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
|
