Spencer's note is accurate. The Scottish school of materialism had a
significant influence on German philosophy. Consequently, the
parallels between Marx and Smith were not accidental. Also, Marx is
probably more respectful of Smith than he was towards any other major
economist.
Alan's passing reference to intellectual property is relevant.
Historically, most libertarian economists regarded intellectual
property as a form of monopoly.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Spencer Pack <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Marx felt that people's characters, ideas and general views were largely
> determined by their material and social place in society, and what they
> did for a "living", what they had to do in their day-to-day activities to
> satisfy their economic and social needs, etc. In short, he was basically a
> materialist, and people in different social classes will tend to have
> different views.
>
> Adam Smith's position is, of course, quite similar. The mercantilists were
> the way they were because they were pursuing what they thought was their
> economic self interest, and they had the money and power to use the
> government to pursue their goals, to the detriment of most everyone else.
> Managers tend to be liars and thiefs because they are managing other
> people's economic enterprises, and they can get away with lying and
> cheating. Landlords tend to be lazy, indolent and not too smart, again
> because they can get away with it and don't have the need in their
> day-to-day activities to exert overly themselves - physcially or mentally.
> In short, Adam Smith was basically a materialist too, and people in
> different social ranks will tend to have different views - and characters.
> Respectfully submitted,
> Spencer J. Pack
> Connecticut College
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:08 AM, SHOE automatic digest system
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> There are 10 messages totalling 1461 lines in this issue.
>>
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>> 1. History of Fiat Money (4)
>> 2. Polylogism in Marxist and racist economic thought (5)
>> 3. I swear I'll blow the whistle!
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:52:18 -0400
>> From: "=?windows-1252?Q?Carlos_F._Suarez_Doriga?="
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: History of Fiat Money
>>
>> I would like to ask you if you can recommend me papers or books about the=
>> =20
>> History of Fiat Money.
>>
>> Truly yours.
>>
>> Carlos F. Su=E1rez D=F3riga.
>> Senior Analyst
>> Central Bank of Argentina
>> Reconquista 266 Of. 4706
>> C1003ABF - Buenos Aires
>> Phone: (54-11) 4348-3500 ext. 2593
>> Fax: (54-11) 4348-3778
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:56:31 -0400
>> From: Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Polylogism in Marxist and racist economic thought
>>
>> Turpin's book, as reported by Donald Fry is an excellent example of what
>> Ludwig von Mises called POLYLOGISM.
>>
>> Polylogism is the "theory that the logical structure of the human mind
>> differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a result
>> the ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the specified
>> classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are differences
>> according to social classes. Others claim there are differences
>> according to race, religion, nationality, etc." (Percy Greaves)
>> http://mises.org/easier/P.asp#33
>>
>> In the past, this theory was proposed by Marxists, racists, religious
>> zealots, nationalists, and so on. Now it is presented by a professor of
>> communication, who presumably recognizes that different people speak
>> different languages but denies that they have a common deep structure.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure
>>
>> Mises believed that the main motive for polylogism was to attack the use
>> of economics in evaluating economic policy. He writes that a "consistent
>> supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas are correct
>> because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race."
>> See section 2 of
>> http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA3.html
>>
>> Apparently, Turpin believes that he has the "right" attitude about
>> distribution, which trumps the traditional economic theory of the
>> classical and early neoclassical economists. The moral view he presents
>> is based on a "conflict, survivalist view" of an economy. This view sees
>> an economy as an interaction that determines who gets what, and not an
>> interaction that determines how individuals come to produce the
>> mountains of consumer goods that can be observed in the department
>> stores, supermarkets and shipping depots. Who could reasonably deny that
>> Smith held the latter view of an economy and that this is mainly what
>> future generations learned from Smith's writings?
>>
>>
>> On 6/7/2011 6:05 PM, Humberto Barreto wrote:
>> > ------ EH.NET <http://eh.net/> BOOK REVIEW ------
>> > Title: The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and Modern
>> > Economic
>> > Thought
>> >
>> > Published by EH.NET <http://eh.net/> (June 2011)
>> >
>> > Paul Turpin, /The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and
>> > Modern
>> > Economic Thought/. New York: Routledge, 2011. xv + 163 pp. $115
>> > (hardcover),
>> > ISBN: 978-0-415-77392-8.
>> >
>> > Reviewed for EH.Net by Donald E. Frey, Department of Economics, Wake
>> > Forest
>> > University.
>> >
>> > Paul Turpin’s thesis is that Adam Smith’s theory of a self-regulating
>> > economy was only plausible if it rested on the values and customs of the
>> > commercial society of his time and place. Smith’s ideal economy could
>> > operate without the regulating role for church and state only because
>> > the
>> > constraints of the “social decorum” of his society took their place.
>> > However, reliance on social decorum creates a paradox for the theory of
>> > “natural liberty” because “at the very moment it dismisses dogma
>> > [church] and ancient custom [the feudal state] with one hand, it
>> > reintroduces
>> > a dogmatic decorum with the other. ... People are free to be themselves
>> > as
>> > long as they correspond to the right decorum [of the commercial
>> > society]”
>> > (p.10). Thus, the system of natural liberty imposes its own conformity.
>> >
>> > Using traditional terminology, Turpin argues that the decorum of this
>> > society
>> > was that of “commutative” justice -- the values that allow commerce to
>> > function, such as high regard for property rights, contracts, voluntary
>> > trading, competitive efficiency, etc. But the tilt in that direction
>> > largely banished issues of “distributive justice” from the public
>> > sphere.
>> > When distributive issues occasionally intruded into the public arena,
>> > they
>> > were narrowly defined by the market mentality: distributive justice was
>> > reduced to the question of the rightness of the distribution of economic
>> > rewards received by people. And what is right is whatever results from
>> > the
>> > workings of a competitive market -- an answer that reverts to
>> > commutative
>> > categories.
>> >
>> > Broader distributive issues exist, Turpin insists: namely, what is one’s
>> > place in society and one’s relationship to that society? Smith left
>> > this to
>> > be decided in the private arena by the decorum of the existing
>> > society, and
>> > largely kept these questions out of the public arena. Turpin points
>> > out that
>> > such private-sector decorum worked at various times to subordinate, not
>> > liberate, groups of people (consider the role of women) -- an outcome
>> > hardly
>> > consistent with a system of natural liberty. This reviewer thinks Turpin
>> > could have gone even further: the thought-patterns taught by commerce
>> > may
>> > invade the “private” realm and turn even personal relationships into
>> > forms of economic transactions or calculations (a process written about
>> > in
>> > Robert Bellah’s /Habits of the Heart/).
>> >
>> > Turpin defines distributive justice in terms of human relationships,
>> > which
>> > includes full membership in society for all: “having a recognized place
>> > in
>> > society is something people need to develop their own identities. ...
>> > [and]
>> > /people as-they-are are recognized as belonging/, as being members” (p.
>> > 106, emphasis added). That is, one’s security as a member of society
>> > does
>> > not need to be proportional to one’s economic productivity (or merely
>> > one’s high income), an affirmation that flies in the face of much of the
>> > practice of modern commercial cultures. Smith considered some
>> > provision for
>> > the poor in /The Wealth of Nations/, as befit the “decorum” of his time.
>> > But for the “liberal” society, which followed him, removal of
>> > non-competitive hindrances to earning one’s income became almost the
>> > only
>> > public obligation to distributive justice. Turpin says that such a
>> > society
>> > would still leave people with existential insecurity, “the frightening
>> > prospect of not-belonging, of being abandoned (p. 121).
>> >
>> > Turpin is a professor of communication, and supports his thesis by a
>> > close
>> > look at Smith’s rhetoric. / The Wealth of Nations/ rhetorically appeals
>> > to
>> > the reader’s sympathetic response to familiar commercial behaviors,
>> > which
>> > Smith praises as virtues. In /Wealth/, Smith also encourages his
>> > reader’s
>> > lack of sympathy for monopolists, whose motives are portrayed as
>> > wicked. That
>> > is, Smith’s rhetoric is that of moral blame and praise. Turpin argues
>> > that
>> > this resolves the famous “Das Adam Smith problem.” The “sympathy”
>> > of /The Theory of Moral Sentiments/ has not disappeared from /The
>> > Wealth of
>> > Nations/ after all. While sympathy for others might not motivate
>> > economic
>> > actors, Smith appeals to the sympathetic response of his audience: “The
>> > sympathy of the reader for the judgments of Smith’s implied reader
>> > creates
>> > a formidable orientation toward competition, legitimating both formal
>> > and
>> > informal institutions” (p. 40).
