Sunkara Backs Mises and Firm Failure in Market Socialist Blueprint

桑卡拉在市场社会主义蓝图中支持米塞斯观点与企业破产机制 中央计划与传统社会民主主义最终走向衰退，因为计划制定者无法预判动态的消费者需求，而私人资本则可能保留投资；因此需要由公共银行资助的工人所有制企业，在不依赖雇佣劳动的情况下维持市场纪律。 巴斯卡尔·桑卡拉勾勒了市场社会主义的制度框架，主张社会主义体系必须保留市场、价格信号和消费者选择，而非依赖中央计划。在他的模式中，资本配置由公共银行管理，私人雇佣劳动被分配股权红利的工人员工自治合作社取代，而住房和教育等基础领域则通过受新加坡启发的模式及普遍供应实现非商品化。桑卡拉还直面了微观经济层面的硬约束，主张通过允许企业破产来避免软预算约束问题，在社会主义计算大论战中倒向哈耶克主义视角，并讨论了反社会行为及学校作息安排等公民秩序问题。 巴斯卡尔·桑卡拉在其合著的新书《蓝图》（The Blueprint）中概述了“市场社会主义”构想，认为市场、消费者选择和创业精神是客观有益的，应予以保留，同时应废除私人雇佣劳动。 (5:00) 在该框架下，新企业由公共银行通过风险调整后的商业贷款提供资金，并作为劳工自治的合作社运营，由工人分享剩余红利。 (15:40) 该模式接受企业破产机制以避免雅诺什·科尔奈所指的“软预算约束”，同时参考澳大利亚劳资裁决制度和瑞典集中谈判模式，强制推行基准工资底线。 (20:00) 借鉴新加坡的住房制度，桑卡拉主张土地和住房的普遍公有制，结合租金市场和国家主导的建设，以保护租户免受流离失所之苦。 (23:07) 在社会主义计算大论战中，桑卡拉明确站在路德维希·冯·米塞斯和弗里德里希·哈耶克一边，反对中央计划制定者，并认为人工智能无法取代动态的价格发现和人类激励结构。 (52:45)

Bhaskar Sunkara argues in *The Blueprint* that a sustainable socialist economy must preserve market mechanisms, price signals, and consumer choice while replacing exploitative wage labor with worker-managed enterprises financed by public banks. The Three Pillars of Market Socialism (10:00) Sunkara defines market socialism around three institutional spheres: a consumer goods and services sector managed by worker-owned cooperatives, an expansive non-market public sector for baseline welfare, and a network of public banks allocating social capital. Rather than relying on central planners to ration identical baskets of goods, the model retains dynamic markets to preserve consumer choice. Sunkara argues that traditional socialist grievances with markets stem not from exchange itself, but from skewed income distributions that redirect production toward luxury goods and from workplace exploitation. Enterprise Creation and Hard Budget Constraints (15:40) Under Sunkara's framework, prospective entrepreneurs submit business plans to public banks to secure loans at risk-adjusted interest rates, rather than raising private equity. Incoming employees join as full partners entitled to residual profit dividends alongside standardized benchmark wage floors, modeled on Swedish centralized bargaining and the Australian award system. These wage floors prevent a race to the bottom, compelling enterprises to generate productivity through better management and capital investment. To reward founders without restoring private capital ownership, founding agreements can permit bounded internal pay ratios (such as 4-to-1 or 6-to-1) and worker-approved managerial pay differentials. Crucially, Sunkara stresses that market socialism must enforce hard budget constraints by allowing inefficient firms to fail, avoiding the resource misallocation that economist János Kornai identified in Soviet-style economies that propped up non-viable enterprises to preserve full employment guarantees. The Structural Limits of Social Democracy (44:30) Sunkara contends that traditional Nordic-style social democracy cannot serve as a permanent end-state because it leaves private ownership of capital intact. In post-war Sweden, sustained full employment empowered workers to demand higher wages, squeezing business profits. Because capitalists retained the unilateral power to withhold investment—a dynamic Sunkara describes as a capital strike—the social democratic model proved politically fragile and eventually yielded to deregulation and austerity. By democratizing firm ownership and capital allocation, market socialism aims to overcome this impasse while altering worker attitudes toward productivity. Sunkara points out that under capitalism, employees rationally resist automation, artificial intelligence, and organizational efficiencies because cost-cutting leads to layoffs. When workers hold equity stakes and receive dividends, they directly benefit from labor-saving modernization without risking their livelihoods. Public Housing and Regulating Shared Spaces (23:07) On public infrastructure, Sunkara advocates adapting Singapore's housing framework: the state owns land and commissions worker-owned construction firms to build aggressively without municipal zoning vetoes, while maintaining a market for rents. Administrative smoothing protects incumbent tenants from abrupt demand spikes, and residents can freely make cosmetic changes, receiving public reimbursement for verified structural capital improvements like HVAC systems. Sunkara also departs from elements of the American progressive left by defending civic standards in public spaces. He argues that public transit, parks, and housing must be actively protected from crime and disorder to maintain universal buy-in, rejecting punitive mass incarceration while acknowledging that progressive, rehabilitative justice models require higher staffing ratios and substantial funding rather than generating immediate cost savings. While *The Blueprint* presents a stylized institutional model combining market efficiency with egalitarian ownership, podcast hosts Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway observe that the framework leaves open the political problem of transition. In a democratic system characterized by frequent election cycles, executing and sustaining a structural shift away from private capital without facing immediate political reversals remains a formidable hurdle.

《Jacobin》创刊编辑巴斯卡尔·桑卡拉（Bhaskar Sunkara）在其合著新书《蓝图》（The Blueprint）中主张，真正的社会主义无须依赖僵化的中央计划或取消消费选择，而应通过公共银行、劳工自主管理的合作社以及保留硬预算约束的市场机制来实现高效且平等的经济秩序。 三支柱框架：以市场化合作社取代雇佣劳动 (5:00) 桑卡拉指出，传统社会主义方案往往难以平息公众对物资短缺和排队配给的担忧，而现代市场社会主义则建立在资本主义已有的制度雏形之上。该方案由三大制度支柱构成：一是负责消费品和服务生产的劳工合作社；二是庞大的去商品化公共部门；三是负责资本配置的公共银行体系。桑卡拉主张保留商品市场和价格机制以满足多元的消费者偏好，认为市场本身是客观的社会工具，其历史弊端主要源于收入分配极端失衡导致生产向奢侈品倾斜，以及雇佣劳动内部固有的剥削属性。在微观层面，创业者可通过向公共银行申请风险定价商业贷款开设企业，但新企业自成立起即由全体工人共有。企业经理人由民主选举产生，内部实行封顶的收入差距比例（如4比1或6比1）。工人不仅领取基准底薪，还享有企业剩余利润的股息分配，从根本上消除了资本所有者对剩余价值的占有。 预算硬约束、退出机制与超越传统北欧模式 (20:00) 针对企业效率与创新激励问题，该模型采纳了类似澳大利亚行业裁决制或瑞典集中谈判的行业基准工资底线，防止企业通过压低劳工报酬展开“向下竞争”，倒逼管理层依靠提高生产率或资本投资取胜。同时，桑卡拉强调必须吸取经济学家亚诺什·科尔奈（János Kornai）对苏联式“软预算约束”的批评，允许缺乏效率的企业正常破产清算，以防资金与劳动力被僵尸企业锁死。当被问及为何不直接停留在传统北欧福利国家模式时，桑卡拉回顾了20世纪60至70年代瑞典的困境：在资本私有制下，充分就业赋予劳工议价权后会挤压资本利润，进而引发资本家的“资本罢工”（停止投资），最终导致社会民主主义妥协在滞胀与危机中破裂。通过公共银行分配投资与推行全员持股，不仅能消除资本外逃的政治要挟，还能促使工人主动拥抱人工智能和自动化，因为效率提升将直接转化为分红而非失业威胁。 公共住房与城市空间：借鉴新加坡并维护公共秩序 (23:07) 在生活保障与公共资产运营上，桑卡拉借鉴了新加坡模式来构想公共住房方案。该体系下土地与房屋归公共所有，但租赁权保留市场浮动机制，以兼顾居住保障与区位偏好。当局部租金因高需求飙升时，国家在行政平抑租金涨幅的同时，直接委托工人拥有的建筑企业大规模破土营建，绕开传统地方规划与邻避效应的阻碍。针对房屋装修改造，日常美化由住户自行承担，而结构性资本改良（如中央供暖或锅炉更新）经行政审批后可获得合理报销。在公共秩序与安全方面，桑卡拉反对部分左翼废除警察的主张，坚持认为公共交通和公园等共享空间必须受到严格维护。他认为真正的进步司法模式需要更长周期的专业警务与惩教培训，其成本远高于廉价的大规模监禁，且国家应果断干预街头反社会行为，将其作为引导个体接受戒断或福利支持的法定通道。 技术局限、计算争论与教育问责 (37:25) 在社会主义经济理论的核心分野上，桑卡拉明确站在路德维希·冯·米塞斯与弗里德里希·哈耶克一边，坚决反对某些左翼寄望于人工智能完全取代市场的观点。他指出，人类需求是动态且持续变化的，不存在用于计划经济的静态数据集，单靠算力根本无法解决中央计划的激励失调与分散信息汇总难题。转向公共教育与社会政策时，桑卡拉认为诸如纽约市等地区的学校表现差异并非源于校舍拨款不足（薄弱学校的生均预算往往更高），而是受制于住房动荡、失业和社区暴力等上游社会危机。他直言当前的终身教职往往被作为教师薪酬偏低的替代补偿，主张在全民充分就业与高额基础报酬的前提下，引入严格的绩效考评乃至淘汰机制；同时批评过多且分散的节假日影响了教学连续性与整体经济产出，主张推行朝九晚五的严格教学日程并削减不必要的全区性停课假期。 播客主持人在节目总结中指出，尽管桑卡拉勾勒的市场社会主义在微观激励、消费选择和公共秩序上提出了一种逻辑自洽的设计，但该方案未正面阐明在两年一次选举周期的美国民主体制下，如何克服政党轮替与资本阻力以启动并长期维持如此剧烈的制度转型。

