Cowardly Refugee Running Away From Problems

[re:dream]

Capitalism, part of the structure of reason itself?

That would take some nifty arguing...

You are losing me here, could you explain what you mean, and how it ties in with the discussion I had with Galt?

Galt said his economic statements were not empirically derived, but flowed from a priori propositions.

When you called this silly, he pointed out that some pretty important works of philosophy essentially pivot on the same notion - that there are some truths that are neither derived from experience, nor simply analytically true , but which are needed for us to be able to make sense of experience at all. He even did some name dropping, referencing Immanuel Kant.

A good point. But I would argue that there is a difference between the kinds of a priori truths that Immanuel K proposed (little notions like space, time and causation) and the underlying assumptions of neoclassical economics. And Kant had to do quite a lot of hard work even then.

Hence the reference to nifty arguing.

Hope that makes things clearer?

[re:dream]

Capitalism is descriptive of how humans naturally organise themselves in the absence of a monopoly of coercion.

You will have to do better than that if you want to convince me that you are in possession of self evident truths... For instance, much available evidence about early human society pretty much contradicts this.

[Galt]

This is patently untrue. Capitalism has only been an economic system for 350 years in England, and less in other countries. Human split from the chimp line 7 million years ago, and anatomically modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago. There was no class society until 10,000 years ago. From 200,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago humans had no class structure, no classes. In other words society was largely egalitarian. Towns with no classes thrived in Europe for hundreds and even thousands of years around 10,000 years ago.

At the other end of the spectrum, we now live in an age where there is enough food, but millions are hungry. This would never happen in a hunter-gatherer tribe. Food is always shared out. We live in a technological age where everyone could have a decent house, heat and light, clean running water, healthcare, care in their old age, proper clothing, transport, communication and generally everything they need and most things they could want. All this is not only possible, it is mostly already in existence, like food.

But while millions starve, twice as many overeat, food is thrown away, $ billions are spent on arms, individuals own $ 1 billion yachts, millions are unemployed. Greed and waste is everywhere.

The human race could improve the lives of billions of people significantly, very easily, and for millions that would be a matter of survival as opposed to a lingering death.

Even if we just spent the money we use on arms manufacture we would have enough to solve most basic problems like providing clean drinking water and sanitation that billions lack.

It would cost about $13 billion a year to provide clean water, sanitation and food to those lacking it. Incredibly, this is only 1% of what is spent on weapons.

What stops us from doing the right thing? The answer is capitalism, a system in which the only thing that matters is is profit.

[Galt]

You will have to do better than that if you want to convince me that you are in possession of self evident truths... For instance, much available evidence about early human society pretty much contradicts this.

From Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method:

"Economic propositions flow directly from our reflectively gained knowledge of action; and the status of these propositions as a priori true statements about something real is derived from our understanding of what Mises terms “the axiom of action. This axiom, the proposition that humans act, fulfills the requirements precisely for a true synthetic a priori proposition. It cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action—and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone. And the axiom is also not derived from observation—there are only bodily movements to be observed but no such things as “This axiom, the proposition that humans act, fulfills the requirements precisely for a true synthetic a priori proposition. It cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action—and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone. And the axiom is also not derived from observation—there are only bodily movements to be observed but no such things as actions—but stems instead from reflective understanding”

[re:dream]

Okt. Humans act. That's got the behaviourists seen to, I think. We're still a long way from capitalism though...

[Galt]

Okt. Humans act. That's got the behaviourists seen to, I think. We're still a long way from capitalism though...

Good, so now that we can agree that economics is a synthetic, a priori science, we can see why Marx's body of work, which attempts to derive its validity from historical analysis, is incorrect. Another failure of Marxism is to understand value. Value, it claims, is objective and can be measured in units of socially necessary labour time. The Austrian understands that value is something quite other, that value is subjective, and he does this by considering this basic, synthetic, a priori truth: that nobody would willingly exchange one good or service for another, unless he expected to gain (in some way) from the exchange.

[re:dream]

Good, so now that we can agree that economics is a synthetic, a priori science,

You haven't established that.

we can see why Marx's body of work, which attempts to derive its validity from historical analysis, is incorrect.

See above

Another failure of Marxism is to understand value. Value, it claims, is objective and can be measured in units of socially necessary labour time. The Austrian understands that value is something quite other, that value is subjective, and he does this by considering this basic, synthetic, a priori truth: that nobody would willingly exchange one good or service for another, unless he expected to gain (in some way) from the exchange.

Ja, well. I don't find the labour theory of value interesting or all that necessary. It's one of the bits of Marx's thought that hasn't really made the transition out of the 19th century. But that's a problem only if you want to take Marx's thought religiously, i.e. as an all or nothing affair. Which I don't.

[Galt]

I've shot this down before. It's easy to do. Try to explain why a BMW costs more than a Fiat. The answer is that a lot more labour goes into the BMW. Your theory only explains why a BMW costs more one day and less the next.

A BMW costs more than a Fiat because on average people are willing to pay more for it. This is the only reason. If people weren't willing to pay more for it, they'd have to drop their prices. Labour time has exactly fack all to do with anything.

Marxist theory fails to take supply and demand into account, and thus completely and utterly fails as an economic theory.

