{"id":11661,"date":"2021-01-28T04:39:16","date_gmt":"2021-01-28T12:39:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11661"},"modified":"2025-11-06T04:17:39","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T12:17:39","slug":"obscured-tautology-and-the-persistence-of-socialism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11661","title":{"rendered":"Obscured Tautology and the Persistence of Socialism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since sometime in my childhood, I have repeatedly encountered arguments of the form<\/p>

If X<\/var> were Y<\/var> enough, then X<\/var> would be able to Z<\/var>.<\/div>

For example<\/p>

If you<\/u> were smart<\/u> enough, then you<\/u>'d be able to fix that widget<\/u>.<\/div>

The enough<\/q> makes this claim a tautology<\/em>; it really just unpacks to<\/p>

If X<\/var> were Y<\/var> enough to Z<\/var>, then X<\/var> would be able to Z<\/var>.<\/div>

But the tautology is vacuous and useless in cases in which<\/p>

Y<\/var> enough to Z<\/var><\/div>

is not possible, as in<\/p>

pretty<\/u> enough to solve Hilbert's Fifteenth Problem<\/u><\/div>

It is<\/em> true that<\/p>

If<\/strong> Madeline<\/u> were pretty<\/u> enough to solve Hilbert's Fifteenth Problem<\/u>, then Madeline<\/u> would be able to solve Hilbert's Fifteenth Problem<\/u>.<\/div>

It just isn't<\/em> true that<\/p>

Someone could be pretty<\/u> enough to solve Hilbert's Fifteenth Problem<\/u>.<\/div>

Outside of pædogogic exercises, when someone makes a declaration of form<\/p>

If X<\/var> were Y<\/var> enough, then X<\/var> would be able to Z<\/var>.<\/div>

he or she is presuming or insinuating that<\/p>

At the margin, there is some level of Y<\/var> that is sufficient to be able to Z<\/var>.<\/div>

but this proposition may not be true, and certainly ought to be examined before accepting<\/p>

If X<\/var> were Y<\/var> enough, then X<\/var> would be able to Z<\/var>.<\/div>

as part of an argument that<\/p>

X<\/var> ought to be more Y<\/var><\/div>

or that<\/p>

Z<\/var> can be accomplished.<\/div>

The reason that I write about this issue of logic now is that it seems to me that a great many people essentially believe that<\/p>

All that is necessary for socialism to work is for us<\/var> to take control and to be sufficiently virtuous<\/u>; thus, when socialism fails it is either because we<\/var> are not in control or are not sufficiently virtuous<\/u>; and thus, no matter how much or how often attempts at socialism fail, we<\/var> must struggle to take control and to be virtuous<\/u> — perhaps by finding ways to incentivize virtuous<\/u>ness — until socialism succeeds.<\/div>

Some critics would perhaps want to ask the genuinely important question of to just whom this we<\/q> and us<\/q> refer, but for my purpose here they can be left as a variable<\/em> to be assigned whatever value the political left might want. My objection is that lurking in the argument is<\/p>

If X<\/var> were virtuous<\/u> enough, then X<\/var> would be able to make socialism work<\/u>.<\/div>

And, in this context, even a genuine failure of socialism will not be seen as a reason to quit trying. The socialists can always tell themselves We can succeed next time, or at least fail better<\/em>.<\/q><\/p>

The typical<\/em> opponent of socialism argues that socialism will fail because people will not be motivated to expend sufficient effort<\/em>. Not only can this been seen as a problem of virtue<\/em> by the political left; it has<\/em> been seen as a problem of virtue<\/em> by the political right<\/em>, who sometimes ascribe the impossibility of well functioning socialism to Original Sin<\/span>.<\/p>

But a motivation to work with sufficient intensity<\/em> is not the deepest practical problem of socialism. The problem of knowing at what<\/em> to work<\/a> — the Problem of Economic Calculation<\/a> — is the deepest problem. We can presume that, somehow<\/em>, everyone conforms utterly<\/em> to a left-wing notion of virtue<\/span>, and still<\/em> the Problem of Economic Calculation<\/a> will abide.

At the margin, no<\/em> level of virtue<\/u> on the part of any us<\/var> or of any them<\/var> is sufficient to make socialism work<\/u>.<\/div> <\/p>

But, hidden behind an obscured and misapplied tautology, the presumption that such a level exists can keep socialists banging their heads against the wall indefinitely and putting other people against the wall indefinitely.<\/p> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Since sometime in my childhood, I have repeatedly encountered arguments of the form If X were Y enough, then X would be able to Z. For example If you were smart enough, then you'd be able to fix that widget. The enough makes this claim a tautology; it really just unpacks to If X were […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,36],"tags":[147,302,150,1579],"class_list":["post-11661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-economics","tag-economic-calculation","tag-logic","tag-socialism","tag-tautology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11661","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11661"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11661\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12733,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11661\/revisions\/12733"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}