Pat, I know that interpretations of Marx are vexed, but I think what
you are saying is rather too simple about Marx. I am not sure what
you mean when you say that each class has its own logic. Certainly
to the observer (Marx), you can discern the logic or the movement
behind each class's action -- any of Marx's histories show this. But
to the participants, it seems to me it is not so clear. I have
always been taken by Marx's idea that the ruling ideas of any age are
the ideas of the ruling class, which means that most people in the
society, regardless of class, agree with the ideas of the ruling
class. My favorite text here is from Capital, on p. 343 of the Marx
Engels Reader, at the end of the section on Distribution, where Marx
comments that 'there alone rule liberty, equality, property, and
Bentham'. And I think that many believe in those four principles,
not least because we see them in action every day.
For Marx, part of the real problem, I think, is to make it so
that the proletariat can become conscious that 'liberty, equality,
property, and Bentham,' in the bourgeois definition, are in fact the
ideas of the bourgeoisie, and that there are other definitions of
those values that fit the position of the proletariat AND can in fact
become universal values. (So the bourgeois universals are indeed
false universals -- choice is good, but the free choice of the
capitalist market is not a true universal because it is actualized in
such inegalitarian ways.)
So, whatever the term polylogism means, it is not Marx.
((If it is Marx, it is only because the proletariat
represents universal values, which neither racists nor the
(bourgeois) free market capitalism does. That would make the free
market capitalists polylogists, would it not, because even though
they claim to be universal, they really are not, all their universals
are in fact false when realized in economic and political practice.))
Peter G Stillman
>Alan, the best way to answer your comment, I believe, is to insert
>my comments below yours in sequence. Before I begin, perhaps I
>should explain a bit more of my interpretation of Frey's report.
>
>Turpin's argument, as reported by Frey, is that if human beings were
>to ever live under a system of pure capitalism ("Smith's ideal
>economy"), their values would be shaped in such a way that they
>would eventually come to neglect the principles of distributive
>justice. He interprets Friedman as having been greatly influence of
>the capitalist system that has prevailed to some extent in the
>recent two to three centuries. Fortunately for civilization, as
>Turpin sees it, pure capitalism never prevailed. Principles of
>distributive justice survived.
>
>At the heart of Turpin's thesis, it seems to me, is that the logic
>that human beings employ to interpret history and to make policy
>recommendations depend on the extent to which pure capitalism
>prevails. His thesis may be broader than this but I could only
>glean this part from the report. To be consistent, according to my
>interpretation, he would have to argue that in the Utopian communal
>system, the principles of commutative justice would tend to
>disappear.
>
>Expanding this line of argument, it seemed to me that he was saying
>that each type of SOCIETY would tend to have its own logic. This is
>the basis for my reference to polylogism. It is similar to the
>Marxist polylogism to which I referred, in which each CLASS has its
>own logic.
>
>How is this related to Marx? My answer is that Marx believed that
>thought is determined by class interest and that the economics of
>Smith was bourgeois economics. See the reference below. How is
>Marxism related to racism? The racists argued that thought is
>determined by race.
>
>All these theses are related in that they deny the possibility of a
>universally valid science of market interaction. In this sense, they
>are all distractions from the teachings of the classical and early
>neoclassical economists about how a government can help cause
>mountains of consumer goods to be produced.
>
>
>On 6/8/2011 6:07 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>Despite Roy's fears of how the discussion will evolve,
>>I do wonder what Mises was talking about.
>> http://mises.org/humanaction/chap3sec2.asp
>>Was he just getting away with murder by calling "Marxian"
>>anything vaguely to the "left" that he felt smacked of
>>polylogism? Or is there textual evidence that Marx
>>seriously argued for polylogism?
>>
>>Just to be clear, I do not consider that an argument
>>that behavior (including argument) is influenced by
>>ideology amounts to an argument for polylogism.
>>Mises does seem to conflate the two
>>http://mises.org/humanaction/chap3sec3.asp
>>Perhaps someonoe can prvide context for why he would
>>feel justified in doing so.
>
>If you are interested in Mises's interpretation of Marx, let me
>suggest that you consult Mises's SOCIALISM, which is the best place
>to look for page references relating to Mises's interpretation of
>Marx. The index to Marx contains a very large number of items.
>Unfortunately, the references are to German publications.
>http://mises.org/books/socialism.pdf
>
>I don't follow your statement about a conflation of terms. I think
>you have misinterpreted Mises, but you will have to give me a bit
>more to go on.
>
>>
>>Would it be reasonable to say that Mises underlying
>>concern was that Marx's analysis of how certain economic
>>ideas might proliferate and find support *due to* their
>>contribution to system legitimation could be (and has been)
>>mistaken for a reason to discard these ideas? This
>>really has nothing to do with polylogism, afaics.
>
>I am not sure what you mean by "certain economic ideas" Mises's
>underlying concern was with the attack on what you probably would
>call "free market economics" and on the propensity for people who
>might otherwise learn this economics to be distracted by Marx and
>his followers. Marxian polylogism, in this context, was his label
>for the Marxian view that "class interest determines thought." I was
>under the impression that this Marxian view was well known. I recall
>learning it long before I studied Mises.
>
>http://mises.org/books/socialism/part3_ch21.aspx
>
>>
>>Additionally, Mises's apparent claim that we should
>>be puzzled by the idea that a false belief could serve
>>us better than a true belief appears truly naive.
>> http://mises.org/humanaction/chap3sec3.asp
>>(It has often been to believe in ideas conflicting with the
>>dominant ideology in so many places and times, and pretended
>>belief serves less well than reflexive belief in many
>>circumstances.)
>
>The passage you describe is an attack on the logic of the Marxian
>argument that the objectively false ideology of the bourgeois class
>serves the interests of that class. If I understand you correctly,
>you believe that a false ideology could serve that interest. Can you
>give an example of how this could occur?
>
>>
>>Finally, as a tiny test Marx vs. Mises in the understanding of
>>ideology and property, I wonder if it is useful to consider
>>the recent evolution of intellectual property law --
>>bought and paid for in the copyright industries and oddly more
>>resistant in the patent industries, but promoted
>>always through well-funded and rather successful
>>efforts to persuade us all that (contrary to the Constitution,
>>in the US) creators are not granted a social privilege of temporary
>>monopoly but rather have a natural right to every last penny that might
>>possibly be squeezed out of a creative idea, from here to eternity.
>
>Sounds like a blog.
>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Alan Isaac
>>
>
>--
>Pat Gunning
>Professor of Economics
>Melbourne, Florida
>http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
--
Peter G. Stillman
Department of Political Science
Vassar College (#463)
124 Raymond Avenue
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0463
[log in to unmask]
office: 845-437-5581
FAX: 845-437-7599
http://faculty.vassar.edu/stillman/
|