>> >
>> > Although much changed between Smith’s and Milton Friedman’s times,
>> > Friedman’s popular writing ignored that intervening history that had
>> > given
>> > people good reason to turn against laissez-faire. In /Capitalism and
>> > Freedom/, “Friedman sums up nearly one hundred years of the heart of the
>> > modern era with no analysis at all about why or how welfare replaced
>> > freedom
>> > as a dominant concern” (p. 68). Turpin describes Friedman’s strategy as
>> > being very similar to that of Smith: namely to advocate for individual
>> > freedom as the social norm, while actually promoting a particular social
>> > decorum that is necessary for it to work. “The dissonance between
>> > these two
>> > social orders, the ideal and the actual, is what finally emerges as a
>> > problem” (p. 75). As with Smith, Friedman’s “discussion of justice is
>> > actually about commutative justice, not distributive justice” (p. 74).
>> > Justice is merely “payment in accordance with product.” The fact that
>> > Friedman had a large modern following suggests that the values of our
>> > commercial culture have blinded many of us to what a minimalist,
>> > impoverished
>> > notion of justice this really is.
>> >
>> > Turpin is in good company in defining distributive justice much more
>> > broadly
>> > -- to include the affirmation of membership in, and participation in,
>> > one’s
>> > society or community. Arthur Okun’s well-known essay, “Equality and
>> > Efficiency: The Big Trade-Off,” spoke of the fundamental importance of
>> > affirming the full membership of people in their society; distributive
>> > justice went beyond income distribution, as important as it was. Okun
>> > argued
>> > explicitly that some things (e.g., voting rights, academic honors, or
>> > marks
>> > of athletic excellence) should be excluded from the market. Otherwise
>> > society
>> > would be no more than a “giant vending machine,” and recognition of
>> > one’s human standing no more than a commodity. There is a long tradition
>> > among humanist thinkers, religious thinkers, and others, that a good
>> > society
>> > is marked by concern for one’s identity, found in community. For
>> > example,
>> > a 1986 pastoral letter of the American Catholic bishops was explicit
>> > about
>> > giving up some economic “efficiency” (i.e., deviating from a key norm of
>> > the commercial society) to support the viability of existing
>> > communities and
>> > the sense of place they represented for their members. Well before Adam
>> > Smith, John Amos Comenius, the education reformer and Protestant bishop,
>> > envisioned a humane society that respected people, and their human
>> > dignity --
>> > starting with children.
>> >
>> > Turpin’s book approaches his economic subject from a multi-disciplinary
>> > perspective. His own field is communications (hence the title), but he
>> > is at
>> > home with the relevant economic and philosophical literature. Not
>> > surprisingly, Turpin prefers philosophy rooted in communications
>> > theory; but
>> > this is an apt choice. This philosophy views social-ethical norms as
>> > emerging
>> > from moral discourse among members of a community (he speaks of
>> > “discourse” communities). Human relationships imply discourse, and
>> > moral norms are nothing, if not about human relationships. If norms are
>> > dictated by the social decorum of a certain society (which always seems
>> > to
>> > have inherent biases favoring some groups), they are not aids to
>> > freedom, but
>> > straitjackets for at least some members of that society. The
>> > laissez-faire
>> > system of natural liberty is not so free.
>> >
>> > Turpin brings a fresh and important interpretation to the history of
>> > moral
>> > thought embedded in political economy. This book presents an impressive
>> > multi-disciplinary argument that is provocative, convincing, and
>> > consistent
>> > with what other observers have noted about the ills of a society
>> > modeled on
>> > an eighteenth-century ideal. Economists should consider Turpin’s idea
>> > that
>> > answers to problems of economic morality could emerge from human
>> > discourse.
>> > The alternative is to be mute about moral issues, thereby leaving the
>> > status
>> > quo to provide the answers.
>> >
>> > Donald E. Frey is the author of /America’s Economic Moralists: A
>> > History of
>> > Rival Ethics and Economics/ (State University of New York Press, 2009)
>> >
>> > Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
>> > copied
>> > for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the
>> > author and
>> > the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator
>> > ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>). Published by
>> > EH.Net (June 2011). All EH.Net reviews
>> > are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
>> >
>> > Geographic Location: General, International, or Comparative
>> > Subject: History of Economic Thought; Methodology
>> > Time: 18th Century, 19th Century, 20th Century: Pre WWII, 20th
>> > Century: WWII
>> > and post-WWII
>>
>> --
>> Pat Gunning
>> Professor of Economics
>> Melbourne, Florida
>> http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:32:28 -0400
>> From: Keith Roberts <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: History of Fiat Money
>>
>> > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
>> > understand
>> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>>
>> --B_3390384752_109788037
>> Content-type: text/plain;
>> charset="ISO-8859-1"
>> Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> Dear Mr. D=F3riga,
>> While not a history of fiat money as such, my book just published by
>> Columbia University Business School Press, entitled "The Origins of
>> Business, Money, and Markets" provides a number of discussions of money
>> during antiquity, including the first inventions of fiat money.
>>
>> Keith Roberts
>>
>> Roberts Proprietaries, Inc.
>> 180 W. 80th St.
>> New York, NY 10024
>> 917-441-8642=20
>>
>> On 6/8/11 11:52 AM, "Carlos F. Suarez Doriga"
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to ask you if you can recommend me papers or books about the
>> History of Fiat Money.
>>
>> Truly yours.
>>
>> Carlos F. Su=E1rez D=F3riga.
>> Senior Analyst
>> Central Bank of Argentina
>> Reconquista 266 Of. 4706
>> C1003ABF - Buenos Aires
>> Phone: (54-11) 4348-3500 ext. 2593
>> Fax: (54-11) 4348-3778
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --B_3390384752_109788037
>> Content-type: text/html;
>> charset="ISO-8859-1"
>> Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> <html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word;
>> -webkit-nbsp-mode: s=
>> pace; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
>> font-size:=
>> 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div><div>Dear Mr.
>> D=F3riga,</=
>> div><div>While not a history of fiat money as such, my book just published
>> b=
>> y Columbia University Business School Press, entitled "The Origins of
>> Busine=
>> ss, Money, and Markets" provides a number of discussions of money during
>> ant=
>> iquity, including the first inventions of fiat
>> money.</div><div><div><br></d=
>> iv><font face=3D"Arial"><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri; ">Keith
>> Roberts</sp=
>> an><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri; "><br></span><span
>> style=3D"font-family:=
>> Calibri; "><br></span><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri; ">
>> Roberts Proprietaries, Inc.</span><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri;
>> "><br>=
>> </span><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri; ">
>> 180 W. 80th St.</span><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri;
>> "><br></span><span=
>> style=3D"font-family: Calibri; ">
>> New York, NY 10024</span><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri;
>> "><br></span><s=
>> pan style=3D"font-family: Calibri; ">
>> 917-441-8642</span></font><font size=3D"1"><font
>> face=3D"Verdana,Helvetica,Aria=
>> l"><span style=3D"font-size:9pt"><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri;
>> "><font cl=
>> ass=3D"Apple-style-span" size=3D"4"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span"
>> style=3D"font-s=
>> ize: 14px;
>> "> </span></font></span><br></span></font></font></div></div=
>> ></div><div><br></div><span id=3D"OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><div>On
>> > 6/8/11 11=
>> :52 AM, "Carlos F. Suarez Doriga" <<a
>> href=3D"mailto:c.f.suarez_doriga@ALUM=
>> NI.LSE.AC.UK">[log in to unmask]</a>>
>> wrote:</div></div><=
>> div><br></div><div><div><div>I would like to ask you if you can recommend
>> me=
>> papers or books about the </div><div>History of Fiat
>> Money.</div><div><br><=
>> /div><div>Truly yours.</div><div><br></div><div>Carlos F. Su=E1rez
>> D=F3riga.</di=
>> v><div>Senior Analyst</div><div>Central Bank of
>> Argentina</div><div>Reconqui=
>> sta 266 Of. 4706</div><div>C1003ABF - Buenos Aires</div><div>Phone:
>> (54-11) =
>> 4348-3500 ext. 2593</div><div>Fax: (54-11)
>> 4348-3778</div><div><br></div></d=
>> iv></div></span></body></html>
>>
>> --B_3390384752_109788037--
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:54:59 -0700
>> From: michael perelman <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: History of Fiat Money
>>
>> Weatherford, J. McIver. 1997. The History of Money: From Sandstone to
>> Cyberspace (New York: Crown Publishers).