[Galt]

Ja, well. I don't find the labour theory of value interesting or all that necessary. It's one of the bits of Marx's thought that hasn't really made the transition out of the 19th century. But that's a problem only if you want to take Marx's thought religiously, i.e. as an all or nothing affair. Which I don't.

This would be fair were it not for that fact that the greater part of Marxist theory depends on his labour theory of value. His entire account for worker exploitation does not hold up to scrutiny the moment you realise that workers, in exchange for services rendered, receive the exact amount of value to which they contractually consented. Hence, there is no expropriation of labour in the form of surplus value. Rather, surplus value is what motivates the capitalist to employ the worker in the first place. Simply put, profit is what drives production.

[Galt]

In other words, you cannot reply, you have no reply, there is no reply, and you sort of know it.

[re:dream]

Ja, well. I don't find the labour theory of value interesting or all that necessary. It's one of the bits of Marx's thought that hasn't really made the transition out of the 19th century. But that's a problem only if you want to take Marx's thought religiously, i.e. as an all or nothing affair. Which I don't.

This would be fair were it not for that fact that the greater part of Marxist theory depends on his labour theory of value. His entire account for worker exploitation does not hold up to scrutiny the moment you realise that workers, in exchange for services rendered, receive the exact amount of value to which they contractually consented. Hence, there is no expropriation of labour in the form of surplus value. Rather, surplus value is what motivates the capitalist to employ the worker in the first place. Simply put, profit is what drives production.

I don't know whether I even think of Marx's thought in terms of a coherent 'theory' any more. I think he had lots of brilliant insights into the the nature of industrial and market society. His thought also had lots of limitations. He was a creature of his time, and was concerned with the questions of his time. (The debate about the origins of 'value' is an example: since Marx, economists have stopped worrying about 'value', which is a rather metaphysical notion; they focus on 'price', which is something quite different. But you know that.) Many thinkers and writers have gone beyond his insights, but still owe a debt to the kinds of thought he opened up.

So - speaking personally - in my day job, I regard him as an intellectual 'ancestor' of the theories and and approaches that I work in. I don't feel I need to defend any of his ideas; neither do I feel a need to reject them.

It's like in music: if you work in modern day western traditions, what you make is in some way influenced by Bach, or Ellington, or whoever. You've gone beyond them. But it would be ridiculous to ask you either to cleave to them religiously, or to reject them.

[Galt]

I don't know whether I even think of Marx's thought in terms of a coherent 'theory' any more. I think he had lots of brilliant insights into the the nature of industrial and market society. His thought also had lots of limitations. He was a creature of his time, and was concerned with the questions of his time. (The debate about the origins of 'value' is an example: since Marx, economists have stopped worrying about 'value', which is a rather metaphysical notion; they focus on 'price', which is something quite different. But you know that.) Many thinkers and writers have gone beyond his insights, but still owe a debt to the kinds of thought he opened up.

So - speaking personally - in my day job, I regard him as an intellectual 'ancestor' of the theories and and approaches that I work in. I don't feel I need to defend any of his ideas; neither do I feel a need to reject them.

It's like in music: if you work in modern day western traditions, what you make is in some way influenced by Bach, or Ellington, or whoever. You've gone beyond them. But it would be ridiculous to ask you either to cleave to them religiously, or to reject them.

I'm game. Could you possibly tell me which of his ideas do you think are valid?

As for the question of price vs. value, I do not agree with you that economists have stopped worrying about the latter. The text I quoted above, for example, comes from an essay published in 1995, and which is still taught in universities today. So there.

[Galt]

Don't talk fucking wet. Do the workers get paid the full value of the work they do? No

Does the capitalist make a profit? Yes

Does the profit come from thin air? No

Does it grow on trees? No

Does it com from the difference between what a capitalist pays his workers, and what he sells the fruits of their labour for?

Can you guess the answer?

This is another wonderful example of a common trait amongst most Marxists—the belief that workers aren't capable of making choices for themselves. Their consent is meaningless; they should, in fact, be supervised at all times, lest they naively try to make an honest living.

This is one of the reasons why attempts at socialism have always descended into bloody tyranny. If you can't respect someone enough to let them make their own decisions, you certainly wouldn't want them controlling production.

One more time, for the benefit of the non-marxists here:

1. The employer pays the employee wages in order to make profit.
2. The employee sells his labour to the employer in order to receive wages.
3. Provided that this relationship is consensual, no expropriation ever takes place.
4. Both parties gain from the exchange, value is created.

It's really not that hard...

[Galt]

Ah, Hans Hoppe. The man who regards democracy as a form of communism. The man who was interviewed in interviewed in the right-wing extreme nationalist German publication, Junge Freiheit.

Sieg Heil!

Find that interview, post it here, and demonstrate to us why it fits with Hitler's vision. Please, do so. Don't be shy now.

[re:dream]

As for the question of price vs. value, I do not agree with you that economists have stopped worrying about the latter. The text I quoted above, for example, comes from an essay published in 1995, and which is still taught in universities today. So there.

OK, fair enough. Some economists would distinguish between (subjective) value and price; others see price as the only meaningful indicator of value. But my point is that the way Marx and his contemporaries thought about it has largely been left behind.