## Background 本期节目由彭博社（Bloomberg）旗下的播客频道《Odd Lots》于2026年10月22日发布。节目页面介绍指出，随着左翼政治声浪在全美升温以及盖洛普民调显示社会主义好感度创下新高，作为长期活跃于美国民主社会主义者（DSA）阵营的媒体人巴斯卡尔·桑卡拉（Bhaskar Sunkara）做客节目，结合其合著新书《蓝图》（The Blueprint），深入阐述了“市场社会主义”如何将市场机制、创业精神与社会主义原则相结合的可行构想。 ## TL;DR 桑卡拉在对话中提出，社会主义不应全盘否定市场，而应将市场视为配置消费品、保障选择自由的客观工具。他勾勒了一套以公共银行为信贷依托、由劳动者民主自治的企业（合作社）参与市场竞争的混合制度框架，主张彻底废除传统雇佣劳动并推行全员分红与硬预算约束。此外，对话还深入探讨了公共住房、教育改革、治安治理以及反对依赖AI搞指令计划的理论立场，全景式呈现了市场社会主义在微观经营与宏观调控层面的制度设计。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对谈兼具思想交锋的严肃深度与美式播客特有的风趣幽默，主持人与嘉宾在轻松自嘲（如调侃左翼派系分裂与学校假期）的同时，展开了极具智识密度的制度辩论。桑卡拉的表述务实、坦率且反教条，既承认资本家的管理与风险价值，又敢于直面奥地利学派关于经济计算的尖锐拷问。听感上犹如一场高水平的现实主义政治经济学研讨会，在严谨拆解政策细节的同时，始终洋溢着兼顾自由与平等的思辨活力。 ## Bulletin - `10:00` 《雅各宾》创始人 Bhaskar Sunkara 提出“市场社会主义”框架，主张市场与企业家精神是社会层面的客观善，应在废除传统雇佣劳动的同时保留消费品市场和价格机制。 - `20:00` 该体系在微观上依赖劳工自主管理的工人合作社，创业资金由公共银行依风险评估发放，并配合行业基准工资与硬预算约束，允许经营不善的企业破产退出。 - `52:30` 针对技术乌托邦论调，Sunkara 明确反驳 AI 能彻底解决“社会主义计算问题”，强调人类动态偏好和劳动激励机制无法被静态算法取代，市场价格信号依然不可或缺。 - `22:15` Sunkara 主张借鉴新加坡的公共住房模式，由国家垄断土地与建设，但租金保留市场浮动，以此替代资本主义房产投机并保障居住安全感。 ## Key takeaways - `00:00` 佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）当选纽约市长等政治事件表明，民主社会主义与 DSA 正在全美政治及民主党内部引发深刻的路线博弈。 - `05:28` 当代左翼知识界必须抛弃苏联式指令计划与排队买面包的短缺模型，从技术与制度设计层面论证社会主义在富裕社会中的经济可行性。 - `07:18` 市场社会主义并非空想乌托邦，而是取材于现代资本主义已有的福利国家、宏观调控与中央银行工具，并融合蒙德拉贡（Mondragon）等成熟的工人合作社经验。 - `10:00` 市场机制能有效保障消费者的多元选择自由，避免官僚配给制，社会主义改革的核心应是消除生产过程中的雇佣剥削而非消灭消费市场。 - `15:00` 在市场社会主义下，私人风投被公共银行信贷取代，所有员工入职即为法律合伙人，享有基准工资加剩余利润分红，彻底废除传统的雇佣劳动关系。 - `20:00` 引入强制性行业基准工资可倒逼企业走高技术与高管理效率的“高端路线”，杜绝依赖廉价劳工的恶性压榨。 - `20:00` 打破传统计划经济的“软预算约束”，允许低效合作社破产倒闭，是维持市场竞争与资源动态优化配置的关键制度设计。 - `22:15` 公共住房体系应由国家统一委托兴建并持有产权，但允许差异化地段的市场化租金定价，以兼顾住房保障与资源配置效率。 - `25:00` 公共产品和公共住房的吸引力必须依靠严格的公共秩序治理来维护，左翼不能放任反社会行为与露宿营地破坏社区体统。 - `38:00` 大城市薄弱公立学校的症结往往不是经费短缺，而是校墙之外贫困、失业和治安恶化等系统性社会危机的投射。 - `40:00` 为提高公共教育质量，可重塑公立教师的职业契约，转向提供极具市场竞争力的高薪但引入每年约 10% 的末位淘汰机制。 - `45:00` 单纯依赖税收与福利的北欧式社会民主主义存在内在极限，资本家掌握的“资本罢工”权力最终会迫使政府向资方妥协并削减福利。 - `45:00` 工人所有制与剩余收益分享能消除劳动者对自动化的生计恐惧，促使员工主动协同引入 AI 等新技术以提高生产力。 - `50:00` 国家不能随意指派个人劳动，但有权通过设置摩擦阻力（如限制博彩广告、提高烟草税）来引导行为并限制负外部性。 - `52:30` 在奥地利学派提出的“社会主义计算争论”中，AI 无法解决劳动激励与人类主观偏好的动态变化，无法在根本上取代市场价格信号。 - `56:10` 市场社会主义蓝图在现实中最严峻的考验是过渡路径，即在短周期、频繁轮替的民主选举体制下如何维持漫长经济转型的一致性。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### `00:00` 播客效应与左翼政治声浪的升温 在节目的开场闲聊中，主持人 Joe Weisenthal 与 Tracy Allaway 谈起了一个有趣的社交媒体现象。Joe 问 Tracy 是否经常在推特上收到愤怒网民的私信，抱怨纽约市长佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）的政治崛起完全是《Odd Lots》节目的“责任”。在 Mamdani 竞选纽约市长初期，其民调支持率仅徘徊在 5% 左右，然而在受邀做客《Odd Lots》节目后的一两周内，他的竞选声势迅速抬头并最终赢得了选举。这导致不少反对者经常迁怒于节目组，指责他们为这位民主社会主义者提供了发声平台。 两位主持人指出，这种微观争议背后折射出的是全美政治风向的深刻转变。无论是在纽约本地、全美各地的党内初选中，还是在大众舆论的想象中，社会主义的势头都在明显上升。围绕民主党未来走向的博弈愈演愈烈，焦点之一正是美国民主社会主义者（DSA）及其所代表的社会主义路线是否会主导未来的民主党。 - 在佐兰·马姆达尼选情初期，其民调支持率仅约 5%，登上《Odd Lots》后竞选势头出现显著拐点并最终成功当选纽约市长。 - 全美范围内围绕民主党未来建制的路线之争持续发酵，DSA 成为当下美国政坛讨论的核心政治高频词。 --- ### `03:45` 左翼的“派系裂变”传统与争议性的市场社会主义 尽管“社会主义”和“DSA”在大众媒体中被频繁提及，但外人往往忽视了其内部纷繁复杂的派系分野。Joe Weisenthal 分享了一段自己在 2012 年希腊大选期间的亲身见闻：当时希腊激进左翼联盟（Syriza）设立了一个主竞选帐篷，旁边立着希腊共产党的帐篷，而就在马路正对面，居然还有另外两个同样将锤子与镰刀印在党徽上的共产党帐篷。双方怒目相对、互不相让，当被问及为何不能合为一体时，对方理直气壮地回答因为彼此有着根本的路线分歧。Joe 借此调侃道，为了极细微的理论差异而陷入无休止的分裂，向来是左翼政治文化的经典特征。 今天节目探讨的正是一种在传统社会主义阵营内部引发广泛争议的特殊流派——“市场社会主义”（Market Socialism）。为了深入剖析这一概念，节目邀请到了长期活跃在社会主义运动前沿的核心人物 Bhaskar Sunkara。他是《雅各宾》（Jacobin）杂志的创始人兼创刊编辑，现任《国家》（The Nation）杂志社长，同时也是 DSA 的资深成员。他与 Ben Burgis、Mike Beggs 共同撰写了新书《蓝图：社会主义如何在现实世界中运作》（The Blueprint: How Socialism Can Work in the Real World），试图用具体的经济框架为社会主义勾勒一份可行的现实路线图。 Joe Weisenthal 敏锐地指出左翼内部的分歧常常凌驾于外部斗争之上，他调侃道：“说到社会主义有不同的流派，这完全是左翼的经典现象——它拥有这种因为微小分歧就将自身分裂瓦解的非凡能力。” --- ### `05:28` 从少年迷思到《蓝图》：社会主义在技术上是否可行？ 当被问及《蓝图》一书究竟是面向寻求施政灵感的民主党建制派，还是写给左翼同仁探讨路线时，Bhaskar Sunkara 表示，这本书的目标读者是所有对现状不满的“平等主义者”（egalitarians）。他深情回顾了自己的思想成长历程：他在 14 岁左右开始接触社会主义学说，许多同龄人在这个年纪浅尝辄止，但他却执着地将这一信念延续了下去，并在 17 岁正式加入 DSA。然而，他在少年时期就曾被一个最根本的现实问题困扰：“这难道不会导致所有人排队买面包吗？” 当时老一辈社会主义者给出的经典辩解往往是：“难道排队买面包不比根本没有面包吃强吗？”Sunkara 直言，这种回答如果放在 20 世纪 30 年代饥寒交迫的旧中国或许有说服力，但在人类历史上物质最丰裕的现代富裕社会中，根本无法令人信服。真正打消他疑虑并让他坚持信念的，正是后来接触到的“市场社会主义”模型。Sunkara 强调，20 世纪 30 年代西方左翼能够蓬勃发展，是因为苏联的工业化建设提供了现实参照物（尽管我们如今深知当时的苏联经济弊端丛生且充斥着极权威权）；60 和 70 年代欧美校园里的左翼青年能够指向古巴，甚至奔赴古巴加入“温塞雷莫斯旅”（Venceremos Brigade）。而当下的左翼知识界亟需回答一个冷酷的技术性命题：在彻底抛弃苏联式指令计划的情况下，社会主义在经济运行上究竟是否可行？ Bhaskar Sunkara 坚定地表达了自己的立场：“所以我认为，你必须是一个平等主义者才能在思考上与我同行这么远；但如果你确实是，我认为你应该有信心：除了资本主义之外，确实存在另一种可行的模式。” - Sunkara 于 14 岁接触社会主义理论，17 岁加入美国民主社会主义者（DSA），少年时期的核心困惑是计划体制下的物资短缺与排队现象。 - 历史上的左翼运动往往依托于具体的现实参照物（30 年代的苏联、60 至 70 年代的古巴），而当代的任务则是从理论与机制设计层面论证替代方案的经济可行性。 --- ### `07:18` 市场社会主义的现实基石：劳工自主管理与混合形态 在解释市场社会主义的核心定义及其与传统社会主义的差异时，Sunkara 指出，这套构想并非凭空捏造乌托邦，而是直接取材于现代资本主义体系中已经成熟运转的制度组件，并将其重构成一个自洽的整体。现代资本主义早已脱离了 19 世纪自由放任的蛮荒形态。正如评论家 Ezra Klein 曾调侃的那样，当代美国本质上是“一个拥有军队的保险公司”（这句话戏仿了 80 年代西方对苏联“拥有军队的加油站”的著名嘲讽）。现代经济体中普遍存在庞大的福利国家、中央银行的需求管理工具以及深度的国家宏观调控，这些都证明去中心化与国家干预能够共存。 市场社会主义的关键突破在于对企业微观所有制的改造——引入“劳工自主管理企业”（Labor-Managed Firms，即工人合作社或工人自治企业）。Sunkara 分析道，在现有资本主义金融体系下，工人自主创办企业面临极高壁垒，因为工人不仅要投入劳动力，往往还被迫押上全部个人储蓄，相当于“把所有鸡蛋放在同一个篮子里”，承担了过高的风险。然而大量的现实经验表明，一旦这类企业跨过初创门槛，其运营表现和韧性非常惊人。从传统合伙人制企业（例如早期的投资银行高盛），到西班牙著名的工人和消费合作社巨头蒙德拉贡（Mondragon，曾一度发展为西班牙第五或第六大企业集团），都证明由劳动者民主管理、在市场中参与竞争的企业形态在现实中完全行得通。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 市场社会主义的制度基石 accDescr: 展示市场社会主义如何将宏观国家调控与微观劳工自主管理企业相结合以构建新的经济体系 subgraph MacroLevel["宏观制度依托（吸纳成熟机制）"] Welfare["广泛的福利国家保障"] DemandMgmt["宏观需求管理工具与国家调控"] end subgraph MicroLevel["微观企业结构（劳工自主管理）"] WorkerControl["劳动者民主管理与决策"] MarketComp["面向市场竞争与价格信号"] EmpiricalCases["现实范例：高盛早期合伙制 / 蒙德拉贡联合公司"] end MacroLevel --> Framework["市场社会主义运行框架"] MicroLevel --> Framework WorkerControl --> EmpiricalCases MarketComp --> EmpiricalCases ``` - 现代资本主义国家已内生了庞大的公用事业、社保体系与货币/财政需求管理机制，国家在经济中扮演着决定性角色。 - 劳工自主管理企业在资本主义制度下面临资本不足、工人承担双重风险（劳动力与积蓄被深度绑定）的制度劣势，但这并不妨碍其组织形式的内在可行性。 - 西班牙蒙德拉贡（Mondragon）联合公司等超大型合作社证明，非资本控制的大型工业与服务业联合体完全有能力在激烈市场中保持竞争力。 ### `10:00` 市场机制与社会主义的兼容性：消费者选择与劳动剥削 讨论从西班牙的蒙德拉贡（Mondragón）合作社等实际案例切入。Bhaskar Sunkara 指出，公众已知劳动者持股的合作社模式行之有效，庞大的公共部门与公共银行也在现实中运转良好；真正的挑战在于如何将这三者有机结合——既能设立一个由合作社主导、用于生产日常消费品和服务的商品生产领域，又保留扩张性的公共部门与公共金融体系。这种体制在追求比资本主义更加平等的同时，在效率上至少能“合理地接近”，甚至更有优势。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 市场社会主义三元结构示意图 accDescr: 展示公共银行、合作社企业以及公共部门如何协同提供消费品与服务并保障平等。 