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Carlos F. Suarez Doriga
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > I would like to ask you if you can recommend me papers or books about
>> > the
>> > History of Fiat Money.
>> >
>> > Truly yours.
>> >
>> > Carlos F. Su=E1rez D=F3riga.
>> > Senior Analyst
>> > Central Bank of Argentina
>> > Reconquista 266 Of. 4706
>> > C1003ABF - Buenos Aires
>> > Phone: (54-11) 4348-3500 ext. 2593
>> > Fax: (54-11) 4348-3778
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --=20
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> Chico, CA
>> 95929
>>
>> 530 898 5321
>> fax 530 898 5901
>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:24:55 +0000
>> From: "Bylund, Per L (MU-Student)" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: History of Fiat Money
>>
>> Carlos,=20
>>
>> Ludwig von Mises touches on the origin and effect of fiat money in both
>> The=
>> Theory of Money and Credit and in Human Action. Milton Friedman's Money
>> Mi=
>> schief: Episodes in Monetary History might also be worth a look, but I
>> have=
>> not read it myself.=20
>>
>> If you're looking for more of historical "case studies" I would recommend
>> A=
>> .D. White's Fiat Money Inflation in France and Murray N. Rothbard's
>> History=
>> of Money and Banking in the United States.
>>
>> These are all books, by the way. :-)
>>
>>
>> Per Bylund
>>
>> ______________________________
>> Per L. Bylund
>>
>> Division of Applied Social Sciences
>> University of Missouri
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.PerBylund.com/academics
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Beha=
>> lf Of Carlos F. Suarez Doriga
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:52 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [SHOE] History of Fiat Money
>>
>> I would like to ask you if you can recommend me papers or books about the
>> H=
>> istory of Fiat Money.
>>
>> Truly yours.
>>
>> Carlos F. Su=E1rez D=F3riga.
>> Senior Analyst
>> Central Bank of Argentina
>> Reconquista 266 Of. 4706
>> C1003ABF - Buenos Aires
>> Phone: (54-11) 4348-3500 ext. 2593
>> Fax: (54-11) 4348-3778
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:41:41 -0700
>> From: michael perelman <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Polylogism in Marxist and racist economic thought
>>
>> As a Marxist classified with "racists, religious zealots,
>> nationalists," I wonder what the response would be if I classified
>> neo-classical economists with Fascists. People would rightly respond
>> that such a suggestion would be something between ugly and stupid.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> > Turpin's book, as reported by Donald Fry is an excellent example of what
>> > Ludwig von Mises called POLYLOGISM.
>> >
>> > Polylogism is the "theory that the logical structure of the human mind
>> > differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a result
>> > th=
>> e
>> > ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the specified
>> > classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are differences
>> > according to social classes. Others claim there are differences
>> > according=
>> to
>> > race, religion, nationality, etc." (Percy Greaves)
>> > http://mises.org/easier/P.asp#33
>> >
>> > In the past, this theory was proposed by Marxists, racists, religious
>> > zealots, nationalists, and so on. Now it is presented by a professor of
>> > communication, who presumably recognizes that different people speak
>> > different languages but denies that they have a common deep structure.
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure
>> >
>> > Mises believed that the main motive for polylogism was to attack the use
>> > =
>> of
>> > economics in evaluating economic policy. He writes that a "consistent
>> > supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas are correct
>> > because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race."
>> > See section 2 of
>> > http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA3.html
>> >
>> > Apparently, Turpin believes that he has the "right" attitude about
>> > distribution, which trumps the traditional economic theory of the
>> > classic=
>> al
>> > and early neoclassical economists. The moral view he presents is based
>> > on=
>> a
>> > "conflict, survivalist view" of an economy. This view sees an economy as
>> > =
>> an
>> > interaction that determines who gets what, and not an interaction that
>> > determines how individuals come to produce the mountains of consumer
>> > good=
>> s
>> > that can be observed in the department stores, supermarkets and shipping
>> > depots. Who could reasonably deny that Smith held the latter view of an
>> > economy and that this is mainly what future generations learned from
>> > Smit=
>> h's
>> > writings?
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/7/2011 6:05 PM, Humberto Barreto wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ------ EH.NET <http://eh.net/> BOOK REVIEW ------
>> >> Title: The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and Modern
>> >> Economic
>> >> Thought
>> >>
>> >> Published by EH.NET <http://eh.net/> (June 2011)
>> >>
>> >> Paul Turpin, /The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and
>> >> Moder=
>> n
>> >> Economic Thought/. New York: Routledge, 2011. xv + 163 pp. $115
>> >> (hardcover),
>> >> ISBN: 978-0-415-77392-8.
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed for EH.Net by Donald E. Frey, Department of Economics, Wake
>> >> Forest
>> >> University.
>> >>
>> >> Paul Turpin=92s thesis is that Adam Smith=92s theory of a
>> >> self-regulatin=
>> g
>> >> economy was only plausible if it rested on the values and customs of
>> >> the
>> >> commercial society of his time and place. Smith=92s ideal economy could
>> >> operate without the regulating role for church and state only because
>> >> th=
>> e
>> >> constraints of the =93social decorum=94 of his society took their
>> >> place.
>> >> However, reliance on social decorum creates a paradox for the theory of
>> >> =93natural liberty=94 because =93at the very moment it dismisses dogma
>> >> [church] and ancient custom [the feudal state] with one hand, it
>> >> reintroduces
>> >> a dogmatic decorum with the other. ... People are free to be themselves
>> >> =
>> as
>> >> long as they correspond to the right decorum [of the commercial
>> >> society]=
>> =94
>> >> (p.10). =A0Thus, the system of natural liberty imposes its own
>> >> conformit=
>> y.
>> >>
>> >> Using traditional terminology, Turpin argues that the decorum of this
>> >> society
>> >> was that of =93commutative=94 justice -- the values that allow commerce
>> >> =
>> to
>> >> function, such as high regard for property rights, contracts, voluntary
>> >> trading, competitive efficiency, etc. =A0But the tilt in that direction
>> >> largely banished issues of =93distributive justice=94 from the public
>> >> sp=
>> here.
>> >> When distributive issues occasionally intruded into the public arena,
>> >> th=
>> ey
>> >> were narrowly defined by the market mentality: distributive justice was
>> >> reduced to the question of the rightness of the distribution of
>> >> economic
>> >> rewards received by people. And what is right is whatever results from
>> >> t=
>> he
>> >> workings of a competitive market -- an answer that reverts to
>> >> commutativ=
>> e
>> >> categories.
>> >>
>> >> Broader distributive issues exist, Turpin insists: namely, what is one=
>> =92s
>> >> place in society and one=92s relationship to that society? Smith left
>> >> th=
>> is
>> >> to
>> >> be decided in the private arena by the decorum of the existing society,
>> >> and
>> >> largely kept these questions out of the public arena. Turpin points out
>> >> that
>> >> such private-sector decorum worked at various times to subordinate, not
>> >> liberate, groups of people (consider the role of women) -- an outcome
>> >> hardly
>> >> consistent with a system of natural liberty. This reviewer thinks
>> >> Turpin
>> >> could have gone even further: the thought-patterns taught by commerce
>> >> ma=
>> y
>> >> invade the =93private=94 realm and turn even personal relationships
>> >> into
>> >> forms of economic transactions or calculations (a process written about
>> >> =
>> in
>> >> Robert Bellah=92s /Habits of the Heart/).
