DECONSTRUCTING LUDWIG VON MISES- Jersey Flight

So far as I can tell Mises is either super naive or super cunning. "...economic activity has no other basis than the value scales thus constructed by individuals."* While there is truth to this, Mises seems to think of individuals as being isolated from institutions and cultures. Ignoring this is the only way he can avoid the starting point of value being rigged from the beginning (and more importantly) that it can be manipulated to sway mass culture! Individuals can be influenced and herded! How in God's name could he be blind to this? Naive or calculated?

*The Theory of Money and Credit pg.52, Liberty Fund 1981


MISES DISCIPLE: You are reading too much into Misean psychology...


FLIGHT: Precisely! then it must be naivety in the case of Mises. As the Austrian says, "If you want my theory to be rational then pay no attention to the relevant information behind the curtain." I think I see the problem here. I do in fact consider what you say, I even read Austrian literature, but this fairness is not returned. Try and consider my objection. Desire is the kind of thing that can be controlled and manipulated, turned in many directions. Mises is right about individuals and value, but he is not right that their power remains isolated, he is not right that their choices take place in a neutral vacuum. The theory here is very trite, in fact, it relies on ignorance and simplicity in order to propagate itself. Men who can only ask so many questions, this is what's required to make Austrian disciples! I am not interested in being indoctrinated, but I am interested in discussing certain claims made by the Austrians. Mises's quote that I cited above fits into the category of selective evidence, it is exceedingly narrow, there is more to the picture. 


MISES DISCIPLE: I get that Mises takes individual preferences as given for the purpose of economic analysis, although he does not exclude things like marketing which update those with new information. you could maybe improve your argument by explaining why that is a wrong starting point. Is there a branch of economics which does not accept preferences more or less as a given?


FLIGHT: "Why that is a wrong starting point," you ask? By "that" I assume you mean this: "...economic activity has no other basis than the value scales thus constructed by individuals." This is a false premise, economic activity also has the basis of manipulation and coercion (which comes in many subtle forms). Further it is not simply "value scales constructed by individuals" (if by "individuals" you mean autonomous, uninfluenced, born yesterday, unaffected by history, individuals). Economic activity is a social phenomena, not an independent phenomena! Activity itself is not isolated from a larger chain of causality. But Mises needs it to be this way so he can leverage his moralism of responsibility and reward, crime and punishment... ultimately so he can pseudo-justify his theory of inequality.  


MISES DISCIPLE: Please consider all the assumptions that read into Mises's notion of individual: " if by "individuals" you mean autonomous, uninfluenced, born yesterday, unaffected by history, individuals".
 
Do you seriously think that is what he means by individual? He does not realize that someone born in the US received different influences and culture than someone born in Germany? In other words, you're setting up a strawman. While all those influences obviously exist, the question is what determines an individual's choices today. The answer is that individual's value scale or preferences at that moment (regardless of how they were established). 

Of course economics is about more than one individual, a social phenomenon. That is the topic of much economic analysis (division of labor, specialization, spread of information, public choice theory). But this emergent social structure is the result of individual choices at points in time (very many of them). Each of which can be studied... 

To address a specific comment: "Desire is the kind of thing that can be controlled and manipulated, turned in many directions." First, this seems to overstate the case. I don't think I can manipulate you into liking mud pies or agreeing with Mises (apparently). Advertising is not mind control. Second, this does not affect or invalidate Mises's analysis of the moment where choice happens.


FLIGHT: "While all those influences obviously exist, the question is what determines an individual's choices today. The answer is that individual's value scale or preferences at that moment (regardless of how they were established)."

The "answer" for Mises (who it seems you have not read) is "desire," which I agree with, but my point is that desire does not come rushing forth from a vacuum, it is always the conclusion of a social process, causal chain. Do you deny this?

"But this emergent social structure is the result of individual choices at points in time (very many of them). " I think you mean, "emerging social structure." By "individual choices" do you mean socially unaffected, individual choices? Do you mean that all individuals have the same equality of choice? Surely you don't mean to say that all individuals have equal power in their choices?

