SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:09:53 -0400
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
From:
Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (138 lines)
Dear All:

My initial post was an attempt to provoke discussion on the similarity 
between the implicit criticism of what most would call "free market 
economics" by Turpin, the Marxian criticism of free market economics, 
the racist criticism, the nationalist criticism, etc. In my attempt, I 
(1) used Mises's term "polylogism" and (2) made a passing reference to 
Chomsky's idea of "deep structure." At the time, I was pretty much aware 
of how Mises used the term polylogism. But I was not careful to 
translate that use into a form that would not be misleading. Also, as it 
turns out, I used a misleading reference to Percy Greaves' definition. 
Most of the critical responses are directed away from the discussion I 
aimed to provoke. The fault must be mine.

First, some of Mises's criticisms of Marx and the Marxians mainly of the 
19th century go beyond his treatment of what Mises calls the "sciences 
of human action." However, I am not equipped to deal with nor do I care 
about Mises's broader criticisms of Marx. My interest is entirely in 
economics, as one of the sciences of human action. Accordingly, the 
passages I cited in Mises are about that subject. Chapter 3 of Mises's 
treatise, which contains most of the the passages on polylogism in his 
treatise, is entitled "Economics and the Revolt Against Reason." This 
revolt includes the notion that instead of a "universally valid logic," 
"what mind produces can never be anything but...as set of ideas 
disguising the selfish interests of the thinker's own social class. 
Hence, the 'bourgeois' mind of the economist is utterly incapable of 
producing more than an apology for capitalism.  The teachings of 
"bourgeois science, an offshoot of "bourgeois logic" are of no avail for 
the proletarians..."
  http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA3.html#Part%201,%20Chapter%20III.%20Economics%20and%20the%20revolt%20against%20reason
1.III.10

This may explain why I did not think to describe the relationship 
between the definition of polylogism, as defined in Percy Greaves' 
glossary of terms based on Mises's writings.

Greaves defines polylogism as 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." My thesis only concerns "the 
logical structure of the human mind" AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING ECONOMIC 
THEOREMS. In different terms, my theses concerns "the logic of economic 
theory." [Greaves, by my interpretation, neglected the context of 
Mises's use of the term, as I discovered by just now exploring his 
references.] I define economic theorems as propositions (1) that have 
practical usefulness in describing the history of capitalism, as an 
historical type of interaction among human beings,  and (2) that help a 
person or group achieve their ends by means of government economic 
policy (policy that affects capitalism). The passages in Human Action 
that have puzzled Alan Isaac are, by my interpretation about "the logic 
of economic theory." Alan interprets them more broadly. As a result, we 
have been unable to communicate. Mises's thesis about Marx -- the thesis 
that is relevant to my interest -- is that Marx held that different 
social classes produce different "logics of economic theory." The 
pertinent example is that there is a "bourgeois economics" of Adam Smith 
and other classical economists that differs from a "proletarian 
economics."  [I realize that Marx did not refer to a "proletarian 
economics." What Mises means by this term, I assume, is what others 
might call Marx's economics. Mises is pitting what Marx called bourgeois 
economics against what Marx and others would call "Marx's economics." In 
other words "proletarian economics = "Marx's economics." Try a google 
search of "proletarian economics."]
http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/searchbooks.pl?searchtype=BookSearchPara&id=msS&query=%22Marx+was+the+first%22

John is correct to challenge my use of the term "logic." I did not mean 
it in a broader sense. The problem here, as I am sure he will agree, is 
that while he is concerned with broader philosophical issues, I am not; 
although in this case my words inadvertently suggested that I  might be.

Peter's comment is right on target. I ask him to comment on the 
interpretation of Marx and the Marxians in Mises's SOCIALISM, bearing in 
mind that the primary aim of Mises was to deal not with broad 
philosophical issues but with the challenges to classical and early 
neoclassical economics (the theory of subjective value) that were 
mounted in the 19th century, particularly by those who sought to justify 
or promote revolution that would obliterate capitalism. In particular, 
Peter, would you look at Part 3, Section I, Chapter 5: "The Materialist 
Conception of History"? I am especially interested in ideas relating to 
the following passage:

"Marxism makes use of the same method with regard to modern subjective 
economics. Unable to oppose it by a single word of reasonable criticism, 
the Marxian tries to dispose of it by denouncing it as "bourgeois 
economics."*99 To show that subjective economics is not "capitalist 
apologetics" it should be sufficient, surely, to point out that there 
are socialists who stand firmly by the theory of subjective value.*100 
The evolution of economics is a process of the mind, independent of the 
supposed class interests of economists, and has nothing to do with 
supporting or condemning any particular social institutions. Every 
scientific theory can be misused for political purpose; the politician 
does not need to construct a theory to support the aims he happens to 
pursue.*101 The ideas of modern Socialism have not sprung from 
proletarian brains. They were originated by intellectuals, sons of the 
bourgeoisie, not of wage-earners.*102 Socialism has captured not only 
the working class; it has supporters, open and secret, even amongst the 
propertied classes too. "

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msS9.html#III.21.5

Also see:
http://mises.org/epofe/c6sec2.asp

Finally, Alan Freeman is absolutely correct. Even the Wikipedia entry I 
quoted contradicted my use of the term "deep structure." My reference 
was sloppy. What I had in mind was the common logic that normal human 
beings share and that gets reflected in the variety of different ways 
that they express themselves concerning this shared logic. People who 
are completely unable to communicate with the spoken or written word can 
communicate using signs that represent concepts like "up-down," 
"here-there," "cold-hot," "child-biological mother," etc. The reason is 
that the development of the normal human mind entails a process of 
integrating these concepts into its logical structure.  Individuals may 
solve the problem of communicating such concepts with written or spoken 
words or with signs.

By analogy I suppose, Mises maintains that every normal reflective human 
mind that is familiar with the events history of capitalism and that has 
used its capacity to reason would reach the same conclusion that 
different individuals find it in their best interests to cooperate under 
a system which makes it possible to take advantage of the "universal 
law...of the higher productivity of the division of labor." In any case, 
he says that the discovery of this "universal law" was the great 
achievement of classical economics. As a corollary, he says that the 
Marxian belief that this is merely a claim by bourgeois economists to 
further their own interests or the interests of their class amounts to 
an ad hominem attack on this discovery.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA24.html#4.XXIV.29

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA8.html#2.VIII.8


-- 
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2