>> >>
>> >> Turpin defines distributive justice in terms of human relationships,
>> >> whi=
>> ch
>> >> includes full membership in society for all: =93having a recognized
>> >> plac=
>> e in
>> >> society is something people need to develop their own identities. ...
>> >> [and]
>> >> /people as-they-are are recognized as belonging/, as being members=94
>> >> (p=
>> .
>> >> 106, emphasis added). That is, one=92s security as a member of society
>> >> d=
>> oes
>> >> not need to be proportional to one=92s economic productivity (or merely
>> >> one=92s high income), an affirmation that flies in the face of much of
>> >> t=
>> he
>> >> practice of modern commercial cultures. =A0Smith considered some
>> >> provisi=
>> on
>> >> for
>> >> the poor in /The Wealth of Nations/, as befit the =93decorum=94 of his
>> >> t=
>> ime.
>> >> But for the =93liberal=94 society, which followed him, removal of
>> >> non-competitive hindrances to earning one=92s income became almost the
>> >> o=
>> nly
>> >> public obligation to distributive justice. Turpin says that such a
>> >> socie=
>> ty
>> >> would still leave people with existential insecurity, =93the
>> >> frightening
>> >> prospect of not-belonging, of being abandoned (p. 121).
>> >>
>> >> Turpin is a professor of communication, and supports his thesis by a
>> >> clo=
>> se
>> >> look at Smith=92s rhetoric. / The Wealth of Nations/ rhetorically
>> >> appeal=
>> s to
>> >> the reader=92s sympathetic response to familiar commercial behaviors,
>> >> wh=
>> ich
>> >> Smith praises as virtues. In /Wealth/, Smith also encourages his
>> >> reader=
>> =92s
>> >> lack of sympathy for monopolists, whose motives are portrayed as
>> >> wicked.
>> >> That
>> >> is, Smith=92s rhetoric is that of moral blame and praise. Turpin argues
>> >> =
>> that
>> >> this resolves the famous =93Das Adam Smith problem.=94 =A0The
>> >> =93sympath=
>> y=94
>> >> of /The Theory of Moral Sentiments/ has not disappeared from /The
>> >> Wealth
>> >> of
>> >> Nations/ after all. While sympathy for others might not motivate
>> >> economi=
>> c
>> >> actors, Smith appeals to the sympathetic response of his audience:
>> >> =93Th=
>> e
>> >> sympathy of the reader for the judgments of Smith=92s implied reader
>> >> cre=
>> ates
>> >> a formidable orientation toward competition, legitimating both formal
>> >> an=
>> d
>> >> informal institutions=94 (p. 40).
>> >>
>> >> Although much changed between Smith=92s and Milton Friedman=92s times,
>> >> Friedman=92s popular writing ignored that intervening history that had
>> >> g=
>> iven
>> >> people good reason to turn against laissez-faire. In /Capitalism and
>> >> Freedom/, =93Friedman sums up nearly one hundred years of the heart of
>> >> t=
>> he
>> >> modern era with no analysis at all about why or how welfare replaced
>> >> freedom
>> >> as a dominant concern=94 (p. 68). =A0Turpin describes Friedman=92s
>> >> strat=
>> egy as
>> >> being very similar to that of Smith: namely to advocate for individual
>> >> freedom as the social norm, while actually promoting a particular
>> >> social
>> >> decorum that is necessary for it to work. =93The dissonance between
>> >> thes=
>> e
>> >> two
>> >> social orders, the ideal and the actual, is what finally emerges as a
>> >> problem=94 (p. 75). As with Smith, Friedman=92s =93discussion of
>> >> justice=
>> is
>> >> actually about commutative justice, not distributive justice=94 (p.
>> >> 74).
>> >> Justice is merely =93payment in accordance with product.=94 The fact
>> >> tha=
>> t
>> >> Friedman had a large modern following suggests that the values of our
>> >> commercial culture have blinded many of us to what a minimalist,
>> >> impoverished
>> >> notion of justice this really is.
>> >>
>> >> Turpin is in good company in defining distributive justice much more
>> >> broadly
>> >> -- to include the affirmation of membership in, and participation in,
>> >> one=92s
>> >> society or community. Arthur Okun=92s well-known essay, =93Equality and
>> >> Efficiency: The Big Trade-Off,=94 spoke of the fundamental importance
>> >> of
>> >> affirming the full membership of people in their society; distributive
>> >> justice went beyond income distribution, as important as it was. Okun
>> >> argued
>> >> explicitly that some things (e.g., voting rights, academic honors, or
>> >> marks
>> >> of athletic excellence) should be excluded from the market. Otherwise
>> >> society
>> >> would be no more than a =93giant vending machine,=94 and recognition of
>> >> one=92s human standing no more than a commodity. There is a long
>> >> traditi=
>> on
>> >> among humanist thinkers, religious thinkers, and others, that a good
>> >> society
>> >> is marked by concern for one=92s identity, found in community. =A0For
>> >> ex=
>> ample,
>> >> a 1986 pastoral letter of the American Catholic bishops was explicit
>> >> abo=
>> ut
>> >> giving up some economic =93efficiency=94 (i.e., deviating from a key
>> >> nor=
>> m of
>> >> the commercial society) to support the viability of existing
>> >> communities
>> >> and
>> >> the sense of place they represented for their members. Well before Adam
>> >> Smith, John Amos Comenius, the education reformer and Protestant
>> >> bishop,
>> >> envisioned a humane society that respected people, and their human
>> >> digni=
>> ty
>> >> --
>> >> starting with children.
>> >>
>> >> Turpin=92s book approaches his economic subject from a
>> >> multi-disciplinar=
>> y
>> >> perspective. His own field is communications (hence the title), but he
>> >> i=
>> s
>> >> at
>> >> home with the relevant economic and philosophical literature. Not
>> >> surprisingly, Turpin prefers philosophy rooted in communications
>> >> theory;
>> >> but
>> >> this is an apt choice. This philosophy views social-ethical norms as
>> >> emerging
>> >> from moral discourse among members of a community (he speaks of
>> >> =93discourse=94 communities). =A0Human relationships imply discourse,
>> >> an=
>> d
>> >> moral norms are nothing, if not about human relationships. =A0If norms
>> >> a=
>> re
>> >> dictated by the social decorum of a certain society (which always seems
>> >> =
>> to
>> >> have inherent biases favoring some groups), they are not aids to
>> >> freedom=
>> ,
>> >> but
>> >> straitjackets for at least some members of that society. The
>> >> laissez-fai=
>> re
>> >> system of natural liberty is not so free.
>> >>
>> >> Turpin brings a fresh and important interpretation to the history of
>> >> mor=
>> al
>> >> thought embedded in political economy. This book presents an impressive
>> >> multi-disciplinary argument that is provocative, convincing, and
>> >> consistent
>> >> with what other observers have noted about the ills of a society
>> >> modeled
>> >> on
>> >> an eighteenth-century ideal. Economists should consider Turpin=92s idea
>> >> =
>> that
>> >> answers to problems of economic morality could emerge from human
>> >> discourse.
>> >> The alternative is to be mute about moral issues, thereby leaving the
>> >> status
>> >> quo to provide the answers.