subgraph 金融与宏观层 PB["公共银行体系 (Public Banks)"] PS["广阔的公共部门 (Public Sector)"] end subgraph 生产与微观层 Coop["劳动者所有制合作社 (Cooperatives)"] Market["消费品与服务市场 (Commodity Production)"] end PB -->|"提供信贷与资本配置"| Coop Coop -->|"生产商品与服务"| Market PS -->|"提供基础保障与外部托底"| Market ``` 主持人提到《蓝图》（The Blueprint）一书中极为强调消费者选择的价值，社会主义绝不意味着中央计划委员会强行给每个人配发固定份额的羽衣甘蓝、布朗博士肥皂（Dr. Bronner’s soap）或杏仁酱。对此，Sunkara 幽默地回应称，自己平时根本不喝咖啡，如果社会主义社会要求三位主持人必须分到等额的咖啡配额，那显然是荒谬的。他坦言自己比合著者更加直白大胆： > “市场很棒。我认为它们是一种客观层面的善。”——Bhaskar Sunkara Sunkara 解释道，传统社会主义者对市场的批判主要集中在两个层面： 1. **收入分配不平等导致的资源扭曲**：当消费者“用美元投票”时，富人拥有远超普通人的选票，导致经济资源被严重倾斜至奢侈品生产。尽管奢侈品消费存在微弱的滴漏效应，但其社会效用远低于围绕中位数人群需求构建的经济。 2. **生产过程中的规范性剥削（Normative Exploitation）**：在雇佣劳动下，从银行的初级分析师（Junior Analysts）、律所的律师助理（Paralegals），到工厂流水线工人，都在遭受剥削；哪怕是熬出头的律所合伙人，也是在经历了极端的异化与剥削后才换取地位。 在 Sunkara 的设想中，如果企业管理层由选举产生，员工不仅领取基础报酬，还能分享剩余利润分红，剥削关系便不复存在。至于更深层的哲学性“生产异化”，他认为在任何拥有高度复杂分工的现代社会中都不可避免；即使未来社会的更左翼派别主张通过强制轮岗来消解异化，这在现实操作中也需要权衡。 - **市场配置的优势**：避免配给制对个体消费偏好的抹杀，保障消费品领域的选择自由。 - **民主化治理消解剥削**：通过民主选举管理者、基准薪资加利润分红（Residual Profits）的组合，终结劳动力被单向榨取的雇佣关系。 --- ### `15:00` 开一家餐厅：市场社会主义下的创业、融资与合伙制 为了将抽象的理论具象化，主持人提出了一个微观商业设想：如果有人想在市场社会主义制度下开一家新餐厅，资金从何而来？员工如何招募？利润又该如何分配？创业者承担了风险，是否还能保留利润？ Sunkara 首先为资本家在现实中的合理功能正名。他认为，虽然老派社会主义语境喜欢将资本家斥为“寄生虫”，但不可否认的是，资本家确实贡献了**创业风险（Entrepreneurial Risk）**和**管理劳动（Managerial Labor）**。而在《蓝图》构建的市场社会主义模型中，核心颠覆在于：**彻底废除传统的雇佣劳动（Wage Labor）**。该书借鉴罗尔斯主义自由主义（Rawlsian Liberalism）来阐明传统雇佣关系在规范伦理上的剥削本质。 在这种制度下，创办一家餐厅的具体流程如下： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 市场社会主义下创办企业流程 accDescr: 从公共银行申请贷款到制定初始合伙协议并实现全员分红的完整流程。 A["创业者撰写商业计划书"] --> B["向公共银行申请贷款 (依据风险定息)"] B --> C["共同签署初始经营协议 (Operating Agreement)"] C --> D["全员合伙人制 (基准薪资 + 剩余收益分红)"] ``` 1. **公共信贷申请**：创业者不能依靠家族继承或私人风投，而是必须向公共银行申请贷款。如同今日的商业银行，公共银行会根据商业计划书评估风险。由于餐饮业失败率高，其贷款利率自然会显著高于已有盈利记录的成熟企业扩张贷款。 2. **签署初始经营协议（Operating Agreement）**：创业者招募志同道合的初始团队。大家共同确立第一份经营协议，承认发起人的管理岗位，并允许合理的薪资级差（例如 4:1 或 6:1 的收入上限差距）。 3. **全员合伙人地位**：加入企业的所有员工从第一天起就是法律意义上的合伙人。他们并非单纯拿死工资，而是实行“基准工资（Benchmark Wage）加剩余收益分红（Residuals）”的双轨制，从机制上杜绝劳动力与资本占有者的分离。 为了说明创业初期自我剥削与资本积累的现实张力，Sunkara 举了一个关于第一位在由新泽西购买汽车旅馆的印度裔美国人的著名行业故事。当时那家旅馆利润率极低（仅约 1% 到 2%），几乎濒临倒闭。这位买家辞退了大部分雇员，自己与妻子、孩子每天超负荷工作 60 到 80 个小时，靠着全家极高强度的家庭内部劳动投入，最终奇迹般扭亏为盈。Sunkara 指出，如何让市场社会主义既容纳这种个人奋斗与风险承担的能动性，又不退化回传统雇佣剥削，正是其制度设计的关键所在。 > “在《蓝图》一书中，我们勾勒出了一种构想……其中完全不存在雇佣劳动。我们在规范层面上阐释了为什么我们认为这是一种剥削关系。”——Bhaskar Sunkara - **融资机制转型**：以公共银行替代私人金融寡头，依据公开透明的风险定价机制发放商业贷款。 - **风险与回报再平衡**：管理层和发起人可以凭借其技能与管理投入享有合理的薪酬倍率差距，但所有劳动者共同享有企业的股权与利润分红权。 ### `20:00` 基准工资、硬预算约束与企业倒闭的必要性 Bhaskar Sunkara 以美国酒店与汽车旅馆行业中印裔美国人（特别是古吉拉特人，Gujaratis）的商业网络为例，阐述了家族内部通过自我剥削积累资本的模式：一位创业者赚到足够利润后买下下一家店，再把侄子接过来按照同样的方式拼命工作。他坦言自己在社会主义社会也会这么做，因为他热爱劳动和创业，且家族庞大。但他提出质疑：“我们真的希望任何一个社会——更不用说一个社会主义社会——以这种方式构建吗？” 为了防止恶性竞争和过度剥削，Sunkara 设想的社会主义体系引入了“基准工资”（Benchmark Wages），类似于各行业的最低工资标准。这种设计借鉴了澳大利亚历史上著名的“仲裁裁决系统”（Award System）以及北欧国家（如瑞典）的集中谈判机制。例如，后厨帮厨的最低时薪被强制设定为 15 美元。这一硬性门槛逼迫企业放弃依赖廉价劳动力的低端路线，转而走“高端路线”（High Road）：通过提升管理水平、提高生产效率、改进产品质量，或者投资于节约劳动力的新技术来立足。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 基准工资与硬预算约束机制 accDescr: 展示了强制基准工资如何推动企业技术革新，并在优胜劣汰中倒闭以防止软预算约束。 subgraph Regulation["政策与制度环境"] BW["行业基准工资<br>(例如帮厨 $15/小时)"] HBC["硬预算约束<br>(拒绝无休止补贴维持全就业)"] end subgraph FirmChoice["企业应对路径"] HighRoad["走高效高端路线<br>投资节约劳动力的技术与管理"] LowEff["低效运营/管理不善"] end subgraph Outcomes["市场结果"] Success["企业存活与扩大生产"] Failure["企业破产倒闭<br>(淘汰落后产能)"] end BW --> HighRoad BW --> LowEff HighRoad --> Success LowEff --> Failure HBC --> Failure ``` 这种机制旨在根除经济学家雅诺什·科尔奈（János Kornai）指出的传统中央计划经济致命伤——“软预算约束”（Soft Budget Constraints）。在过去的苏联式经济中，政权的合法性系于维持充分就业，导致大量毫无效率的企业被国家源源不断地输血维持；而由于指令经济环环相扣，一家生产螺丝的低效工厂如果倒闭重组，可能会让依赖其零部件的整个计算机部门瘫痪。Sunkara 强调，社会主义市场必须为企业倒闭保留空间：“因此我认为你需要这个基础来鼓励企业倒闭，这在本质上是一件好事。” - 1999 年 7 月 4 日《纽约时报》曾发表过一篇题为《帕特尔汽车旅馆卡特尔》（Patel Motel Cartel）的著名报道，生动概括了古吉拉特族裔在美国汽车旅馆行业的庞大主导地位。 - 强制性的基准工资消除了“竞相降底线”的恶性压榨，倒逼企业进行资本投资与管理升级。 - 允许企业退出与破产，彻底打破了以往为了全就业而无节制保低效企业的软预算泥潭。 --- ### `22:15` 劳动回报激励与激进的公共住房构想 当被问及创业者失去了传统资本主义的股权上行收益后该如何获得激励时，Sunkara 解释称，企业家的回报直接体现在劳动报酬的分化上。在工人所有的企业中，只要创业者证明了自己的卓越管理才能，当第一份经营协议期满并续约时，员工们会通过民主投票同意向其支付明显高于普通工人的薪资。这与资本主义下由董事会和股东决定 CEO 薪酬的逻辑并无本质区别，就像目前许多非营利组织或董事会管辖机构的高管一样，其上行激励主要来自于高额劳动报酬而非资本所有权。 谈到整个构想中最激进、最难推销的领域时，Sunkara 承认这正是住房问题。即使对他自己这种渴望逃离喧嚣、在长岛买一套带独立产权住房的纽约郊区居民而言，全盘公共住房也是个思想冲击。但他指出，人们对产权的真正执念往往源于对“安全感”（Security）的渴望——避免房东因为按月租赁（Month-to-month lease）而在次日无端将租金暴涨 1000 美元。 Sunkara 提出了类似新加坡的住房模式：土地和住宅全部归公共部门所有，但租金依然保留市场定价机制。如果有人想住在高档地段（如曼哈顿海滩），就必须支付更高的租金；而像他自己这样习惯住在吵闹街道旁的人，租金则相对便宜。所有建筑工程均由公共部门统一委托建设，即便具体的施工队伍是工人所有制企业，住房建设的启动也完全由国家触发。为了防止类似疫情期间纽约哈德逊河谷地区租金暴涨 20% 至 40% 的冲击，国家会通过行政平抑机制保障居住稳定，同时打破传统的分区壁垒（Zoning barriers）和社区委员会阻挠，以大规模迅速建造来消除行政定价扭曲。 针对这种模式下的激励机制，Sunkara 概括道：“如果你确实是一位胜任的管理者，如果你是那个理应经营这家企业的人，那么工人们会赞成薪酬差距。” --- ### `25:00` 治安、反社会行为与公共产品的吸引力维护 针对 Sunkara 的公共住房设想，播客主持人分享了自身的切身体验：他自己从长期租房走向买房的唯一转折点是有了两个孩子，不得不彻底避免被迫频繁搬家的窘境。然而，公共产品面临的最大痛点是恶邻和治安问题。主持人直言，自己忍受不了邻居开疯狂派对的噪音，在遇到吸毒、严重滋扰等恶劣邻里关系时，往往需要警察介入。这引发了左翼内部围绕公共治理的长期分歧：在激进的“废除警察”（Abolish the Police）口号盛行的背景下，如果无法有效清除或惩戒滋事者（Miscreants），公共住房和公共交通就会迅速失去吸引力。 对于如何应对反社会行为，Sunkara 指出民主社会主义与社会民主主义的基本态度与手段与主流并无二致，区别仅在于关注的侧重点：“反社会行为必须得到解决。我可能会以与你相同的方式来应对它，但我对实施反社会行为的人本身的关注重点可能会略有不同，我会去问：这个参与吸毒的人，真的能将自己置于一个发挥其上帝赋予的潜能的境地吗？” Sunkara 强调，公共产品绝不能放任自流。针对街头露宿营地等现象，将某些破坏秩序的行为违法化并非为了打击报复，而是为了作为一种强制机制，让这些人进入国家的戒毒与健康计划中重获新生。他批评了美国社会在公共治理上的极端摇摆：“我认为美国人往往在自由意志主义与法西斯主义之间摇摆不定。”要么是“戴上耳机别管闲事”的冷漠纵容，要么是一旦受不了就采取暴力镇压的法西斯式手段。他认为在一个更加平等、社会安全网更加健全的社会主义社会中，很大一部分反社会现象会随着生存压力的消除而迎刃而解，但在任何情况下，公共产品的安全与秩序都必须依靠坚定的公共执法予以严格守护。 ### `30:00` 治安成本、公共秩序与社会主义下的保守倾向 在探讨社会治理与犯罪问题时，Bhaskar Sunkara 指出美国社会的一个核心矛盾：国家长期以来在警察和监狱系统上的投入远远超过了对社会福利国家的投入。然而，针对传统左翼常说的“监禁比福利更昂贵”这一口号，Sunkara 提出了相反的判断。他指出，实际上目前的监狱体系成本相对低廉，如果真要在进步社会建立一个合乎人道标准的监狱体系，成本将会大幅飙升——狱警将不能只接受三四周的速成培训，而是必须受训一年以上并经历严格的试用期，人员配比也必须彻底重构。 对于日常公共秩序与反社会行为，Sunkara 坦承自己在某些规范议题上偏向保守，认为警察在维持社会体统（decorum）方面不可或缺。他直言： > “I have a vision of what the good life is; I think there are limits to a majoritarian vision of a good life and trampling on the rights of others who want to have a good time and want to smoke a joint or whatever else, but I would lean towards to say banning any shop that is selling weed from, oh, first of all, I would just stop there, but let's say from especially putting up a big sign outside their shop that says, you know, weed for sale.” （“我对美好生活有自己的设想；我认为多数人对美好生活的构想不能无限踩踏那些想要消遣或抽大麻的人的权利，但我更倾向于禁止售卖大麻的店铺，或者退一步讲，至少禁止它们在门外竖立醒目的招牌写着‘大麻出售’。”——Bhaskar Sunkara） - **传统左翼观点的误区**：左派常宣称治安和监狱花费巨大，但现实是现有严刑峻法系统的运行成本其实远比提供全面社会福利要低廉。 - **进步司法的真实代价**：若要实现真正具有改造功能的监狱体系，高比例的专业人员配置以及长达一年以上的管教培训将带来极高的财政投入。 --- ### `31:30` 公共住房所有权下的室内装修与资本改良机制 对话随后转入住房问题。主持人提出，人们购买自有住房不仅是为了免受房东任意涨租驱逐的安全感，更是为了获得自主改造居住空间的权利——比如热爱烹饪的人想打造高级厨房，或者摆脱千篇一律的白墙出租屋。主持人质疑，在社会主义的公共住房模式下，住户是否能够自由装修？如果对房屋进行了大幅改善，提升的价值究竟归住户所有，还是全数被吸收到公共住房池中？ Sunkara 回应称，应当在行政层面对住房投资进行区分管理。对于像换壁纸这样的日常个性化审美变动，住户享有充分自由；而针对涉及建筑机能的重大资本改良（capital improvements），则应建立申请与报销机制。例如在纽约州，安装 HVAC 中央空调系统或大型锅炉在人工费用上通常免征销售税，这类属于可获核准并报销的合理资本支出。至于纯属住户个人怪癖或极其小众的定制改造，若发生搬迁，住户则需自掏腰包承担。