Back to my original claim: "...economic activity has NO OTHER basis than the value scales thus constructed by individuals." This is false. If I am not the sole cause of my value scales (and sole cause is exactly how I take Mises to mean it) then I am not the sole constructor of my values. Does Mises then mean to say, "economic activity has no other basis than the value scales thus constructed by individuals [even as some individuals are subverted in their value constructions by the value constructions of other individuals]?" Does the fact that I can make a choice mean that my choice is equal to every other choice? Does the fact that I have values prove that my values are individual, that they are the product of blank freedom? What about economic coercion? As for manipulation, your reply simply seems to be the assertion that it doesn't exist.

Also, do provide a defense of Mises having a dialectical understanding of the individual. Am I in fact creating a straw-man? I think you may fail to comprehend Mises's position here. If you begin with a causally connected, and socially conditioned premise, when it comes to your definition of choice, then you cannot rightly end with autonomous responsibility. Social conditions will then have to be factored into the premise of human action! Mises does not want this because it strips him of his much needed moralization, demonization, of those who do not conform to the assumptions of bourgeois morality.

If I were to drink Mises uncritically I would end by not only fallaciously devaluing individuals on the basis of their monetary status (as well as over-valuing individuals), but I would also end up enshrining naive economic principles. That there is such a thing as a free market is entirely indefensible and empirically unfounded, it is pure imagination, it is the capitalist God-of-the-Gaps. Deregulating the market merely allows people to be exploited. All markets are regulated, the difference is between democratic regulation or autocratic regulation.

Mises in his book, The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, tries to put forth the mistaken idea that the "consumer" is the ruler of the market. This is backwards. Clearly Mises has NO understanding of the power of propaganda (the science of public relations) when it comes to shaping the "desires" of the consumer. [Please see Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Propaganda by Edward Bernays.]

As I said, 'Desire is the kind of thing that can be controlled and manipulated, turned in many directions.'

As you replied: "First, this seems to overstate the case. I don't think I can manipulate you into liking mud pies or agreeing with Mises (apparently)."

"I don't think" is not an argument, it is a personal statement about your feelings, and perhaps, your abilities. I wonder if we could manipulate people into hating Jews? Did the Nazi's perhaps know something you don't?

"Advertising is not mind control." Every theory of public relations, since the time of Bernays, contradicts this assertion. How do you back it up? If advertising is not a form of control then what is it? Surely you would not call it a rational and innocent form of communication?

After the second world war the behaviorists mastered the art of molding public opinion. Since that time corporations have fined-tuned this science to the point where it is no longer detectable, we are in fact, a product of the cultural industry. Very few people ever step outside the matrix of this world; mass culture moves to the tune of social engineering. Sadly, someone like Mises (instead of challenging the status quo) merely reinforces it. In this sense he is not a true liberal thinker, but like so many that walk his line, he is a tool in someone else's war. 


MISES DISCIPLE: I will start by repeating the questions you skipped, which I will refer to as [the] "central question": Do you seriously think that is what [Mises] means by individual ("autonomous, uninfluenced, born yesterday, unaffected by history, individuals")? He does not realize that someone born in the US received different influences and culture than someone born in Germany?

And here is the answer to the central question, by Mises: 

"Inheritance and environment direct a man's actions. They suggest to him both the ends and the means. He lives not simply as man in abstracto; he lives as a son of his family, his race, his people, and his age; as a citizen of his country; as a member of a definite social group; as a practitioner of a certain vocation; as a follower of definite religious, metaphysical, philosophical, and political ideas; as a partisan in many feuds and controversies. He does not himself create his ideas and standards of value; he borrows them from other people. His ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him. Only very few men have the gift of thinking new and original ideas and of changing the traditional body of creeds and doctrines." Human Action, Chapter II, Section 6, pg.46, Contemporary Books, third revised edition 1966
 
Does this alleviate your misconceptions and fears that Mises discounts the influence of culture, ideology and other social influences? If yes, it would have been faster for you to read Mises or asked about what he wrote, rather than spinning up theories and slaying strawmen.

"(who it seems you have not read)"
Unsubstantiated trolling which will make my reading of your arguments less generous and will decrease my patience and any credit you may have in this discussion. First and last warning. If anything, I must conclude from the exchange so far that you have not read the works you wish to criticize.