>> >>
>> >> Donald E. Frey is the author of /America=92s Economic Moralists: A
>> >> Histo=
>> ry
>> >> of
>> >> Rival Ethics and Economics/ (State University of New York Press, 2009)
>> >>
>> >> Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
>> >> copi=
>> ed
>> >> for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author
>> >> and
>> >> the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator
>> >> ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>). Published by
>> >> EH.Ne=
>> t
>> >> (June 2011). All EH.Net reviews
>> >> are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
>> >>
>> >> Geographic Location: General, International, or Comparative
>> >> Subject: History of Economic Thought; Methodology
>> >> Time: 18th Century, 19th Century, 20th Century: Pre WWII, 20th Century:
>> >> WWII
>> >> and post-WWII
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pat Gunning
>> > Professor of Economics
>> > Melbourne, Florida
>> > http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --=20
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> Chico, CA
>> 95929
>>
>> 530 898 5321
>> fax 530 898 5901
>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:18:37 +0000
>> From: "Bylund, Per L (MU-Student)" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Polylogism in Marxist and racist economic thought
>>
>> Well, I think there are many things in both economics and history (and
>> othe=
>> r scientific disciplines) that "people" may respond to as being "between
>> ug=
>> ly and stupid." But I fail to see how this would be of any significance
>> for=
>> us as scientists and researchers in trying to figure out the true nature
>> o=
>> f phenomena.=20
>>
>> I understood Pat's comment on polylogism, "ugly" or "stupid" or neither,
>> as=
>> mostly descriptive. He summarizes Mises's discussion on polylogism - the
>> a=
>> pplying of different types of logics on different (arbitrarily identified)
>> =
>> classes of people - and applies it on Turpin's writing. And his conclusion
>> =
>> is, as I understood it, that Turpin utilizes a perspective permeated by
>> pol=
>> ylogism. I don't see how this in any way is an accusation of Marxists (or
>> r=
>> acists or whatever "group" that relies on polylogism), unless we accept
>> gui=
>> lt by association as an okay basis for drawing conclusions. Yet even so,
>> th=
>> e "association" is but the use of polylogism - but different kinds - so
>> eve=
>> n those so inclined would find the link to be very weak.
>>
>> So I guess I do not understand Michael's reaction.
>>
>>
>> Per Bylund
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Beha=
>> lf Of michael perelman
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 2:42 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Polylogism in Marxist and racist economic thought
>>
>> As a Marxist classified with "racists, religious zealots, nationalists," I
>> =
>> wonder what the response would be if I classified neo-classical economists
>> =
>> with Fascists. People would rightly respond that such a suggestion would
>> b=
>> e something between ugly and stupid.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> > Turpin's book, as reported by Donald Fry is an excellent example of=20
>> > what Ludwig von Mises called POLYLOGISM.
>> >
>> > Polylogism is the "theory that the logical structure of the human
>> > mind=20
>> > differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a
>> > result=20
>> > the ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the=20
>> > specified classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are=20
>> > differences according to social classes. Others claim there are=20
>> > differences according to race, religion, nationality, etc." (Percy=20
>> > Greaves)
>> > http://mises.org/easier/P.asp#33
>> >
>> > In the past, this theory was proposed by Marxists, racists, religious=20
>> > zealots, nationalists, and so on. Now it is presented by a professor=20
>> > of communication, who presumably recognizes that different people=20
>> > speak different languages but denies that they have a common deep
>> > structu=
>> re.
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure
>> >
>> > Mises believed that the main motive for polylogism was to attack the=20
>> > use of economics in evaluating economic policy. He writes that a=20
>> > "consistent supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas=20
>> > are correct because their author is a member of the right class, nation,
>> > =
>> or race."
>> > See section 2 of
>> > http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA3.html
>> >
>> > Apparently, Turpin believes that he has the "right" attitude about=20
>> > distribution, which trumps the traditional economic theory of the=20
>> > classical and early neoclassical economists. The moral view he=20
>> > presents is based on a "conflict, survivalist view" of an economy.=20
>> > This view sees an economy as an interaction that determines who gets=20
>> > what, and not an interaction that determines how individuals come to=20
>> > produce the mountains of consumer goods that can be observed in the=20
>> > department stores, supermarkets and shipping depots. Who could=20
>> > reasonably deny that Smith held the latter view of an economy and
>> > that=20
>> > this is mainly what future generations learned from Smith's writings?
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/7/2011 6:05 PM, Humberto Barreto wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ------ EH.NET <http://eh.net/> BOOK REVIEW ------
>> >> Title: The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and Modern=20
>> >> Economic Thought
>> >>
>> >> Published by EH.NET <http://eh.net/> (June 2011)
>> >>
>> >> Paul Turpin, /The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and=20
>> >> Modern Economic Thought/. New York: Routledge, 2011. xv + 163 pp.=20
>> >> $115 (hardcover),
>> >> ISBN: 978-0-415-77392-8.
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed for EH.Net by Donald E. Frey, Department of Economics, Wake=20
>> >> Forest University.
>> >>
>> >> Paul Turpin's thesis is that Adam Smith's theory of a
>> >> self-regulating=20
>> >> economy was only plausible if it rested on the values and customs of=20
>> >> the commercial society of his time and place. Smith's ideal economy=20
>> >> could operate without the regulating role for church and state only=20
>> >> because the constraints of the "social decorum" of his society took
>> >> thei=
>> r place.
>> >> However, reliance on social decorum creates a paradox for the theory=20
>> >> of "natural liberty" because "at the very moment it dismisses dogma=20
>> >> [church] and ancient custom [the feudal state] with one hand, it=20
>> >> reintroduces a dogmatic decorum with the other. ... People are free=20
>> >> to be themselves as long as they correspond to the right decorum [of=20
>> >> the commercial society]"
>> >> (p.10). =A0Thus, the system of natural liberty imposes its own
>> >> conformit=
>> y.
>> >>
>> >> Using traditional terminology, Turpin argues that the decorum of
>> >> this=20
>> >> society was that of "commutative" justice -- the values that allow=20
>> >> commerce to function, such as high regard for property rights,=20
>> >> contracts, voluntary trading, competitive efficiency, etc. =A0But
>> >> the=20
>> >> tilt in that direction largely banished issues of "distributive=20
>> >> justice" from the public sphere.
>> >> When distributive issues occasionally intruded into the public
>> >> arena,=20
>> >> they were narrowly defined by the market mentality: distributive=20
>> >> justice was reduced to the question of the rightness of the=20
>> >> distribution of economic rewards received by people. And what is=20
>> >> right is whatever results from the workings of a competitive market=20
>> >> -- an answer that reverts to commutative categories.
>> >>
>> >> Broader distributive issues exist, Turpin insists: namely, what is=20
>> >> one's place in society and one's relationship to that society? Smith=20
>> >> left this to be decided in the private arena by the decorum of the=20
>> >> existing society, and largely kept these questions out of the public=20
>> >> arena. Turpin points out that such private-sector decorum worked at=20
>> >> various times to subordinate, not liberate, groups of people=20
>> >> (consider the role of women) -- an outcome hardly consistent with a=20
>> >> system of natural liberty. This reviewer thinks Turpin could have=20
>> >> gone even further: the thought-patterns taught by commerce may
>> >> invade=20
>> >> the "private" realm and turn even personal relationships into forms=20
>> >> of economic transactions or calculations (a process written about in=20
>> >> Robert Bellah's /Habits of the Heart/).
>> >>
>> >> Turpin defines distributive justice in terms of human relationships,=20
>> >> which includes full membership in society for all: "having a=20
>> >> recognized place in society is something people need to develop their
>> >> ow=
>> n identities. ...
>> >> [and]
>> >> /people as-they-are are recognized as belonging/, as being members" (p.
>> >> 106, emphasis added). That is, one's security as a member of society=20
>> >> does not need to be proportional to one's economic productivity (or=20
>> >> merely one's high income), an affirmation that flies in the face of=20
>> >> much of the practice of modern commercial cultures. =A0Smith
>> >> considered=
>> =20
>> >> some provision for the poor in /The Wealth of Nations/, as befit the=20
>> >> "decorum" of his time.
>> >> But for the "liberal" society, which followed him, removal of=20
>> >> non-competitive hindrances to earning one's income became almost the=20
>> >> only public obligation to distributive justice. Turpin says that
>> >> such=20
>> >> a society would still leave people with existential insecurity, "the=20
>> >> frightening prospect of not-belonging, of being abandoned (p. 121).
>> >>
>> >> Turpin is a professor of communication, and supports his thesis by a=20
>> >> close look at Smith's rhetoric. / The Wealth of Nations/
>> >> rhetorically=20
>> >> appeals to the reader's sympathetic response to familiar commercial=20
>> >> behaviors, which Smith praises as virtues. In /Wealth/, Smith also=20
>> >> encourages his reader's lack of sympathy for monopolists, whose motives
>> >> =
>> are portrayed as wicked.