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 公共住房装修投资分类机制 accDescr: 展示社会主义公共住房体系下对于日常轻度改造、合理资本改良及小众个性化装修的管理流程与费用承担方式。 A["住房改造需求"] --> B{"改造性质判断"} subgraph S1["日常与小众装修"] B -->|"轻度审美调整 (如更换壁纸)"| C["住户自由改造<br/>(享有长期居住保障)"] B -->|"高度个性化 / 小众改造"| D["住户自费承担<br/>(搬迁或更换工作时不予报销)"] end subgraph S2["资本级设施改良"] B -->|"重大系统更新 (如 HVAC、锅炉)"| E["行政机构申请与审核"] E --> F["认定为合理资本改良"] F --> G["公共住房基金给予官方报销"] end ``` - **装修自主权与行政审批**：日常居家改动完全由住户自主决定；涉及房屋长期价值的核心工程需经管理机构审批以获得报销。 - **长期租约保障稳定性**：享有终身或稳定的居住权（secure tenure）会大幅减少人口频繁搬迁的流动率，使住户更有动力爱护与优化住所。 - **效率折损与国家建设潜能的权衡**：新加坡的公共住房证明了该体系的可行性，尽管不可避免会带来官僚层级和轻度低效，但国家全力推动住房建设带来的社会收益将远远压倒这些管理成本。 --- ### `38:00` 公共教育的平等主义悖论与校外社会困境 话题转向政府的核心公共职能之一——教育体系。主持人提及 Nikole Hannah-Jones 关于为女儿选择学校的知名文章及其引发的舆论撕裂：一方坚称必须推行择校制（school choice），防止儿童被困在失败的公立学校；另一方则批评中产父母过度执着于自身子女的竞争优势是反平等的、违背左翼精神的自私表现。主持人感叹，为何鲜有人主张“让每一所公立学校都变得卓越”，并以此作为基准。 Sunkara 对此指出，教育差距问题不能简单归结为经费分配。在纽约等大城市，教学表现垫底的学校其生均财政拨款反而往往更高。公立学校面临的真正顽疾源自校园围墙之外的社会溃败：学生面临极不稳定的家庭生活环境、父母失业或经济困窘、社区犯罪猖獗以及上下学途中的人身安全威胁。当整个社会底层充斥着系统性危机时，单靠在学校内部贯彻平等主义教学政策，根本无法拉平这种深刻的现实差距。 > “The tricky thing is in a place like New York, the bad schools are better funded per pupil. So it's not a funding problem, but is a wider problem in society.” （“棘手的地方在于，像纽约这样的地方，表现较差的学校在每个学生身上获得的资金反而更充裕。因此这根本不是资金短缺的问题，而是更广泛的社会系统性问题。”——Bhaskar Sunkara） - **公立教育拨款的倒挂现象**：表现最差的薄弱学校在人均学生拨款预算上往往高于优质学校，证明砸钱并不能自动转化成优秀的教学成果。 - **校外环境压垮教育系统**：贫困家庭的不稳定居所、缺乏经济安全感以及社区恶劣的治安，构成了学生学习的主要外部阻碍，使公立学校被迫承担远超教育范畴的社会救助功能。 ### `40:00` 公共教育的局限、教师绩效与节假日风波 对话深入探讨了教育在解决不平等问题中的作用。Bhaskar Sunkara 认为，很多人试图单纯依靠公共教育来消除跨区校车（busing）和教育平权等措施所引发的差距，但贫富差距的根源显然更加深远。如果在一个拥有广泛社会安全网、就业保障以及更平等收入分配的社会中，许多教育层面的结构性问题本可以迎刃而解。主持人指出，尽管自己也怀疑教育能否直接解决不平等，但受教育本身具有内在价值：“这并不一定能让我满意，因为我的诉求之一是：人们理应能够指望自己获得优质的教育。” Bhaskar Sunkara 回应称，美国的公共教育相比一百年前或人类历史上的大部分时期已有飞跃式的进步：实现了全民识字，未成年人直到高中毕业前都不必被迫卷入劳动力市场。他认为，要进一步改善公立教育，国家必须在面对特定利益诉求时展现更强有力的主导权，比如应对某些地方社区因不愿让孩子通勤 30 分钟而产生的阻力，或是深红选区抵制全国统一课程的要求。 针对公立学校教师的待遇与考核问题，Bhaskar Sunkara 提出了犀利的制度设想。目前公立部门雇员在薪酬合同谈判中阻力重重，教师往往拿着偏低的工资，而换取的是极高的职业稳定性（终生教职）。他指出，在一个提供全面就业保障和更充裕资源的社会中，完全可以重塑这种契约： > “你可以对教师说：你们的薪水会高得多，但每年会有 10% 的人被解雇。”（Bhaskar Sunkara） 随后话题转向针对公立教育制度的保守派批评，现场气氛变得十分风趣。Bhaskar Sunkara 吐槽学校假期过长的问题，甚至开玩笑说自己打算在孩子进入公立学校系统前发起倡议，取消排灯节（Diwali）放假。同为主持人的 Tracy Alloway 或 Joe Weisenthal 则幽默接梗，提出犹太人与南亚人可以达成一项“跨文化交易”：犹太人主动游说减少犹太教节日的学校假期，南亚人则配合取消排灯节假期，从而联合抵制过多公立假日对教学秩序的干扰。 - **历史进步**：美国已确立全民识字体系，立法杜绝了 15 至 18 岁之前的强制性未成年劳工。 - **治理挑战**：地方社区对就近入学的执念以及保守选区对定制化课程的需求，阻碍了全国统一教育标准的推行。 - **教师考核设想**：打破“低薪换铁饭碗”的模式，转向“极具竞争力的高薪 + 每年约 10% 末位淘汰”的灵活机制。 --- ### `45:00` 为什么选择市场社会主义而非传统福利国家？ 针对主持人提出的核心疑问——为什么必须走向市场社会主义（Market Socialism），而不能仅仅停留在提高富人税收、扩大政府开支、普及全民医保与优质教育的传统北欧式社会民主主义（Social Democracy）模式——Bhaskar Sunkara 从规范性价值与历史现实两方面做出了回答。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 传统社会民主主义与资本罢工的恶性循环 accDescr: 展示了充分就业如何激发劳工民主诉求，进而引发资本罢工和福利国家倒退的机制 subgraph SD["经典社会民主主义困局"] A["充分就业与强大工会保障"] --> B["工人阶级诉求升级\n(要求更高工资与产业民主)"] B --> C["资本家利润受挤压\n政治权力受威胁"] C --> D["资本罢工 (Capital Strike)\n(停止投资 / 资本外逃)"] D --> E["经济危机爆发\n(叠加70年代石油危机)"] E --> F["福利国家紧缩\n重推适度失业以压制劳工议价权"] end subgraph MS["市场社会主义替代路径"] G["迈德纳计划等探索\n(工人投资基金/股份转移)"] --> H["推行全面工人所有制\n劳动力与资本利益彻底捆绑"] end B -.->|"历史分水岭"| G ``` Bhaskar Sunkara 首先指出，在规范层面，他是坚定的社会主义者，坚信雇佣劳动本质上是一种剥削关系，健全的社会不应容忍这种不平等。而从实践历史来看，单纯建设庞大福利国家的模式往往会在特定阶段陷入停滞并发生倒退： > “这些社会往往在某个节点上不得不停下脚步，它们的许多成果遭到了侵蚀；这在一定程度上是因为资本家拥有决定是否进行投资的政治权力。”（Bhaskar Sunkara） 他以 20 世纪 60 年代的瑞典为例说明：政府利用宏观工具实现了非通胀性的充分就业，工人在极高安全感下开始要求更高的工资与“产业民主”（Industrial Democracy）。此时，感到利润与控制权双重受压的资本家动用了最终武器——停止国内投资（即“资本罢工”）。当 1970 年代石油危机与全球化冲击来临时，这套机制被证明在经济上可行，却在政治上极不稳定。瑞典左翼曾试图推行著名的“迈德纳计划”（Meidner Plan），通过员工投资基金将企业股权逐步转移至普通工人手中，但最终遭遇反扑，社会民主党人不得不选择后退：削减福利、恢复适度失业率以压制工人的议价能力。 Bhaskar Sunkara 强调，当代资本主义（尤其是像美国这样福利结构脆弱的国家）既削弱了工人的“退出权”（Power of Exit）——因为劳动者往往为了医疗等福利不得不绑定在现有雇主身上——又剥夺了工人在企业内部的“发言权”（Voice）。市场社会主义赋予工人企业所有权和股息分红权，能释放巨大的生产力潜能： > “一个充斥着能够获得剩余利润、拿到分红的员工的工作场所，这些普通工人就更不可能对雇主隐瞒自己的专业知识，他们也不大可能去抵制某些工作流程的自动化。”（Bhaskar Sunkara） 在部分涉及新技术（如 AI 和自动化）的转型中，员工所有制能从根本上消除劳动者对“被机器取代即遭弃如敝履”的恐惧，使技术进步真正转化为大众的福祉。 - **迈德纳计划（Meidner Plan）的教训**：20 世纪 70 年代瑞典试图将私人企业超额利润转化为工人集体基金，因遭遇资方顽强抵抗而半途而废，揭示了保留私人资本产权下推行产业民主的极限。 - **退出权与发言权的双重丧失**：美国工人受制于企业绑定的福利体系，既无法轻易辞职（弱退出权），又在管理决策中毫无表决权（零发言权）。 - **面对自动化的激励相容**：在分享剩余利润的合作制架构下，员工不会视自动化和 AI 为生存威胁，反而有动力主动协同技术升级。 ### `50:00` 自由主义与社会主义的和解：国家干预行为与学校假期的争议 讨论从政治哲学转向了国家是否应该介入并塑造民众的偏好。有观点提出，是否可以通过某种改造让人人都喜欢同样的事物，使个体不再作为政治或社会的基本单元。对此，Bhaskar Sunkara 明确表示反对：“在某种程度上，我相信自由主义与社会主义的和解。实际上，我认为当今大多数民主社会主义者已经完成了这种和解。这种和解本就深植于该传统的骨髓之中。”他指出，国家天然没有权利去随意指派或指挥个人的劳动，个人的自主权必须得到保护。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 国家塑造行为与社会权衡机制 accDescr: 展示国家通过增加负外部性摩擦来引导行为，以及在闲暇与产出之间的社会权衡 subgraph StateIntervention["国家温和干预 (塑造行为)"] A["反社会行为与外部性"] --> B["设置摩擦阻力"] B --> C["限制体育博彩推送通知"] B --> D["提高尼古丁/烟草消费税"] end subgraph SocietalTradeoff["社会生产力与闲暇权衡"] E["增加劳动者公共假期"] --> F["社会总产出与盈余减少"] F --> G["社会整体承受一定贫困代价"] E --> H["享有更多闲暇时间与福利"] end ``` 然而在限制反社会行为和负外部性方面，Sunkara 坚决主张国家应当积极介入来塑造行为。例如，即便不全面取缔体育博彩，国家也完全有理由禁止博彩应用在手机上推送比赛赔率变动通知；在控烟方面，针对 Z 世代（Zoomers）吸烟率反弹的趋势，应当通过对尼古丁产品加税来增加消费阻力。 随后话题转到了此前引发争论的“削减学校假期”问题。Tracy Alloway 质疑道，家长反对学校放假主要是因为影响工作并带来照看孩子的困扰，既然在社会主义社会，为何不能通过增加劳动者假期来对齐学校假期？Sunkara 承认这涉及现实的权衡取舍： - 增加劳动者假期固然美好，但代价是社会总产出和盈余减少，社会必须自愿接受“变得稍微穷一点以换取更多闲暇”。 - Sunkara 自嘲如果法律强制推行每周 35 小时工作制，自己也能从目前每周 60 多小时的超负荷运转中解脱出来。 - 但在教育领域情况不同：疫情后学生学业水平出现明显下滑，他主张学生应当接受“早九晚五”的在校教育，配合高频次、低风险的标准化测验，并取消排灯节（Diwali）等白天的校假（因为排灯节庆祝主要在傍晚进行）。 --- ### `52:30` 社会主义计算争论与 AI 计划经济的局限 Joe Weisenthal 探讨了美国民主社会主义者（DSA）内部的派系光谱，指出当今美国左翼内部极其多元，涵盖了从超自由主义（hyper-liberal）议题、去罪化到传统阶级政治的各种流派。Sunkara 评估指出，市场社会主义（Market Socialism）目前在社会主义左翼中已成为主流共识，但党内常常出现一种技术乌托邦论调——认为虽然目前离不开市场，但未来人工智能（AI）可以彻底解决“社会主义计算问题”（Socialist Calculation Debate）。 Sunkara 对此持坚决的怀疑态度：“我认为 AI 可以帮助制定出更好的计划，但它无法真正帮你执行这项计划。一旦出现变动，你就必须重新制定计划。在很多方面，这反而会变成两头不讨好的最差局面。”他在计算大辩论中坚定地站在奥地利学派的米塞斯（Ludwig von Mises）与哈耶克（Friedrich Hayek）一边： - **激励机制的不可替代性**：AI 无法凭空解决生产与劳动过程中的激励问题。 - **数据的动态性与主观偏好**：人类的需求与欲望时刻在动态变化，根本不存在一个静态完备的数据库供超级 AI 训练并推演出全社会的商品分配。 - **市场价格的核心功能**：即使国家利用 AI 计算出铺设一条铁路的最优工程路径，市场驱动的价格体系在动态权衡取舍中仍然不可替代；静态再完美的计划，在动态执行中也会遭遇溃败。 尽管《雅各宾》（Jacobin）杂志持非正统的市场社会主义立场，但它已成为百年来美国左翼规模最大的刊物。对于“AI 发展到能精准预测商业实验结果，从而不再需要企业这一组织形式”的假说，Sunkara 报以冷淡态度，并打趣道可以在十年后再来检验这一预言。 --- ### `56:10` 播客总结：市场社会主义的蓝图与政治周期的现实挑战 访谈结束后，两位主持人 Tracy Alloway 与 Joe Weisenthal 对 Bhaskar Sunkara 描绘的体系进行了复盘。Weisenthal 评价道，如果美国的社会主义左翼全由 Sunkara 或佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）这样务实且重视市场的人士来代表，相比目前许多杂乱极端的声浪而言将是一次显著的升级。 整个讨论展现了一幅奇特而自洽的政策拼图： - 既有公共住房供给与强大的工人权益保障，又严格取缔杂乱的街头大麻店。 - 想要开办餐厅必须向公共银行申请资金，但店内依然鼓励充分的消费者选择和货架竞争。 - 追求减少剥削与提高社会保障，但在教育上却倡导更长的在校时间与更少的学校假期。 - “在面包货架前拥有丰富的挑拣自由，而不是排在长长的领面包队伍里”——纽约街头售价 70 美元的昂贵酸酵头面包在市场社会主义下甚至可能继续存在。 主持人指出，全书和讨论中最核心的未解难题在于**过渡路径（The Transition）**。在一个人人拥有私有房产、股票投资的高度资本主义国家，如何逐步和平过渡到市场社会主义？