I think there is an interesting question in there, as I hope my post
suggested, which I would phrase or re-phrase as follows: is it possible to
obtain objective knowledge about society?

Then the issue of polylogism would present itself perhaps as follows: if
objective knowledge is attainable, how come people in different material
situations have a tendency to look at society in different ways? And, is
this fact (if we agree that it is a fact) an obstacle to the attainment of
objective knowledge?

It might be useful to start by checking that we agree on the fact that there
are differences of opinion about society (including economics). This must be
true, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, since we would all agree.

So the next question would be, are we agreed that these differences of
opinion are affected by material status and situation? I am approaching this
as a matter of fact rather than a matter of opinion. One might, for example,
argue - from the evidence - that there is no necessary or even statistical
connection between the class, nation, or religion that somebody belongs to,
and the theoretical outlook that they tend to adopt. It seems to me pretty
incontrovertible that there is some kind of connection but again, I'd like
to check if we have agreement on that, because I'd like to make it the
premise of further discussion.

So, proceeding in this Socratic manner, if we can establish the above agreed
premises, some questions to discuss might be: 

(1) is there such a thing as objective knowledge?
(2) assuming there is such a thing, is it universal? By this I mean does it
apply everywhere and at every time? (one might argue that we can attain
objective knowledge about modern capitalist society in the USA but it does
not apply to China, or that it does not apply to pre-conquest America. This
knowledge would be objective, but not universal)
(3) given that there is (factually) a tendency for one's views about
economics to be affected by where one is located in society, how might
economists assist society to attain objective knowledge (assuming for now
that there is such a thing?).

My reading of von Mises, from what you have said, is that there are certain
economic propositions that are both objective and universal, and that the
assistance economists should give, is to identify these propositions (being
the six in your list, for example) and educate society in their truth,
explaining to society that any particular views its members may have,
insofar as these express, or lead to, conclusions different to these
propositions, constitute errors whose origins lie in the mistaken
application of logic. Also I suspect, though I am not fully clear, that
'polylogism' constitutes the error of attempting to judge the truth or
falsity of an economic proposition, on the basis of the social position of
the person expressing it.

Is this a fair summary?

Regards
Alan


-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Gunning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: June-11-11 4:28 PM
To: Societies for the History of Economics
Cc: Alan Freeman
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Polylogism in Marxist


On 6/10/2011 1:55 AM, Alan Freeman wrote:
> My question is, therefore, does the concept 'polylogism' help us
understand
> the world any better than 'bigendianism'? Does it permit us to make any
> useful categorization of the different ways people think, so that we can
on
> the one side place the polylogists, on the other side the antipolylogists
> (monologists?) and deduce other behavioural or intellectual traits from
this
> division - for example, that side A are more likely to be racist, or side
B
> are more likely to be wrong.
>
> I haven't seen any argument to this effect, so far. I suspect this may be
> part of the reason that the discussion has not got as far as it otherwise
> might have.

Alan, your question is interesting. The key to the answer is to 
understand the economics that Mises was defending. Consider the 
following six propositions, which Mises regarded as scientific theorems 
or laws.

1. Cantillon's idea that newly created money has effects on the 
distribution of wealth and therefore the pattern of consumer demand.

2. Smith's invisible hand.

3. Ricardo's theory of gains from trade and specialization and more 
generally the theory of the gains from the higher productivity of labor 
due to specialization and the division of labor in a society world 
people are free to exchange, specialize, and divide labor.

4. Neoclassical consumer sovereignty.

5. Mises and Hayek's ideas that market interaction entails the use of 
specialized, largely individualized particular knowledge of specific 
ways to increase the productivity of labor. This knowledge can be 
roughly communicated and accounted for through a system of markets and 
prices not highly influenced by government or other employers of 
coercion. A maker of pencils, for example, can roughly account for 
technological improvements in lumbering and in electronic communication. 
But such vast specialized and particularized knowledge can hardly be 
accounted for at all by a central planner or government agency. It 
follows that one who wants to live in a world that contains a highly 
developed division of labor and, therefore, highly productive labor must 
take heed of the communication properties of the system of markets and 
prices and of the assistance given by a medium of exchange in helping 
people to make calculations.

6. Mises's idea that a change money supply practically always induces 
errors in economic calculation. This idea is based on (a) the Cantillon 
effect (#1) and (b) the theory of communication through markets and 
prices (#5). The change in money supply interferes with the system of 
markets and prices, leading people to send a larger proportion than 
otherwise of signals regarding their knowledge of particular 
circumstances, including their knowledge of the pattern of consumer 
demand, that later turn out to be false. It therefore, retards the 
growth of labor productivity.


If you believe that one or more of these theorems helps you understand 
the world, then it follows that being able to classify the tactics and 
reasoning used by the critics of this economics helps you understand the 
world. It follows, in turn, that the concept of polylogism may help you 
understand the world. The concepts designated by the terms Marxist 
polylogism and racist polylogism can be defended on similar grounds.

If you believe that these theorems do not help you understand the world, 
then the Swiftian analogy seems applicable.


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