"desire does not come rushing forth from a vacuum"
See central question. How are you disagreeing with Mises? Humans don't act? Action doesn't involve ends or means? Ends don't imply subjective valuation/preferences?  All those are necessarily true, whatever the source of preferences is. Does his economic analysis become wrong because he delegates the understanding of those desires to other disciplines (psychology, sociology, aesthetics, ...)?

For a parallel, consider geometry: "if a triangle has a right angle, then such and such conclusions necessarily follow".  The study of how to measure angles or fabricate angles does nothing to invalidate such statement. When the condition is met, the conclusion holds (If A, then B). If you can establish that the angle is not a right angle, then fine, the conclusion is not established.

"By "individual choices" do you mean socially unaffected, individual choices?" Asked and answered previously. See central question. In short, no, and it doesn't matter.

"(and sole cause is exactly how I take Mises to mean it)"
See central question. Technically, the sole cause for everything is probably the Big Bang, yet most disciplines can proceed fruitfully by breaking the causality problem into steps.

You are criticizing Mises's stopping his analysis at individual preferences, but that cannot possibly invalidate said analysis. If I say logically establish that "when the individual prefers this, then he will choose that", it will be true regardless of *why* the individual prefers this.
 
All of praxeology is simply saying "if we have all the individuals' preferences, then this follows". Basically, purposeful action necessarily implies A, B and C.

You want to explore the psychology and sociology of those preferences, Mises would say party on. It's just a different area of inquiry than praxeology, which does nothing to invalidate or diminish it. Such study of values and ideologies can only add to it.

If you want to establish that my buying mud pies is unconscious and automatic, then the conclusions of the study of action won't apply.

Regarding manipulation, please stop making assumptions about what I believe or not. Ask a clarifying question if need be. Either way, mind control is irrelevant as it concerns the formation of preferences. If I could control you into increasing your subjective valuation of mud pies, you will buy more mud pies.

As for your rant, it has no point for me until you address the central question and save us both time. You introduce concepts that are either undefined or do nothing to show Mises's analysis to be incorrect ("equality of choice", a choice being equal to another, "blank freedom", "economic coercion" and so on). Your rant about the implications or evil motivations of such analysis is also completely besides the question.

""I don't think" is not an argument, it is a personal statement about your feelings, and perhaps, your abilities." Fair enough. You can convince me that you are not overstating your case by making a fortune selling mud pies (you just need a good marketing strategy I suppose), or alternatively simply changing my mind without having to convince me. 


----------DECONSTRUCTING LUDWIG VON MISES----------


At the outset I should like to say that I believe your reply is reasonable given a surface reading of Mises, which is precisely the reception Mises counts on in order to propagate his ideas.

In our time it is vital to deconstruct, precisely because language has morphed into a caricature of itself; to say that Mr. P is "irrational" has come to mean that Mr. P is "rational."

Let us proceed to the "central question."

"Inheritance and environment direct a man's actions. They suggest to him both the ends and the means. He lives not simply as man in abstracto; he lives as a son of his family, his race, his people, and his age; as a citizen of his country; as a member of a definite social group; as a practitioner of a certain vocation; as a follower of definite religious, metaphysical, philosophical, and political ideas; as a partisan in many feuds and controversies. He does not himself create his ideas and standards of value; he borrows them from other people. His ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him. Only very few men have the gift of thinking new and original ideas and of changing the traditional body of creeds and doctrines." Human Action, Chapter II, Section 6, pg.46, Contemporary Books, third revised edition 1966

In another place Mises says the same thing:

"This does not mean that every individual draws his valuations from his own mind. The immense majority of people take their valuations from the social environment into which they were born, in which they grew up, that moulded their personality and educated them. Few men have the power to deviate from the traditional set of values and to establish their own scale of what appears to be better and what appears to be worse." Mises, Theory and History pg.22, Arlington House 1969
 
Leaving aside the fact that Mises, at the end of each quote, actually negates the very thing he said, proving it to be mere lip service... we could ask, how does this magic individual escape a causal chain? But instead, let us pretend that Mises did not negate what he just said.