更棘手的是现代民主选举的政治周期：“如果选举伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）当总统并开启通往社会主义的道路，结果四年之后选民不满意，转头选出了唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump），整个体系该如何自处？”在一个每两年就面临一次国会选举的制度中，如何维持漫长经济转型的一致性与连贯性，依然是这套蓝图面临的最大现实考验。 ### `01:00:00` 节目收尾、社交媒体账号与社群互动信息 节目进入尾声，主持人 Joe Weisenthal 向听众介绍了各位主创人员与嘉宾的社交媒体关注渠道。听众可以在社交平台上关注 Joe Weisenthal 本人（账号为 @TheStalwart），以及本期嘉宾、美国民主社会主义者（DSA）资深成员兼左翼媒体人 Bhaskar Sunkara（账号为 @sunraysunray）。同时，节目的幕后制作团队成员也一一被提及，包括制片人 Carmen Rodriguez（@CarmenArmand）、Dashiell Bennett（@Dashbot）、Kale Brooks（@KaleBrooks）以及 Kevin Lozano（@KevinLLozano）。 主持人呼吁对社会主义、市场机制等经济议题感兴趣的听众加入 Odd Lots 的官方 Discord 社群（discord.gg/oddlots），在社区中与全球听众进行 24 小时全天候的探讨与交流。此外，彭博社官方网站还提供每日更新的 Odd Lots 电子通讯简报（bloomberg.com/oddlots）。主持人向受众表示：“如果你喜欢这次对话，如果你喜欢我们讨论不同流派的社会主义，请在您常用的播客平台上留下好评。”如果是通过视频平台收看的观众，也可以通过点赞、评论和订阅频道来支持节目。彭博社订阅用户还可以通过 Apple Podcasts 上的 Bloomberg 专属频道享受无广告收听体验。 - **嘉宾与主持人账号**：Joe Weisenthal（@TheStalwart）、Bhaskar Sunkara（@sunraysunray）。 - **制作团队账号**：Carmen Rodriguez（@CarmenArmand）、Dashiell Bennett（@Dashbot）、Kale Brooks（@KaleBrooks）、Kevin Lozano（@KevinLLozano）。 - **互动与资讯渠道**：Discord 讨论社群（discord.gg/oddlots）、每日通讯简报（bloomberg.com/oddlots）。 - **特权福利**：彭博社（Bloomberg）订阅用户在 Apple Podcasts 上绑定后可享受全集无广告收听。 ### `01:01:00` 商业赞助与广告播送 在节目最后的赞助播报环节中，依次播出了 Underdog、OpenAI 旗下的 ChatGPT 以及 UCI Health 的推广信息。Underdog 推出了名为“Rips”的数字化卡牌玩法，涵盖橄榄球、篮球及宝可梦（Pokémon）等实体卡包，用户不仅可以支付 5 美元起拆包并直接寄送到家，还能以全额市价即时回售，最高价值可达 125,000 美元。 随后介绍了面向工作场景的 ChatGPT 应用功能。广告指出：“有人用 ChatGPT 来解答疑问，而另一些人则用它来完成实际工作。”在工作场景下，用户可将项目简报、笔记、文件、反馈和数据等具体输入项交由 ChatGPT 处理，进而生成深度分析报告、追踪看板、演示文稿大纲（deck outline）、原型设计或工作流，该功能主要面向 ChatGPT Plus 与 Pro 订阅计划。最后播送了橙县唯一学术医疗系统 UCI Health 的健康科普播客《Live Well》，该系列汇集了营养、心理健康和预防医学等领域的医学专家，致力于提升社区健康生活品质。 ## Notable quotes > `10:00` 市场很棒。我认为它们是一种客观层面的善。 — Bhaskar Sunkara > `22:15` 如果你确实是一位胜任的管理者，如果你是那个理应经营这家企业的人，那么工人们会赞成薪酬差距。 — Bhaskar Sunkara > `52:30` 我认为 AI 可以帮助制定出更好的计划，但它无法真正帮你执行这项计划。一旦出现变动，你就必须重新制定计划。在很多方面，这反而会变成两头不讨好的最差局面。 — Bhaskar Sunkara > `40:00` 你可以对教师说：你们的薪水会高得多，但每年会有 10% 的人被解雇。 — Bhaskar Sunkara > `45:00` 一个充斥着能够获得剩余利润、拿到分红的员工的工作场所，这些普通工人就更不可能对雇主隐瞒自己的专业知识，他们也不大可能去抵制某些工作流程的自动化。 — Bhaskar Sunkara > `03:45` 说到社会主义有不同的流派，这完全是左翼的经典现象——它拥有这种因为微小分歧就将自身分裂瓦解的非凡能力。 — Joe Weisenthal ## Mentioned Bhaskar Sunkara, Joe Weisenthal, Tracy Alloway, 佐兰·马姆达尼, Ben Burgis, Mike Beggs, 《蓝图：社会主义如何在现实世界中运作》, 美国民主社会主义者, 《雅各宾》杂志, 《国家》杂志, 蒙德拉贡, 高盛, 雅诺什·科尔奈, 迈德纳计划, 路德维希·冯·米塞斯, 弗里德里希·哈耶克, 伯尼·桑德斯, 唐纳德·特朗普, Nikole Hannah-Jones, ChatGPT, Underdog, UCI Health ## Video description <p data-renderer-start-pos="105">In September, Gallup released a poll that showed that 43% percent of Americans viewed socialism positively, the highest approval since Gallup began the poll back in 2010. Since Zohran Mamdani won the NYC mayoral election, the left has made a number of gains across national politics. Still, the majority of Americans view socialism negatively, according to Gallup. As a longtime DSA member and veteran of leftist media, Bhaskar Sunkara is one of socialism's leading advocates, and he's spent much of his career charting what a socialist economy in America might look like. Unlike some other leftists, he believes the market has a place. In fact, he thinks markets and entrepreneurs are an objective good in society. He proposes a vision of so-called "market socialism" in his recent co-authored book <em data-renderer-mark="true">The Blueprint</em>, and he lays out this system for us in today's episode. We talk about how many features of capitalism &mdash; from small businesses to monetary policy &mdash; might be remade under socialist principles.</p> <p data-renderer-start-pos="1111">Read more:<br><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-16/aoc-boosts-abdul-el-sayed-and-2028-talk-with-1-million-check?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=podcast&utm_campaign=odd_lots&utm_content=article" data-renderer-mark="true" data-is-router-link="false" data-testid="link-with-safety">Ocasio-Cortez Boosts El-Sayed and 2028 Talk With $1 Million Check</a><br><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-16/an-economist-makes-the-case-for-mamdani-style-populism?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=podcast&utm_campaign=odd_lots&utm_content=article" data-renderer-mark="true" data-is-router-link="false" data-testid="link-with-safety">An Economist Makes the Case for Mamdani-Style Populism</a></p> <p data-renderer-start-pos="1244">Only <a href="http://bloomberg.com/" data-testid="inline-card-resolved-view">Bloomberg - Business News, Stock Markets, Finance, Breaking & World News</a> subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at&nbsp; <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots?in_source=oddlotspodcast" data-renderer-mark="true" data-is-router-link="false" data-testid="link-with-safety">bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots</a></p> <p data-renderer-start-pos="1416"><a href="http://bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots" data-renderer-mark="true" data-is-router-link="false" data-testid="link-with-safety">Subscribe to the Odd Lots Newsletter</a><br><strong data-renderer-mark="true">Join the conversation:</strong> <a href="https://discord.gg/oddlots" data-renderer-mark="true" data-is-router-link="false" data-testid="link-with-safety">discord.gg/oddlots</a></p><p>See <a href="https://omnystudio.com/listener">omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.</p> [Source](https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/tracking.swap.fm/track/UVBrz8bN8aM2Xe47PEPu/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/8a94442e-5a74-4fa2-8b8d-ae27003a8d6b/a0e15df4-4a62-4b81-bbf5-b4ea00ed7a3c/audio.mp3?in_playlist=982f5071-765c-403d-969d-ae27003a8d83)

[10:00] Bhaskar Sunkara: 市场很棒。我认为它们是一种客观层面的善。 [22:15] Bhaskar Sunkara: 如果你确实是一位胜任的管理者，如果你是那个理应经营这家企业的人，那么工人们会赞成薪酬差距。 [52:30] Bhaskar Sunkara: 我认为 AI 可以帮助制定出更好的计划，但它无法真正帮你执行这项计划。一旦出现变动，你就必须重新制定计划。在很多方面，这反而会变成两头不讨好的最差局面。 [40:00] Bhaskar Sunkara: 你可以对教师说：你们的薪水会高得多，但每年会有 10% 的人被解雇。 [45:00] Bhaskar Sunkara: 一个充斥着能够获得剩余利润、拿到分红的员工的工作场所，这些普通工人就更不可能对雇主隐瞒自己的专业知识，他们也不大可能去抵制某些工作流程的自动化。 [3:45] Joe Weisenthal: 说到社会主义有不同的流派，这完全是左翼的经典现象——它拥有这种因为微小分歧就将自身分裂瓦解的非凡能力。

[40:00] Bhaskar Sunkara: I think that wage labor is a condition of exploitation. I think that it's an inequality that a good society should not have. [52:45] Bhaskar Sunkara: I'm on the von Mises-Hayek side of the calculation debate. [50:00] Bhaskar Sunkara: In part, I believe in a reconciliation of liberalism and socialism. [37:25] Bhaskar Sunkara: The tricky thing is in a place like New York, the bad schools are better funded per pupil. So it's not a funding problem, but is a wider problem in society.