>> >> That
>> >> is, Smith's rhetoric is that of moral blame and praise. Turpin
>> >> argues=20
>> >> that this resolves the famous "Das Adam Smith problem." =A0The
>> >> "sympathy=
>> "
>> >> of /The Theory of Moral Sentiments/ has not disappeared from /The=20
>> >> Wealth of Nations/ after all. While sympathy for others might not=20
>> >> motivate economic actors, Smith appeals to the sympathetic response=20
>> >> of his audience: "The sympathy of the reader for the judgments of=20
>> >> Smith's implied reader creates a formidable orientation toward=20
>> >> competition, legitimating both formal and informal institutions" (p.=20
>> >> 40).
>> >>
>> >> Although much changed between Smith's and Milton Friedman's times,=20
>> >> Friedman's popular writing ignored that intervening history that had=20
>> >> given people good reason to turn against laissez-faire. In=20
>> >> /Capitalism and Freedom/, "Friedman sums up nearly one hundred years=20
>> >> of the heart of the modern era with no analysis at all about why or=20
>> >> how welfare replaced freedom as a dominant concern" (p. 68).
>> >> =A0Turpin=20
>> >> describes Friedman's strategy as being very similar to that of
>> >> Smith:=20
>> >> namely to advocate for individual freedom as the social norm, while=20
>> >> actually promoting a particular social decorum that is necessary for=20
>> >> it to work. "The dissonance between these two social orders, the=20
>> >> ideal and the actual, is what finally emerges as a problem" (p. 75).=20
>> >> As with Smith, Friedman's "discussion of justice is actually about=20
>> >> commutative justice, not distributive justice" (p. 74).
>> >> Justice is merely "payment in accordance with product." The fact
>> >> that=20
>> >> Friedman had a large modern following suggests that the values of
>> >> our=20
>> >> commercial culture have blinded many of us to what a minimalist,=20
>> >> impoverished notion of justice this really is.
>> >>
>> >> Turpin is in good company in defining distributive justice much more=20
>> >> broadly
>> >> -- to include the affirmation of membership in, and participation
>> >> in,=20
>> >> one's society or community. Arthur Okun's well-known essay,
>> >> "Equality=20
>> >> and
>> >> Efficiency: The Big Trade-Off," spoke of the fundamental importance=20
>> >> of affirming the full membership of people in their society;=20
>> >> distributive justice went beyond income distribution, as important
>> >> as=20
>> >> it was. Okun argued explicitly that some things (e.g., voting
>> >> rights,=20
>> >> academic honors, or marks of athletic excellence) should be excluded=20
>> >> from the market. Otherwise society would be no more than a "giant=20
>> >> vending machine," and recognition of one's human standing no more=20
>> >> than a commodity. There is a long tradition among humanist thinkers,=20
>> >> religious thinkers, and others, that a good society is marked by=20
>> >> concern for one's identity, found in community. =A0For example, a
>> >> 1986=20
>> >> pastoral letter of the American Catholic bishops was explicit about=20
>> >> giving up some economic "efficiency" (i.e., deviating from a key
>> >> norm=20
>> >> of the commercial society) to support the viability of existing=20
>> >> communities and the sense of place they represented for their=20
>> >> members. Well before Adam Smith, John Amos Comenius, the education=20
>> >> reformer and Protestant bishop, envisioned a humane society that=20
>> >> respected people, and their human dignity
>> >> --
>> >> starting with children.
>> >>
>> >> Turpin's book approaches his economic subject from a=20
>> >> multi-disciplinary perspective. His own field is communications=20
>> >> (hence the title), but he is at home with the relevant economic and=20
>> >> philosophical literature. Not surprisingly, Turpin prefers
>> >> philosophy=20
>> >> rooted in communications theory; but this is an apt choice. This=20
>> >> philosophy views social-ethical norms as emerging from moral=20
>> >> discourse among members of a community (he speaks of "discourse"=20
>> >> communities). =A0Human relationships imply discourse, and moral
>> >> norms=20
>> >> are nothing, if not about human relationships. =A0If norms are
>> >> dictated=
>> =20
>> >> by the social decorum of a certain society (which always seems to=20
>> >> have inherent biases favoring some groups), they are not aids to=20
>> >> freedom, but straitjackets for at least some members of that
>> >> society.=20
>> >> The laissez-faire system of natural liberty is not so free.
>> >>
>> >> Turpin brings a fresh and important interpretation to the history of=20
>> >> moral thought embedded in political economy. This book presents an=20
>> >> impressive multi-disciplinary argument that is provocative,=20
>> >> convincing, and consistent with what other observers have noted
>> >> about=20
>> >> the ills of a society modeled on an eighteenth-century ideal.=20
>> >> Economists should consider Turpin's idea that answers to problems of=20
>> >> economic morality could emerge from human discourse.
>> >> The alternative is to be mute about moral issues, thereby leaving
>> >> the=20
>> >> status quo to provide the answers.
>> >>
>> >> Donald E. Frey is the author of /America's Economic Moralists: A=20
>> >> History of Rival Ethics and Economics/ (State University of New York=20
>> >> Press, 2009)
>> >>
>> >> Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be=20
>> >> copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to=20
>> >> the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the=20
>> >> EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]
>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>). Published by EH.Net (June 2011). All=20
>> >> EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
>> >>
>> >> Geographic Location: General, International, or Comparative
>> >> Subject: History of Economic Thought; Methodology
>> >> Time: 18th Century, 19th Century, 20th Century: Pre WWII, 20th Century:
>> >> WWII
>> >> and post-WWII
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pat Gunning
>> > Professor of Economics
>> > Melbourne, Florida
>> > http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> Chico, CA
>> 95929
>>
>> 530 898 5321
>> fax 530 898 5901
>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 15:22:42 -0500
>> From: John <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Polylogism in Marxist and racist economic thought
>>
>> On 06/08/2011 02:41 PM, michael perelman wrote:
>> > As a Marxist classified with "racists, religious zealots,
>> > nationalists," I wonder what the response would be if I classified
>> > neo-classical economists with Fascists. People would rightly respond
>> > that such a suggestion would be something between ugly and stupid.
>> No, not if you gave it a fancy name, like Polygonism.
>>
>> John
>>
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Pat Gunning<[log in to unmask]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Turpin's book, as reported by Donald Fry is an excellent example of
>> >> what
>> >> Ludwig von Mises called POLYLOGISM.
>> >>
>> >> Polylogism is the "theory that the logical structure of the human mind
>> >> differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a result
>> >> the
>> >> ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the specified
>> >> classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are differences
>> >> according to social classes. Others claim there are differences
>> >> according to
>> >> race, religion, nationality, etc." (Percy Greaves)
>> >> http://mises.org/easier/P.asp#33
>> >>
>> >> In the past, this theory was proposed by Marxists, racists, religious
>> >> zealots, nationalists, and so on. Now it is presented by a professor of
>> >> communication, who presumably recognizes that different people speak
>> >> different languages but denies that they have a common deep structure.
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure
>> >>
>> >> Mises believed that the main motive for polylogism was to attack the
>> >> use of
>> >> economics in evaluating economic policy. He writes that a "consistent
>> >> supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas are correct
>> >> because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race."
>> >> See section 2 of
>> >> http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA3.html
>> >>
>> >> Apparently, Turpin believes that he has the "right" attitude about
>> >> distribution, which trumps the traditional economic theory of the
>> >> classical
>> >> and early neoclassical economists. The moral view he presents is based
>> >> on a
>> >> "conflict, survivalist view" of an economy. This view sees an economy
>> >> as an
>> >> interaction that determines who gets what, and not an interaction that
>> >> determines how individuals come to produce the mountains of consumer
>> >> goods
>> >> that can be observed in the department stores, supermarkets and
>> >> shipping
>> >> depots. Who could reasonably deny that Smith held the latter view of an
>> >> economy and that this is mainly what future generations learned from
>> >> Smith's
>> >> writings?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 6/7/2011 6:05 PM, Humberto Barreto wrote:
>> >>> ------ EH.NET<http://eh.net/> BOOK REVIEW ------
>> >>> Title: The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and Modern
>> >>> Economic
>> >>> Thought
>> >>>
>> >>> Published by EH.NET<http://eh.net/> (June 2011)
>> >>>
>> >>> Paul Turpin, /The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and
>> >>> Modern
>> >>> Economic Thought/. New York: Routledge, 2011. xv + 163 pp. $115
>> >>> (hardcover),
>> >>> ISBN: 978-0-415-77392-8.