As I see it this complicates Mises entire program, [as a praxeologist] why would he talk about individual choices, when in fact, these choices are determined by the society and environment in which men live? Do you see the problem? Mises's formal confession, wherein he bows the knee to the supremacy of environmental and social causes, as the supreme agents of value formation, usurps his desired axiom of individual choice. In other words, if it is true that "man does not create his ideas and standards of value," but that he "borrows them from other people," then why is the cult of praxeology not concerned with the formation of social values (most specially when it is admitted that individual choices are determined by social values)?

[If you understand me then you understand that Mises appears to be emphasizing the wrong axiom when it comes to value.]

In contrast to what Mises says above, the following is bound to provoke confusion from any thoughtful reader:

"Most of a man’s daily behavior is simple routine. He performs certain acts without paying special attention to them. He does many things because he was trained in his childhood to do them, because other people behave in the same way, and because it is customary in his environment. He acquires habits, he develops automatic reactions. But he indulges in these habits only because he welcomes their effects." Human Action, Chapter II, Section 6, pg.47, Contemporary Books, third revised edition 1966
 
"The characteristic mark of ultimate ends is that they depend entirely on each individual’s personal and subjective judgment, which cannot be examined, measured, still less corrected by any other person. Each individual is the only and final arbiter in matters concerning his own satisfaction and happiness." Mises, Theory and History pg.13, Arlington House 1969

"The characteristics of individual men, their ideas and judgments of value as well as the actions guided by those ideas and judgments, cannot be traced back to something of which they would be the derivatives." Ibid. pg.183

"In their eagerness to eliminate from history any reference to individuals and individual events, collectivist authors resorted to a chimerical construction, the group mind or social mind." Ibid. pg.188

"What produces change is new ideas and actions guided by them. What distinguishes one group from another is the effect of such innovations. These innovations are not accomplished by a group mind; they are always the achievements of individuals." Ibid. pg.192

"While the group-mind school tried to eliminate the individual by ascribing activity to the mythical Volksgeist,* the Marxians were intent on the one hand upon depreciating the individual’s contribution and on the other hand upon crediting innovations to common men. Thus Marx observed that a critical history of technology would demonstrate that none of the eighteenth century’s inventions was the achievement of a single individual." Ibid. pg.192

"Every doctrine denying to the “single paltry individual” any role in history must finally ascribe changes and improvements to the operation of instincts. ...It is needless to enter into a critical examination of this fable invented by impotent people for slighting the achievements of better men and appealing to the resentment of the dull." Ibid. pg.194

"On the other hand, human society is an intellectual and spiritual phenomenon. In cooperating with their fellows, individuals do not divest themselves of their individuality. They retain the power to act antisocially, and often make use of it. Its place in the structure of the body is invariably assigned to each cell. But individuals spontaneously choose the way in which they integrate themselves into social cooperation." Ibid. pg.253

"The collectivist philosophy denies that there are such things as individuals and actions of individuals. The individual is merely a phantom without reality, an illusory image invented by the pseudo philosophy of the apologists of capitalism. Consequently collectivism rejects the concept of a science of human action." Ibid. pg.256

The question is not whether Mises ever confessed to the fact of social conditioning, but whether he holds this view when it comes to his capitalism? The fact that Mises made a direction confession, regarding the legitimacy of social conditioning, merely serves to undermine the claims of his morally-individualistic-philosophy.

Just because Mises has formally confessed the reality of social conditioning, by means of lip service, does not mean his philosophy is consistent with his confession. One can make a formal confession of the principles of reason only to turn around and contradict themselves in practice. One can pass a law titled, The People's Emancipation Act, but this will not mean the law has anything to do with the people's emancipation (hence our need for deconstruction). The question is whether or not Mises's idea of individual choice, does in fact, actually comport with his confession of social conditioning; the question is whether or not his economics are consistent with his formal confession?

If individual choices shape economies, and individual choices are determined within the context of society, then it would seem logical that the key to creating quality, individual choices, would be the formation and stability of equal societies. I contend that this has serious ramifications for any capitalist theory.