[0:00] There are some market stories where you want every detail. Joe and I have made quite a few podcasts on that basis, but sometimes you've only got 10 minutes and just want to know what's moving markets fast. That's the Barclays Brief podcast. Every week, experts from Barclays Markets and Research get you up to speed on what's happening and what to watch next. Concise, focused, and brief. Search Barclays Brief wherever you get your podcasts. Some people treat ChatGPT like some kind Thank you. projects. Get started at ChachiPT.com by selecting Work Mode. Available on Plus and Pro plans. Let go of just yet. Have it shipped straight to your door. Want the cash? Sell it back instantly at 100% of its fair market value. No listing, no negotiating, no stranger asking if you'll trade it for a used jet ski, even though jet skis are super sick. Best part? There are some serious grails in the mix with maximum card values reaching up to $125,000 depending on your pack tier. You can also check the live odds and see what you could pull before you rip and what other cards are being pulled by fans. and get in on the chase. Get five free rips packs when you deposit $5. Real rips, real cards, real cash. Only on Underdog. Unleash your dog. 18 plus terms apply. Top grails are extremely rare. Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts. Radio. News. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Joe Weisenthal. And I'm Tracy Allaway. Tracy, I have a question for you. Do you ever get... angry tweets from people. I mean, I know you get angry. We all do get angry tweets from people. Do you ever get angry tweets from people who say that Zoran is our fault? Oh, yes. I do, too. Yes. So for those who don't know, Zoran Mamdani came on before he became mayor of New York when he was campaigning. He was at like 5% in the polls. Yeah. And then within a week or two of his All Thoughts appearance, he started gaining some real momentum. I regularly get these tweets, usually from people who are very do not like the fellow who are like, oh, yeah, you platformed Zoran and now he's our mayor, etc. But That's not really the point. The point is that Obviously, in New York and across the country in various primaries and in the public's imagination, socialism is on the rise. And, you know, there's a big fight about the future of the Democratic Party, about, you know, like the degree to which DSA or socialism in general will be the direction of the party going forward. Yeah, I don't know what that means, but, you know, no one knows what that means exactly. DSA, definitely a hot buzzword at the moment. And you see lots of people talking about Various flavors of socialism. Or actually, I should say what tends to happen is DSA gets thrown around quite a lot. Yeah. And then you discover once you start digging into it that actually there are different flavors within the party. And those don't necessarily get discussed as much as they should. You know, I was in Greece during the 2012 election. bottles, etc. And then there was the main parties and then there are these small parties. Do some of them have bigger tents than others? They do. That was a joke. Yeah, but it's true. But also, you know, so like the main when I was there in 2012, Syriza, the main socialist party or the left party, they had a tent and then there was a communist tent. And then there were two other communist tents and they were both right across the street from each other. They both had like the hammer and sickle on their logo. And I was like, what's the deal? Like, why are you like not? And they're like, well, that's the We're the ones who don't want to. So when you say there's different flavors of socialism, this is like the classic thing on the left, which is just this extraordinary ability. [5:00] to splinter itself over small differences. Absolutely. What does even left politics mean is a fight in itself, regardless of then the broader fight about whether the left will gain influence in the Democratic Party and then perhaps the United States. But we're going to talk about a very specific flavor of socialism. One that's kind of controversial among a lot of other socialists, right? That's right. Let's just get right to it. I'm very excited to say we really do have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Bhaskar Sankara, co-author of The Blueprint, How Socialism Can Work in the Real World. He's a longtime DSA member, founding editor of Jacobin Magazine, and currently president of the nation. So truly the perfect guest to talk about all these topics. So Bhaskar, thank you so much for coming on OddLots. Thanks for having me. So this book that you've co-authored with Ben Burgess and Mike Beggs, The Blueprint, we'll get it. We'll get into what The Blueprint is. But I'm curious, like, who the audience is and by which I mean, is this sort of like the left's answer to abundance in which it's trying to sort of influence where the Democratic Party goes? Or is your argument to fellow socialists about what social what flavor or what socialism should be and how it can work? egalitarians. It doesn't necessarily have to be socialist. But I remember I first became interested in socialist ideas when I was 14 years old or so. And many such cases, but they don't follow through, right? I'm very stubborn. I kept my commitments. It took me until I was 17 to join the Democratic Socialists of America. But my first question was, wouldn't this just lead to It was, isn't it better that there's, you know, a line for bread than no bread at all? Which is like a plausible answer if you're living in China in the 1930s, you're living in, you know, but not in the wealthiest societies known to men. And I really was needed convincing. And it took me actually encountering other models of socialism, mostly market socialist models, to be like, OK, this could in fact work. say, we start with our critique of the present and we start with our demands and our demands, our immediate demands are demands that a lot of people who are liberals or even moderates might find agreeable. Like, let's say we should have a single payer health insurance like they have in much of Europe or things like that. But to me, when the left was at its strongest in the 1930s, pretty bad. We now know the Soviet economy wasn't really working in the 1930s. And we now know the depth of the authoritarianism. But the communists could point to that. In the 60s and 70s, there was people on campus that could point to what was going on in Cuba, and they could join the Vence Ramos Brigade. And in a way, I thought it was necessary now, and my co-authors did as well, to really dive into the argument of, is socialism technically possible? Then we can debate whether So I think you have to be an egalitarian to get that far with me. But if you are, I think you should be confident that there is a different model in capitalism. So what's market socialism then? And how does it, I guess, differ from more traditional definitions of socialism? Well, I think to start with, you could say that we're taking a look at what already exists in the real world and we're trying to create a coherent model around it. Monet's capitalism is a lot different than the capitalism of the 19th century. I think it was Ezra Klein who had the line that the United States is an insurance company with the military, which I think, whether he knows it or not, was a play on the line about the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is like a gas station with a military or something. There was a common refrain in the 80s. So we know that there can be extensive welfare states. There can be certain guarantees. We know that there's tools of demand management that you don't have to be a socialist to believe in. We know there's this huge role for the state. We also know from experience that labor managed firms actually work in practice. There's all sorts of reasons why people wouldn't want to start or participate in a labor managed firm. In part, it often requires putting in your own money. So you're labor and your savings, all your eggs are in one basket. But we do know that once those firms do start. So, for example, Goldman Sachs. There's plenty of models in which there's partner-based firms that... exist and that they work. Mondragon, the Spanish cooperative that at one point was the fifth or sixth largest [10:00] entity in Spain is the example that I like to use. But now that I'm venturing further afield from the left to places like, you know, the Bloomberg offices, I might pull that one out of my hat, my hat too. But we know that those two work. So how can they work together? Can you have, in fact, a sphere for commodity production where consumer goods and services are produced run by cooperatives? And can you still have an expansive public sector? And we already have public banks of a different purpose? And can you connect the three together into a system that is more egalitarian than capitalism, but is at least reasonably close to its efficiency? I would argue more efficient, but let's say reasonably close to its efficiency. So you mentioned the fact that, okay, we could have entities, organizations, companies that are labor-owned and sort of internally egalitarian. Another thing that you talk about in the book is, you think like basically consumer choice is good or that consumer choice is important. And one way that you sort of maximizing welfare is to not just tell people like you get your fixed allocation of kale and Dr. Bronner soap and almond butter and all this stuff that actually there is an important role for like a market for goods. Yeah, I normally don't drink coffee. It would be insane if a demand for a social society was that all three of us should have an equal allocation. of coffee. My co-authors are more careful in how they articulate this argument than me. They get along better with people on the left at times. We like having the least careful person on the podcast. But, you know, markets are are great. I think they're an objective good. And the socialist problem with markets boils down to one, the uneven distribution of income, which means if we are voting with our dollars, then, you know, someone else is a lot more dollars than me skew the economy towards luxury goods. And yes, there is a trickle down effect from that spending on luxury goods, but it's less useful than an economy rooted towards where the median person is. So they have that criticism. They also have the criticism that the things that we're consuming in markets are produced under conditions of exploitation. And this is obviously a normative argument to use this word. Like junior analysts at a bank. Junior analysts at a bank are absolutely Paralegals and law firms are exploited mid-levels. You know, partners, I imagine like you're a true dream of an alienated... They've gone through the exploitation to become partners. Exactly, exactly. That's kind of an extreme example. But there's also just the exploitation that people feel on factory floors and things like that. So in this model, there's a more equal distribution of income. workers, if management is elected, if people not only receive a wage, but receive a share of residual profits, like a dividend, then it's hard to say that this is a condition of exploitation. Then there's a broader set of criticism that has to do with more philosophical alienation from production and things like that. And honestly, I think that those can maybe be abated if you're really an egalitarian. If you're a member of the far left in a future social society, I might be a right, of this future society. And you could say, well, we're going to have mandatory job rotations and things like that to reduce alienation. But I think that's just a product of living in a society with a very complex division of labor. There are some market stories where you want every detail. Tracy and I have made quite a few podcasts on that basis, but sometimes you've only got 10 minutes and need to know what's moving markets and why. That's the Barclays Brief Podcast. Every week, experts from Barclays markets and research get you up to speed on what matters and what to watch next. About the time it takes to grab a coffee. So search Barclays Brief wherever you get your podcasts. underdog and get in on the chase deposit five dollars get five free packs real rips real cards real cash only on underdog unleash your dog 18 plus terms apply top grails are extremely rare some people treat chat gpt like some kind of smart search engine and some use it to get work done chat gpt work is a new way of working in chat gpt that can take action across your apps [15:00] files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans. As your wealth grows and your needs change, finding the right financial advisor can make all the difference. Edward Jones offers comprehensive wealth management to help give you a greater sense of confidence and control while you focus on living a life you love. Your Edward Jones advisor takes the time to truly get to know you and provide personalized strategies to help keep your goals on track. Whether you're passionate about charitable giving, considering business succession, or legacy planning with the next generation in mind. are custom built around what matters most to you. Because the key to being rich is knowing what counts. Edward Jones, member SIPC. So just to help us conceptualize the idea of market socialism and the blueprint that you lay out in your book, can you maybe describe if I'm... would-be restaurateur. I want to open a restaurant. Where does the financing actually come from? How am I hiring my employees? How am I distributing, I guess, the profits from my business, although it is a restaurant, so there probably won't be many. But let's just assume there are some. Because when I think about the traditional economy, you know, open up a new business, you go to a bank, maybe you inherit the money. Yeah, increasingly, you keep the profits, you probably exploit some of your low paid, you know, of starting a new business in a market socialist economy and where the money actually goes. And does Tracy get to keep the profit for the risk of opening up the restaurant? Well, I think this gets to the useful things that capitalists do. And I mean useful in the sense that as a socialist, it's very easy to just fall into the hyperbole of calling capitalist parasites or whatever else, at least in the old 20th century language. But capitalists contribute entrepreneurial risk and obviously their own managerial labor. In this case, with new firm creation in the book, The Blueprint, we lay out a vision, which is obviously an abstract stylized vision in which there is no wage labor. And we sort of explain why we believe this to be an exploitative relationship at a normative level. We draw actually on kind of Rawlsian liberalism to do so, which I'm sure will win many favors with me on some parts of start this firm, you would be applying for financing from a public bank the same way you would apply for financing today. You would have to have a business plan. You would have to receive a loan that would be at an interest rate that the bank feels comfortable with. A loan for a restaurant would probably be set at a higher interest rate than a loan for the expansion of an already profitable, successful business. And you would then at that point form with other people who looking to join your firm, a first operating agreement. This first operating agreement would probably set you up as a manager. It'd probably allow you a large differentiation, potentially, in income, a four-to-one differentiation, a six-to-one differentiation, whatever it might be, and you would set up your firm. But from the start, the people who are working at the firm would be partners in the firm. So they're paid in equity, not income. paid both a base rate and paid residuals. And there's many reasons why you have to have this sort of benchmark wage system. And as far as I know, the blueprint is the first sort of model of market socialism that includes this. But for one, when I think about what I would do if I was in this future society, you know, I've started a bunch of entities in the past. I sort of like, and I don't know how much of this is of apocryphal, I hope I'm not going to offend any listeners, I believe this is an accurate story, of the first Indian American who decided to buy a motel in New Jersey. And as far as I know, he encountered a motel that had a very, very low profit rate, maybe like 1-2%, barely surviving. And what he did was essentially fire most of the staff and work 60 to 80 hour days and bring in his children, his wife and others into the business. And they turned it around. [20:00] It's making enough profit. He's able to buy the next place. Then he brought over his nephew to go run it along the same line. And now an extraordinary amount of hotels and motels in the U.S. are run by Indian Americans, particularly Gujaratis. That is exactly what I would do in a socialist society. I would sweat out my own labor. I like work. I like entrepreneurialism. I have a large extended family. I have lots of first cousins that I development. The question is, do we really want any society, much less a social society, be structured that way? So this system has benchmark wages, which you consider minimum wages for broad categories of professions. And this is not unlike the old award system in Australia. It's not unlike the dynamics of centralized bargaining like you had in Northern Europe and places like Sweden. So basically, you're saying, OK, a line cook must be paid $15 an hour. It's not an extraordinary amount of money, but it ensures that a business pursues the high road of more efficiency and other firms, its investment and labor saving technology. It's these capital investments in a restaurant. It would just be better management techniques and maybe having a better product. And if not, the firm would go under, which is also resolves one of the main problems that socialist economies Janis Korn and I called soft budget constraints, right? So their political legitimacy came from maintaining full employment. So you would have these very inefficient firms that were kept alive and also an inefficient firms that was producing screws. If you got rid of it and try to restructure it, you would end