
Link (to .pdf of A Mutalist Synthesis mentioned above)
It probably won’t convert them, but I think it also has appeal (aside from merit of the paper itself) to a Socialist since it’s done by someone on the “sideline”, as it were, rather than someone who is arguing “either or” concerning Marxism & Austrian theories.
I’d say you’d have an easier time if you slip in the line “Even if you are a socialist, it would be great to know other arguments & viewpoints to help clarify your own.” Doubly easier if the said Sociaist already does reading beyond wikipedia entries, methinks.
Bearing in mind that many of your friends will be rather religious in their belief in socialism, may I suggest Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose”. I know that Chicago is a long way from Vienna, but Friedman’s book is aimed at persuading socialists of the value of the free market: it is easy to read and not too threatening.
the name Friedman will scare off anyone automatically. that’s a sad fact, but it’s true. his name is associated with the privatization schemes that many socialists - and sometimes rightfully so - detest.
Canadian here too. I would like to suggest Walter Block’s “Defending the Undefendable”. It is written in a very casual, non-technical, barely-philosophical manner. It’s EXCELLENT as a softener, if not a converter.
Everyday, I am finding that first getting people to agree that government are a bunch of screwups and thieves, allows me to go a little deeper later and explain concepts like the consent of the goverened, or the right to own property.
Personally, I have found Western socialists to be enormous hypocrites. They want to punish someone else for doing better than them, but they definitely do not want their own property rights violated, or upward mobility compromised.
So appealing directly to their self-interest is always a good one. Socialists want more, Conservatives want to lose less (in my opinion).
You have a much better chance of converting a socialist than a conservative in my opinion. Socialists view government as a means to better the welfare of the people, to convert a socialist all you need to do is prove that government is the source of most inequality and is unable and unwilling to get rid of it.
Conservatives on the other hand, merely view government as an authority without which we’d end up in a state like Hobbes described.
I don’t think you’re right on conservatives, but it’s really not that important. It’s not a competition, although if it was, most of the people who were old enough to vote, be a party member and have an ideology, who have “switched teams” from my observations here in the Mises Forum, are/were conservatives.
The so-called socialists or left conversions seem to come from the really young, in quite a few cases, people who have never lived alone, or held a full-time job, let alone participated in statist politics. Which is great. They are idealists, and the older more conservative folks may be more pragmatists. There is room for everyone if they can agree on the NAP.
How about H.G. Weaver’s The Mainspring of Human Progress. You can read it in a few hours, and it’s very moving, with a good historical account of the american ideal of liberty, freedom, capitalism.
the important thing is to not “hide facts” and make peripheral arguments. in other words dont try to sell an idea and not tell about its “dark secrets” even if the person is willing to buy.