>> >>>
>> >>> Reviewed for EH.Net by Donald E. Frey, Department of Economics, Wake
>> >>> Forest
>> >>> University.
>> >>>
>> >>> Paul Turpin’s thesis is that Adam Smith’s theory of a self-regulating
>> >>> economy was only plausible if it rested on the values and customs of
>> >>> the
>> >>> commercial society of his time and place. Smith’s ideal economy could
>> >>> operate without the regulating role for church and state only because
>> >>> the
>> >>> constraints of the “social decorum” of his society took their place.
>> >>> However, reliance on social decorum creates a paradox for the theory
>> >>> of
>> >>> “natural liberty” because “at the very moment it dismisses dogma
>> >>> [church] and ancient custom [the feudal state] with one hand, it
>> >>> reintroduces
>> >>> a dogmatic decorum with the other. ... People are free to be
>> >>> themselves as
>> >>> long as they correspond to the right decorum [of the commercial
>> >>> society]”
>> >>> (p.10). Thus, the system of natural liberty imposes its own
>> >>> conformity.
>> >>>
>> >>> Using traditional terminology, Turpin argues that the decorum of this
>> >>> society
>> >>> was that of “commutative” justice -- the values that allow commerce to
>> >>> function, such as high regard for property rights, contracts,
>> >>> voluntary
>> >>> trading, competitive efficiency, etc. But the tilt in that direction
>> >>> largely banished issues of “distributive justice” from the public
>> >>> sphere.
>> >>> When distributive issues occasionally intruded into the public arena,
>> >>> they
>> >>> were narrowly defined by the market mentality: distributive justice
>> >>> was
>> >>> reduced to the question of the rightness of the distribution of
>> >>> economic
>> >>> rewards received by people. And what is right is whatever results from
>> >>> the
>> >>> workings of a competitive market -- an answer that reverts to
>> >>> commutative
>> >>> categories.
>> >>>
>> >>> Broader distributive issues exist, Turpin insists: namely, what is
>> >>> one’s
>> >>> place in society and one’s relationship to that society? Smith left
>> >>> this
>> >>> to
>> >>> be decided in the private arena by the decorum of the existing
>> >>> society,
>> >>> and
>> >>> largely kept these questions out of the public arena. Turpin points
>> >>> out
>> >>> that
>> >>> such private-sector decorum worked at various times to subordinate,
>> >>> not
>> >>> liberate, groups of people (consider the role of women) -- an outcome
>> >>> hardly
>> >>> consistent with a system of natural liberty. This reviewer thinks
>> >>> Turpin
>> >>> could have gone even further: the thought-patterns taught by commerce
>> >>> may
>> >>> invade the “private” realm and turn even personal relationships into
>> >>> forms of economic transactions or calculations (a process written
>> >>> about in
>> >>> Robert Bellah’s /Habits of the Heart/).
>> >>>
>> >>> Turpin defines distributive justice in terms of human relationships,
>> >>> which
>> >>> includes full membership in society for all: “having a recognized
>> >>> place in
>> >>> society is something people need to develop their own identities. ...
>> >>> [and]
>> >>> /people as-they-are are recognized as belonging/, as being members”
>> >>> (p.
>> >>> 106, emphasis added). That is, one’s security as a member of society
>> >>> does
>> >>> not need to be proportional to one’s economic productivity (or merely
>> >>> one’s high income), an affirmation that flies in the face of much of
>> >>> the
>> >>> practice of modern commercial cultures. Smith considered some
>> >>> provision
>> >>> for
>> >>> the poor in /The Wealth of Nations/, as befit the “decorum” of his
>> >>> time.
>> >>> But for the “liberal” society, which followed him, removal of
>> >>> non-competitive hindrances to earning one’s income became almost the
>> >>> only
>> >>> public obligation to distributive justice. Turpin says that such a
>> >>> society
>> >>> would still leave people with existential insecurity, “the frightening
>> >>> prospect of not-belonging, of being abandoned (p. 121).
>> >>>
>> >>> Turpin is a professor of communication, and supports his thesis by a
>> >>> close
>> >>> look at Smith’s rhetoric. / The Wealth of Nations/ rhetorically
>> >>> appeals to
>> >>> the reader’s sympathetic response to familiar commercial behaviors,
>> >>> which
>> >>> Smith praises as virtues. In /Wealth/, Smith also encourages his
>> >>> reader’s
>> >>> lack of sympathy for monopolists, whose motives are portrayed as
>> >>> wicked.
>> >>> That
>> >>> is, Smith’s rhetoric is that of moral blame and praise. Turpin argues
>> >>> that
>> >>> this resolves the famous “Das Adam Smith problem.” The “sympathy”
>> >>> of /The Theory of Moral Sentiments/ has not disappeared from /The
>> >>> Wealth
>> >>> of
>> >>> Nations/ after all. While sympathy for others might not motivate
>> >>> economic
>> >>> actors, Smith appeals to the sympathetic response of his audience:
>> >>> “The
>> >>> sympathy of the reader for the judgments of Smith’s implied reader
>> >>> creates
>> >>> a formidable orientation toward competition, legitimating both formal
>> >>> and
>> >>> informal institutions” (p. 40).
>> >>>
>> >>> Although much changed between Smith’s and Milton Friedman’s times,
>> >>> Friedman’s popular writing ignored that intervening history that had
>> >>> given
>> >>> people good reason to turn against laissez-faire. In /Capitalism and
>> >>> Freedom/, “Friedman sums up nearly one hundred years of the heart of
>> >>> the
>> >>> modern era with no analysis at all about why or how welfare replaced
>> >>> freedom
>> >>> as a dominant concern” (p. 68). Turpin describes Friedman’s strategy
>> >>> as
>> >>> being very similar to that of Smith: namely to advocate for individual
>> >>> freedom as the social norm, while actually promoting a particular
>> >>> social
>> >>> decorum that is necessary for it to work. “The dissonance between
>> >>> these
>> >>> two
>> >>> social orders, the ideal and the actual, is what finally emerges as a
>> >>> problem” (p. 75). As with Smith, Friedman’s “discussion of justice is
>> >>> actually about commutative justice, not distributive justice” (p. 74).
>> >>> Justice is merely “payment in accordance with product.” The fact that
>> >>> Friedman had a large modern following suggests that the values of our
>> >>> commercial culture have blinded many of us to what a minimalist,
>> >>> impoverished
>> >>> notion of justice this really is.
>> >>>
>> >>> Turpin is in good company in defining distributive justice much more
>> >>> broadly
>> >>> -- to include the affirmation of membership in, and participation in,
>> >>> one’s
>> >>> society or community. Arthur Okun’s well-known essay, “Equality and
>> >>> Efficiency: The Big Trade-Off,” spoke of the fundamental importance of
>> >>> affirming the full membership of people in their society; distributive
>> >>> justice went beyond income distribution, as important as it was. Okun
>> >>> argued
>> >>> explicitly that some things (e.g., voting rights, academic honors, or
>> >>> marks
>> >>> of athletic excellence) should be excluded from the market. Otherwise
>> >>> society
>> >>> would be no more than a “giant vending machine,” and recognition of
>> >>> one’s human standing no more than a commodity. There is a long
>> >>> tradition
>> >>> among humanist thinkers, religious thinkers, and others, that a good
>> >>> society
>> >>> is marked by concern for one’s identity, found in community. For
>> >>> example,
>> >>> a 1986 pastoral letter of the American Catholic bishops was explicit
>> >>> about
>> >>> giving up some economic “efficiency” (i.e., deviating from a key norm
>> >>> of
>> >>> the commercial society) to support the viability of existing
>> >>> communities
>> >>> and
>> >>> the sense of place they represented for their members. Well before
>> >>> Adam
>> >>> Smith, John Amos Comenius, the education reformer and Protestant
>> >>> bishop,
>> >>> envisioned a humane society that respected people, and their human
>> >>> dignity
>> >>> --
>> >>> starting with children.