up jeopardizing your computing sector that relied on those because of the nature of command economy. So I think you would need this base to encourage firm failure, which is a good in go under, obviously, there's always the risk of hard budgets, right? You know, there's always a risk of there's a pandemic and all the restaurants go away. Wait, so who gets the upside? Because my employees now have some stake in the company. I did take out a loan from the bank, but it's a public bank and, you know, the interest rate might be relatively high. And then presumably as an entrepreneur, I would like to see some upside as well. You get the upside just merely in terms of what you're being paid for your labor. If you are, in fact, a competent manager, if you are... the person who should be running this, then workers will agree to pay differentiation. So after your first operating agreement, when that expires and getting ready to get another operating agreement, you'd be paid more than your peers. All those entrepreneurial projects that I mentioned before that I've started are either nonprofits or they're subject to a board, right? I think a lot of people actually operate in these conditions. You can think of a CEO of a big company where compensated in large part by their incomes, which are justified and voted for by shareholders under capitalism. It's not so different here. Speaking of hotels, I saw the July 4th, 1999, one of my favorite all time headlines from the New York Times, a Patel Motel cartel to describe the prevalence of Indian America. It was so good. I remember reading that in the high school. It's really good. And it's interesting. You talk about the importance of firm failure. spectrum than the sort of pure laissez-faire failure is good that many people now reduce him to talk to us about like The big one or a big one is housing and the provision. So we have like some public housing in America, but not that much, etc. Talk to us about like a vision of housing, because this is much more important probably than restaurants. It's very funny because I just knew immediately that this would be the hardest sell because this was even a hard sell for me because this is one of the most radical parts of the book. You know, I'm from the suburbs of New York. My dream is homeownership, you know, maybe a nice place in Long Island, escape the city. put some of my savings into home. But when I think about what I actually want from a home, what I actually want from a home is some level of security. I don't want my landlord to be able to say, tomorrow, you're slightly under market rent. Hopefully, he's not a listener. Slightly under market rent goes up by a thousand bucks a month because I'm on a month-to-month lease. So in my There has to be some room to kind of get under the skin of your listeners. All the the they do in Singapore and our listeners probably love Singapore. All the land and housing is public, but there's still a market for rents. So if you want to live on. [25:00] or manhattan beach or something like that and you know i'm comfortable as i am living on like very loud roads like that's that's been my my trick to surviving rent in the in new york then uh it makes sense that you would pay more for your your house and then if construction is all kind of commissioned by the public sector itself yeah even if individual firms are all worker-owned but the state itself is triggering housing construction then they just start building where there's high demand and rents higher. There would have to be some smoothing because I do believe in security. tenure. So if the market value of your area that you're living in goes up by 20, 30, 40%, like some of our friends in the Hudson Valley had happened around the pandemic, then I think that would have to be smoothed out by the state. So there is some element of administrative price setting, which does create distortions. But the state is making up for it with rapid construction. So there's no zoning barriers, there's no community board barriers. So in a way, it is a very status I was a renter for a very long time. The reason I decided eventually like, OK, I'm going to bite the bullet and buy a home because I have two children. And at that point, it really becomes difficult to move. And so for your point of like secure, I never really cared about homeownership per se until I wanted to solve that problem of I just don't want to be forced to be in a position to move again. So like I had to move. So I, in theory, if I could just have a stable place to live, I would be totally fine with just like being a renter for a very long time. But when we think about like sort of the public provision of housing, one issue that comes up is sometimes your neighbors really suck. You're apparently OK with like really loud noises. I don't like loud noise. I like to get sleep. It's different. three nights a year, someone in a neighboring house will just have like these insane raves. And like, I can't sleep those nights. And I can accept three nights. But sometimes neighbors are not good. And sometimes the answer is police in terms of like, okay, there's just drug use or just insanely loud parties, et cetera. And some people on the left are very uncomfortable. Clearly, there was a big abolish the police movement. I know you've criticized police abolition, but sometimes for public goods, whether we're talking about public housing, public transportation, et cetera, in order for them to be nice, in order for them to be desirable, there has to be like a role for like, we're going to like remove or penalize miscreants. the public provision of goods, how we deal with like, this is not going to be desirable if like I'm in the vicinity of miscrants. Well, I think you have to address antisocial behavior. So I'd probably address it in the same way as you would want to address it. I would maybe put my emphasis a little differently on the actual person doing the antisocial behavior and say, is the person engaging in drug use really important? putting themselves in a position where they're going to reach their God-given potentials, right? Like, I think the social democratic response is basically the same. And I think the democratic socialist response is basically the same. But it's one that centers a little bit more the lives and experience of those engaging in antisocial behavior rather than bystanders. Same thing with if you're passing an encampment on your way to work, I think we hear a lot of concerns of other about the need to actually criminalize the behavior, not to punish people, but to actually get them into state programs where they could kind of get healthy and reach their potentials. But I think the toolkit would be much the same. Okay, but you know, the subway. And I actually think the problems of the subway are way overrated. The subway is very good. I really like the subway. But like, there are two things. There are some people who different from me, they perceive, oh, there's a bunch of lunatics on the subway. And then there are other people who just say like, The lunatics aren't bothering you. It's fine, etc. And this is where I'm trying to get like this is the intro. the left fight, which is like, if we're going to have public provision of these goods, like, how do we make them good and desirable? Yeah, I think Americans tend to vacillate between like libertarianism and fascism. You know, it becomes like, oh, just put your headphones on, who cares? And then it becomes like a very violent response to it. You know, I would say, obviously, public goods have to be protected. For one, in a more egalitarian society, at least a portion of these problems would be solved by just people having access to more or social safety net. [30:00] It doesn't solve everything, but I think there is a degree to which in the United States, we invested more heavily in policing and prisons rather than the social welfare state. And that is a very typical leftist line, but the traditional leftist line would imply that the costs are equal, or if anything, policing and prisons are more expensive, when in fact, they are actually much cheaper than the amount of, you know, let's say if you're going to have a good prison system in a more progressive society, your staffing ratios would have to be completely different. You would have to, instead of training prison guards for a month or three weeks, you would have to train them for over a year and then put them in a probationary period. It's incredibly expensive to do these things. But I think that would resolve at least a portion of the problems. Other than that, it just is a matter of, yes, there is a role for policing. There is a role for enforcing standards of like decorum. like i i lean on the more conservative side of some of the these questions in terms of like i have a vision of what the good life is i think there are limits to a majoritarian vision of a good life and trampling on the rights of others who want to have a good time and want to smoke a joint or whatever else but i would lean towards to say banning any shop that is selling weed from oh first of all I would just stop there But let say from especially putting up a big sign outside their shop that says, you know, weed for sale. I have a different concern to antisocial behavior and drug use, which is interior decorating. And I actually mean this, I actually mean this kind of seriously, because I take the point that one of the reasons you buy a home is for security so your landlord can't force you out with rent increases. But another reason to buy a home is you get to make it your own. You don't have to live in a white box, you know, with plain walls. You can install a really cool kitchen if you're a cook. You can really customize it. You can improve it. And so the question when it comes to public provision of housing is, A, can I still do that? Can I customize it and make home improvements? And then B, if I make the apartment or the house a lot better. Who captures that upside? Does some of that value come back to me, or does it just fall into, I guess, the public pool of housing? Yeah, I think investments can and should be requested and approved. So there is an administrative level And this is someone has to approve my wallpaper There a difference between investments Let say today if you were to make an investment of your home like a wallpaper change you would be able to do that yourself You could do that in a rental I get you're being like, obviously, a little hyperbolic in that example. But a lot of these changes to your home you could do. But I think a good test would be, is it taxable or not? I'm not a homeowner, so I only vaguely know this. But if I were to, let's say, install a HVAC system in my home or a big boiler or something like that, I would not be taxed on at least the labor to install in a state like New York, right? It would be sales tax free. To me, that's like sort of a capital improvement. That's the thing that would probably have to be approved beyond like normal maintenance. That capital improvement, you should be reimbursed for reasonable capital improvement. Other changes that you're making that are more eccentric, I think that people should be allowed to make those changes. There's secure tenure. So there's probably going to be less turnover of homes unless people are moving or moving job markets. And in those cases, I think people should have to pay out of pocket. But there are, you know, I think functional examples. Singapore is a good one of places with really extensive public housing where this works in history And obviously this is the one part of the book that does lean into the more status end And it does lead into even some of the things I was saying before about rental changes being smoothed out and so on. Obviously, there are both distortions and layers of like bureaucracy that come up as a result of this, which leads to inefficiencies. But I think overall unleashing the power of the state to encourage construction. And that effect will grossly, grossly, grossly outweigh any of these inefficiencies. And the rest of the book is largely focused on, I think, a role for the state that doesn't necessarily play this sort of gatekeeping way. We'll be right back. [35:00] See which Grails you could pull, then rip it open to reveal a real physical card. And the Grails are no joke. They have cards up to $125,000 in value and plenty to pull. From football and basketball to Pokemon, with new limited edition packs dropping regularly. Even cooler, you can decide to keep the card and Underdog will ship it straight to your home. Or sell it back instantly at 100% of its fair market value. And the cash goes right in your account. in the messages. Just rip, reveal, and cash out instantly. Or make some room on your shelf. Download Underdog and get in on the chase. Get five free rips packs when you deposit $5. Real rips, real cards, real cash. Only on Underdog. Unleash your dog. 18 plus terms apply. Top grails are extremely rare. Some people treat ChatGPT like some kind of smart search engine. and some use it to get work done. ChatGPT Work is a new way of working in ChatGPT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans. As your wealth grows and your needs change, finding the right financial advisor can make all the difference. Edward Jones offers comprehensive wealth management to help give you a greater sense of confidence and control while you focus on living a life you love. Your Edward Jones advisor takes the time to truly get to know you and provide personalized strategies to help keep your goals on track. Whether you're passionate about charitable giving, considering business succession, or legacy planning with the next generation in mind. are custom built around what matters most to you. Because the key to being rich is knowing what counts. Edward Jones, member SIPC. The world of business is constantly evolving. Every day, new challenges, new opportunities, new ways of working. Comcast Business keeps you totally in step with secure AI-backed networking built to power the way modern business gets things done today in more than 100 countries around the world. That's some serious muscle. businesses behind it all network engineers cyber security specialists support teams thousands of experts answering your call at 2 a.m. like it's 2 p.m. always on always ready that's a lot of coffee one partner powering how business gets done for companies of every size all around the globe when you add it all up no one does business like comcast business Let's talk about another important service that the government already provides, and that's education. You probably read the big Nicole Hannah-Jones piece about her daughter going to school. I was very dismayed, I think, actually, by a lot of the discourse it spawned because I saw basically people taking one of two sides. People were like, oh, this is why school choice is important and people should not have to have their children stuck in a failing school, etc. basically saying like it's inegalitarian and counter left to sort of be so obsessed with like the success of your particular child? What's so special about the daughter of the New York Times journalist that they have to be, you know, better educated than their peers, etc. And I did not see many people respond, which is how I responded with like, let's just make every school excellent. Like, my son goes to an excellent public school. When I went to his curriculum night, I got saddened by the fact that this was not the default school kind of rare. And I'm curious why we don't hear more just like, let's just have all schools be great. And let's hold the schools to high standards for educating all children. The tricky thing is in a place like New York, the bad schools are better funded per pupil. So it's not a funding problem, but is a wider problem in society. If people are going to school and they're in unstable living conditions at home, if their parents are struggling with maintaining a job, if there's other issues in their wider community, if there's safety issues. And they feel unsafe walking from school. If in the name of egalitarianism, which I believe in, we have that kid trying [40:00] traveling across town because we have some form of busing and equalization. All these things, I think, create factors of disparities that people want to resolve purely through public education, where I think, you know, the roots are obviously deeper and a more egalitarian society with an extensive social safety net, with employment guarantees and with a more equal distribution of income. I think a lot of these things would resolve themselves. But, you know, the problem my mind, the school choice end of it. I share the skepticism of education as the solution to inequality. Like I'm skeptical that there's some obvious link, but also I think like education is It's good to learn things. We're given this brand and it's like good to like exercise it. So, yeah, sure. Maybe we could have a society in which the schools you get into are less important for your ultimate economic outcome. But that doesn't necessarily satisfy me if one of my concerns is, no, people should expect that they could get a good education. Yeah. I mean, I think to begin with, we should say that public education in the U.S. is radically better than it was 100 years ago. better than it was for most of human history. We live in a society with universal literacy. We live in a society where we protect children and they're not in the labor market unless they're in, you know, voluntarily from age 15 to 18, but they're not in the labor market until they graduate from high school. And I kind of think that that if you solve the background issues and you have similarly well-invested schools, if you have societies in which the state has a bigger is able to maybe play a heavier hand dealing with special interests, like, let's say, a community group that says, we don't want our children to have to travel 30 minutes away for school, or this sort of local community pressures on education, or people in, you know, deep red districts that want particular tailored curriculum, they don't want a national curriculum, they want to do their I think you would solve part of that problem. And also, obviously, there's the overarching question of public sector employees and public sector employees now are. in a huge battle often when they make contracts because they feel like they're underpaid, which they often are. They feel like the thing that they get for being underpaid is security of tenure. And in a different sort of society where you have full employment guarantees, where you have broadly more abundance, you could probably tell teachers you're going to be paid a But 10% of you are going to be fired every year. And I think that resolved at least some of the questions that actually went unresolved. I think actually the correct right wing opposition to that piece centered around the questions of what are the teachers doing? Are they performing? And why do we have summer breaks that are this long instead of just breaks longer? And how much holidays? Oh, my God. Yeah. And also now it's like, you know, I actually I'm five years until my kid is ready to enter the public school system. launch a campaign against kids getting Diwali off. And you know what? It's a big problem. You and I make a trade here, which is that I'm Jewish. I will lobby for like, let's chill with the number of Jewish holidays that we take off and you campaign for getting rid of day off for Diwali. And then we can have this united thing where all of us agree that some of our holidays don't have to be days off. I think South Asians and Jews can definitely band together to value communalism. Great. Let's do it. This is terrible. No, we don't. No, no, no, no, no. There's so many holidays. It's crazy. And I think everyone should just voluntarily say, you know what, maybe I'll take my student out that day. But the entire school district does not have to shut down for all of our holidays. Moving swiftly on. People are going to love this part of the segment. I have a sort of backup big picture question, but you've mentioned a stronger social safety net a to a more egalitarian society? Why is it necessarily market socialism versus just your sort of classic higher taxes on the wealthy and more government spending and, you know, health care for all, better education, etc. So at least part of this is normative. I'm a socialist. I think that wage labor is a condition of exploitation. I think that it's an inequality that a good society should not have. I think the more practical reason why is that we've already seen plenty of societies that have gone down the road. [45:00] of building bigger and bigger welfare states. These societies have often had to kind of stop at a certain point. They've had a lot of their gains eroded. And in part, this was because of the political power of capitalists who get to make the decision whether or not to invest or And when you have a condition of full employment like you did in, let's say, Sweden in the 1960s, you have... an economy that's actually functioning with, full employment. It doesn't have runaway inflation as a result of full employment. There's all sorts of tools, macroeconomic tools that the government is doing to keep that into check. But what you do have is workers who feel really comfortable and really secure, and they start demanding higher and higher wages and also more industrial democracy. So you're a Swedish capitalist who could say, yes, I have to deal with this really strong state and these powerful unions, but at least I have instead of my colleagues and friends with their strikes all the time, or in Britain, not nearly a social democratic as a country, but a country with a really deep militant workers movement, at least I have my stability, that capitalist can say, you know, I'm getting squeezed, I'm going to stop investing. And especially at contingent things like the OPEC shock and greater global globalization starting in the 70s and onward, but it actually turned out to be a system that was economically possible, but politically unstable. And as a result, The smart social democrats realized that they had to pursue a different road. I think there was a left-wing, more socialist resolution to this crisis that involved worker ownership. It was tried, like the Minder Plan and other attempts to move shares from capitalists to ordinary workers. welfare state, and we're also going to have to restore, you know, slightly higher unemployment and sort of other constraints on the ability of workers to bargain. So these are certainly better societies than we have now. But I think it is fundamentally a different sort of model. And especially for me, I believe that workers should not have just the power of exit and production. So what social democracy does is, unlike feudalism, we're not serfs, workers can reality in a country with a weak welfare state, or really just like a poorly structured welfare state, I should say, like the US, you're often tied to your employer in such a way that your power of exit is limited. Like maybe I could find a job with comparable salary, but I can't find the benefits or there'll be a disruption or whatever else. Your power of exit is weakened. But you also really have limited voice in the workplace as well. And in my view, there's all sorts of benefits that could come from giving people more voice as well. We're making a very soft claim that we think the system could be comparable to capitalist development. But when I think about these battles over, let's say, AI and labor-saving technology, A workplace filled with people who get residual profits, who get dividends, are less likely, these ordinary workers will be less likely to hide their knowledge from their employer. They'd be less likely to... resist the automation of elements of their work. I actually think there's huge advantages in an economy in which workers have more voice. But obviously, for me, even if there wasn't, I should say I would be in favor of that on egalitarian grounds. You have interesting politics because You're socialist. You also have some liberal tendencies in which you believe in the sort of premise of consumer choice, etc. You're also a conservative because you're sort of like, let's get rid of the weed shops and police are important. It's interesting. I don't usually read a lot of like French, European continental theorists, etc. structures and affects of political bodies. And I thought I loved it. I was surprised. But he argued that the solution to like, I like coffee and you like almond milk, or that basically like he said, like, We can't have like once we start with the the the premise of sort of like voluntary association, voluntary goods. We can see that the unit of society is the individual and that's liberal and that the solution to that is changing people that actually like the solution is modification. And if we like different things, then the answer is like we have to modify. [50:00] by people so that they all like the same things. And that is the sort of key step on the path to, he's a communist, but that is the step. Why not just like embark on an effort to just make everyone the same or to aspire in a direction of this sort of what he, the word he uses, modification, such that the individual no longer has to be the unit of politics or society. Well, in part, I believe in a reconciliation of liberalism and socialism. I think actually most democratic socialists today have already made that reconciliation. That reconciliation is actually in the bones of its tradition. So by saying the state doesn't have the right to, let's say, direct your labor, why? Why doesn't it? If there's a utilitarian, and why doesn't the state have the right? Because it just doesn't, right? I think there's all sorts of ways in which we should And the question is, though, should the state be involved in the project of shaping behavior? Well, states are. And I think it's a good thing. Right. I think it makes sense that the state should create the very least friction and antisocial behavior. So I would love tomorrow if the state said, even if we're not going to ban sports betting, we at least are going to put a ban on sports betting apps, notifying you on your phone, even even that is, well, maybe I want to be notified if the line changes on the Giants game. There's an end. We're shaping behavior. We have a lot less smoking now than we did when, you know, when I was growing up. But it's coming back. Zoomers are smoking. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we need to create more friction. Right. And we also need to maybe tax other nicotine products. So that's a little bit less expensive. So if you are going to smoke. Wait, can I just I'm stuck on the school holiday thing for a second. This is the most controversial thing I said. Now you're going to. Yeah, no, but I think it relates to some of what we're discussing. So I'm assuming that both of you want to spend quality time with your children. And so your opposition to school holidays is it's a hassle for people who are working. You have to arrange child care. It's a friction that you have to deal with. In a socialist society, could we not just have more worker holidays that line up with school holidays? Wouldn't that be the solution rather than getting rid of the school holidays? Well, like anything, there's going to be a tradeoff, right? We have more worker holidays, then there's obviously less being produced. There's less surplus for society. So obviously, if society wants to make that tradeoff, be a little bit poorer, have a little more holidays, that's fine. Actually, I believe in those tradeoffs, I guess, to some extent. I do believe that a good society would have more leisure time. work 60 hour plus weeks. If there was a law really mandating that everyone really sticks to 35, I guess I would find things to do and I would enjoy it. Well, I think education is like a particular thing where, you know, our children need education. There's obviously been slippage in educational outcomes at the very least since the pandemic. I would actually argue that some of the better parts of No Child Left Behind have been abandoned and we've kept some of the annoying political argument but my vision is kids in school nine to five yeah high frequency of low stakes standardized testing i i don't even know how this is a socialist argument but that's just my vision and no Diwali off. You know, Diwali really starts in the evening anyway. Like it doesn't, it isn't like a, you know, Doesn't make sense. Like I said, I'll trade. I'll take one of mine off the board. I just have one last question. OK, DSA. I've never been to a DSA meeting. I don't know, really, like the left in this country is so broad and some of it to me seems less left and more like hyper liberal. criminalizing sex work. And there are many things that seem to fall under what people call the left in this country. And I don't really know like how many people who self-characterized as the left are sort of like class-based leftists per se. Like if I were to go to a DSA meeting, never been to one, I don't think they'd want me in there. How small or big is your contention? Where do you, how, you know, how much like with just fighting the intrafight of the left, how much do you have to grow yet in order for the Bosker view to be the view that, And what's the general perception of market socialism? I guess classical DSAs. I think market socialism is now the norm on the socialist left. But the question is, how much people say, oh, we need markets now, but maybe in the future, AI will solve calculation problems. And then my response is true. The Soviets didn't have the kind of pricing data that you could get nowadays, right? Yeah, I mean, I think it still doesn't make [55:00] sense. I think AI can help form a better plan, but it wouldn't actually help you execute that plan. Then if something changes, you would then have to reform the plan. It kind of would be the worst of both worlds in many ways. But my normal response there is to point to incentive problems, and that normally wins the argument, though I am actually a pure believer. I'm on the von Mises-Hajak side of the calculation debate. And I also believe in the inherent good of the This is probably the largest... grouping of a very fragmented set of beliefs, but serious interrogation with the history of socialist economies, and also just thinking and laying out that we spent a lot of the book laying out the normative case and for a very radical form of egalitarianism, but kind of starting with the here's what we believe. actually helps lay the groundwork for making the technical argument. But, you know, Jacobin, for all its heterodox views, is the largest publication on the socialist left in generations since appeal to reason, since over 100 years. You know, I got to the socialist calculation debate. It reminds me of the early, I've been reading a lot about AI lately, because it seems pretty important. The early AI pioneers tried to embed intelligence in the form of an algorithm, and citizen teacher to a computer and it didn't work. It only worked after let's just collect a lot of data. And it was very different from the early AI pioneers. And my expectation is that as AI gets better and better, it will get better at predicting the results of experiments. So you don't have to run the experiment. And if you perceive capitalism as a series of entrepreneurs making hypotheses and then testing them with the firm, I actually, not only do I think it's possible, to essentially a form of communism by which we no longer need the firm as a hypothesis of what will work anyway the ai thing does not work because there's not like a data set to collect like people's wants and needs change constantly and also then it doesn't explain but if you believe in a super intelligent ai we are you know what i will revisit this in 10 years even even the like the most efficient way for the state to build like a railroad and like the correct allocation. But the reason why we have market-driven prices is obviously for the trade-off end of it. AI can create a static... like perfect plan yeah but i i think it would fail in execution but we will see we'll see oscar thank you so much for coming on outlast thanks for having me congrats on the book tracy i thought that was a really fun conversation i have to say my guess is like if the quote the United States or just represented by Bosker and Zoran, that would be an upgrade from many of the voices that you hear across the lab. It's still, as you said, a very interesting mix of politics. No weed shops, but public provision of housing. Consumer choice. You have to apply to the public bank to get your restaurant and then no weed shops. And less exploitation of workers, but fewer school holidays. Fewer school holidays and lots of options at the breadline. Lots of options at the bread aisle, not in a bread line. That $70 sourdough loaf that's on sale in New York. It might still exist. Well, the other thing, and we didn't get into it because the book purposefully doesn't get into it, is the transition, right? Oh, yeah. How do you go from an ultra-capitalist society to something that resembles market socialism? People own their houses right now. They own publicly traded stocks and things like that. And then what happens also, I think this is a really important point, is what happens when you transition to socialism and then four years later, the voters don't like it? Do you transition back to like that? So like part of like the question of like democracy as it's structured is like, all right, you know what? We're going to elect Bernie Sanders president and we're going to embark on this road to socialism. And then it's like four years later. It's like, OK, now we're going to elect Donald Trump, whatever. As a blueprint, it's like very interesting. It's very interesting to think about these things. Getting there, I guess that's always been the challenge, but getting there and then maintaining there so that actually like we have to like stick with it and follow through on it. That strikes me as difficult in a country that has elections every two years. Yeah, for sure. Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Allaway. You [60:00] Weisenthal. You can follow me at The Stalwart. Follow our guest, Bhaskar Sankara at Sunray Sunray. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand, Dashiell Bennett at Dashbot, Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks, and Kevin Lozano at Kevin Lloyd Lozano. And you can chat about all of these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.gg slash oddlots. And for even more Oddlots content, check out our daily newsletter, which you can find at bloomberg.com slash oddlots. And if you enjoyed this conversation, if you like it when we talk about the different flavors of socialism, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And if you're watching on video and you enjoyed the show, then please like or leave a comment, or better yet, subscribe. And remember, if you're a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for joining. Thank you. Games on a break? Don't doom scroll. Try Rips on Underdog. Buy a digital pack, rip it open, and reveal a real physical card. Football, basketball, even Pokemon. Packs start at just $5. Ship it straight to your door or sell it back instantly at full market value. Max value up to $125,000. Download Underdog and get in on the chase. Deposit $5, get five free packs. Real Rips, extremely rare. Some people use ChatGPT to answer questions. Others use it to get real work done. With ChatGPT work, you bring the goal, plus real inputs like briefs, notes, files, feedback, data, and project plans. It can help turn them into an analysis, tracker, deck outline, prototype, or workflow you can review and keep shaping. You stay in control, giving direction and choosing the final output. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. on Plus and Pro plans. At UCI Health, their mission is simple, to improve the lives of people in the community and beyond. As Orange County's only academic health system, they deliver leading-edge discoveries, train future healers, and provide the highest quality care for you and your family. Now, you can tap into that expertise anytime with the Live Well podcast series, featuring UCI Health experts on wellness, prevention, mental health, nutrition, and everyday ways to improve the lives of people. to just live healthier. Download and stream Live Well by UCI Health wherever you listen to podcasts.