>> >>>
>> >>> Turpin’s book approaches his economic subject from a
>> >>> multi-disciplinary
>> >>> perspective. His own field is communications (hence the title), but he
>> >>> is
>> >>> at
>> >>> home with the relevant economic and philosophical literature. Not
>> >>> surprisingly, Turpin prefers philosophy rooted in communications
>> >>> theory;
>> >>> but
>> >>> this is an apt choice. This philosophy views social-ethical norms as
>> >>> emerging
>> >>> from moral discourse among members of a community (he speaks of
>> >>> “discourse” communities). Human relationships imply discourse, and
>> >>> moral norms are nothing, if not about human relationships. If norms
>> >>> are
>> >>> dictated by the social decorum of a certain society (which always
>> >>> seems to
>> >>> have inherent biases favoring some groups), they are not aids to
>> >>> freedom,
>> >>> but
>> >>> straitjackets for at least some members of that society. The
>> >>> laissez-faire
>> >>> system of natural liberty is not so free.
>> >>>
>> >>> Turpin brings a fresh and important interpretation to the history of
>> >>> moral
>> >>> thought embedded in political economy. This book presents an
>> >>> impressive
>> >>> multi-disciplinary argument that is provocative, convincing, and
>> >>> consistent
>> >>> with what other observers have noted about the ills of a society
>> >>> modeled
>> >>> on
>> >>> an eighteenth-century ideal. Economists should consider Turpin’s idea
>> >>> that
>> >>> answers to problems of economic morality could emerge from human
>> >>> discourse.
>> >>> The alternative is to be mute about moral issues, thereby leaving the
>> >>> status
>> >>> quo to provide the answers.
>> >>>
>> >>> Donald E. Frey is the author of /America’s Economic Moralists: A
>> >>> History
>> >>> of
>> >>> Rival Ethics and Economics/ (State University of New York Press, 2009)
>> >>>
>> >>> Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
>> >>> copied
>> >>> for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the
>> >>> author
>> >>> and
>> >>> the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net
>> >>> Administrator
>> >>> ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>). Published by
>> >>> EH.Net
>> >>> (June 2011). All EH.Net reviews
>> >>> are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
>> >>>
>> >>> Geographic Location: General, International, or Comparative
>> >>> Subject: History of Economic Thought; Methodology
>> >>> Time: 18th Century, 19th Century, 20th Century: Pre WWII, 20th
>> >>> Century:
>> >>> WWII
>> >>> and post-WWII
>> >> --
>> >> Pat Gunning
>> >> Professor of Economics
>> >> Melbourne, Florida
>> >> http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:02:51 -0400
>> From: "E. Roy Weintraub" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Polylogism in Marxist and racist economic thought
>>
>> --20cf307f3b0827dd2604a538daf3
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Oh, what fun! Let's now have another lucid SHOE Discussion on whether
>> Ludwig
>> von Mises was either 1) ugly or 2) stupid.
>> And whether Pat Gunning thinks that Michael Perelman has stopped beating
>> his
>> wife.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM, michael perelman <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > As a Marxist classified with "racists, religious zealots,
>> > nationalists," I wonder what the response would be if I classified
>> > neo-classical economists with Fascists. People would rightly respond
>> > that such a suggestion would be something between ugly and stupid.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Turpin's book, as reported by Donald Fry is an excellent example of
>> > > what
>> > > Ludwig von Mises called POLYLOGISM.
>> > >
>> > > Polylogism is the "theory that the logical structure of the human mind
>> > > differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a result
>> > the
>> > > ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the specified
>> > > classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are
>> > > differences
>> > > according to social classes. Others claim there are differences
>> > > according
>> > to
>> > > race, religion, nationality, etc." (Percy Greaves)
>> > > http://mises.org/easier/P.asp#33
>> > >
>> > > In the past, this theory was proposed by Marxists, racists, religious
>> > > zealots, nationalists, and so on. Now it is presented by a professor
>> > > of
>> > > communication, who presumably recognizes that different people speak
>> > > different languages but denies that they have a common deep structure.
>> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> E. Roy Weintraub
>> Professor of Economics
>> Fellow, Center for the History of Political Economy
>> Duke University
>> www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html
>>
>> --20cf307f3b0827dd2604a538daf3
>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> Oh, what fun! Let's now have another lucid SHOE Discussion on whether
>> L=
>> udwig von Mises was either 1) ugly or 2) stupid.<div>And whether Pat
>> Gunnin=
>> g thinks that Michael Perelman has stopped beating his
>> wife.=A0<br><br><div=
>> class=3D"gmail_quote">
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM, michael perelman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a
>> h=
>>
>> ref=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>&=
>> gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0
>> =
>> 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
>>
>> As a Marxist classified with "racists, religious zealots,<br>
>> nationalists," I wonder what the response would be if I
>> classified<br>
>> neo-classical economists with Fascists. =A0People would rightly
>> respond<br>
>> that such a suggestion would be something between ugly and stupid.<br>
>> <br>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Pat Gunning <<a
>> href=3D"mailto:gunning@n=
>> omadpress.com">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Turpin's book, as reported by Donald Fry is an excellent example
>> o=
>> f what<br>
>> > Ludwig von Mises called POLYLOGISM.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Polylogism is the "theory that the logical structure of the
>> human=
>> mind<br>
>> > differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a
>> result=
>> the<br>
>> > ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the
>> specified<br=
>> >
>> > classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are
>> difference=
>> s<br>
>> > according to social classes. Others claim there are differences
>> accord=
>> ing to<br>
>> > race, religion, nationality, etc." (Percy Greaves)<br>
>> > <a href=3D"http://mises.org/easier/P.asp#33"
>> target=3D"_blank">http://=
>> mises.org/easier/P.asp#33</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > In the past, this theory was proposed by Marxists, racists,
>> religious<=
>> br>
>> > zealots, nationalists, and so on. Now it is presented by a professor
>> o=
>> f<br>
>> > communication, who presumably recognizes that different people
>> speak<b=
>> r>
>> > different languages but denies that they have a common deep
>> structure.=
>> <br>
>> > <a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure"
>> target=3D"_bla=
>> nk">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure</a><br>
>> ><br><br></blockquote></div>-- <br>E. Roy Weintraub<br>Professor of
>> Econ=
>> omics<div>Fellow, Center for the History of Political
>> Economy</div><div>Duk=
>> e University<br><a
>> href=3D"http://www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html"=
>> target=3D"_blank">www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html</a></div>
>>
>> <div>
>>
>> <p>=A0</p></div><br>
>> </div>
>>
>> --20cf307f3b0827dd2604a538daf3--
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:54:21 -0400
>> From: Humberto Barreto <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: I swear I'll blow the whistle!
>>
>> --bcaec521578d6fe38904a5398a92
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Hi, it's your friendly moderator again. Seems like I was just here. :-)
>>
>> John Medaille can confirm that I tried to stop this latest swirling
>> descent,
>> but it's apparently inexorable.
>>
>> I am quite busy, so I'm begging you (and by "you" I mean the usual
>> suspects)
>> to exercise self-censorship.
>>
>> Perhaps, I'll try waiting before a quick perusal and clicking send. I
>> suggest you do the same. Try sleeping on it. Maybe that will put the
>> brakes
>> on this new bubble.
>>
>> Humberto Barreto
>>
>> --bcaec521578d6fe38904a5398a92
>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> <div>Hi, it's your friendly moderator again. Seems like I was just
>> here=
>> . :-)</div><div><br></div>John Medaille can confirm that I tried to stop
>> th=
>> is latest swirling descent, but it's apparently inexorable.<div><br>
>> </div><div>I am quite busy, so I'm begging you (and by "you"
>> =
>> I mean the usual suspects) to exercise
>> self-censorship.</div><div><br></div=
>> ><div>Perhaps, I'll try waiting before a quick perusal and clicking
>> > sen=
>> d. I suggest you do the same. Try sleeping on it. Maybe that will put the
>> b=
>> rakes on this new bubble.</div>
>> <div><br></div><div>Humberto Barreto=A0
>> </div>
>>
>> --bcaec521578d6fe38904a5398a92--
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of SHOE Digest - 7 Jun 2011 to 8 Jun 2011 (#2011-108)
>> *********************************************************
>
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA
95929
530 898 5321
fax 530 898 5901
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
|