It would seem, that when Mises speaks of individual choice, he is really playing a game of semantics, a kind of literal equivocation; for if we are to believe his quotes above, then what he really means by individual choice, is choice determined by social conditions and environment. Who then has supremacy in determining value (and hence choices) the individual or society? And even more so, is it still appropriate to call such choices free? What does this mean for the capitalist idea of responsibility?

Now all of this must be considered in light of my original claim, that Mises is either naive or cunning when it comes to ignoring (glossing over in silence) the forces of manipulation and coercion within the system of capital. In other words, the claim that one chooses, in light of what makes one happy [pg.12-13], seems to lack an awareness of the power of social forces, which seek to manipulate value in order to gain profit. What most interests me is why one would think this doesn't matter when it comes to evaluating the value of capitalism?

If the consumer is driven to make choices on the basis of value, and his values are determined [can be manipulated by social forces and propaganda] then not only is he not free, but a system which promotes this is both irresponsible and immoral. (We can also add the fact that capitalism is irrational because it empowers malevolent exploiters with an agenda to control the formation of value. In this sense capitalism stands against any true libertarian tradition).

[Isn't the true conclusion, drawn from Mises's confession regarding social conditioning, that society is more valuable than the individual?]

I think the fact that capitalist action is about profit, ends up being a scathing moral indictment against capitalism itself. Indeed the capitalist has gone to great lengths to show that this motive is both moral and rational. One would of course, wish for transparency from the capitalist, but this is not what we get... it is false to claim that capitalists do not make moral claims: but is capitalism really moral? At the end of the day the capitalist cannot be transparent precisely because the system he propagates is malevolent, exploitative and violent: ignorantly and deceptively interventionist and protectionist. It exalts individuals to the detriment of society, and yet, if Mises is to be believed, society is the mother of values. By what logic then should we exalt the individual at the expense of society?

Perhaps the strongest rational argument that can be offered against capitalism, is the interest of society against the interest of the individual. [Here then is an argument that uses capitalist logic against itself.] What this means is that society is taken to be its own kind of individual, and as such, pits itself against the claims of other individuals. Why then should society act against itself in competition with other individuals? Should society not reward itself by giving back to itself? Should it not seek to increase itself and promote itself by equally distributing to itself? Why should it permit the unlimited accumulation of other individuals when this accumulation is not in society's interest? Why should it take from itself in order to booster the interest of rogue individuals, when it stands as the supreme Individual that has the power to shape all individuals? In other words, for society to act in favor of itself it must promote its well-being as society, and this means it should not allow any one individual to gain an advantage at the detriment of its own interest. This is entirely consistent with capitalist logic.

Mises's response to such an argument is not to attack the logic, but to deny the existence of society. However, given his concession regarding the action of the group upon the individual, which assumes the existence of a social entity, it would seem this claim leaves him in something of a contradictory bind.

There are many other crippling objections to the cult of praxeology, such as its claims to being a science while rejecting the criteria of science (it is also relevant to note that praxeology, that is to say, Mises's infallible assertion of the a priori nature of his position, was sanely rejected by Hayek).

The question to ask is what the premise of social conditioning means when it comes to economics?


* "Again in Germany, in the years following the Napoleonic wars, the problem of comprehensive legislative codification was brought up for discussion. In this controversy the historical school of jurisprudence, led by Savigny, denied the competence of any age and any persons to write legislation. Like the Volksepen and the Volkslieder, a nation’s laws, they declared, are a spontaneous emanation of the Volksgeist, the nation’s spirit and peculiar character. Genuine laws are not arbitrarily written by legislators; they spring up and thrive organically from the Volksgeist." Ibid. pg.189-190



----------MISES DISCIPLE----------  


1) I asked: Do you seriously think that is what [Mises] means by individual ("autonomous, uninfluenced, born yesterday, unaffected by history, individuals")?

You did not provide a direct answer, but if I interpret your replies, it sometimes seemed you agree (calling it Mises's confession), while in others it seems you disagree.

Here is my interpretation:

1. You initially thought that Mises presents an individual disconnected from society (which is not what he wrote, and I think is false). 

2. I presented a quote from Mises acknowledging the exchange of ideas.

3. Then you jumped to saying that is a confession of "social conditioning" (which is also not what he wrote, and I also think is false).

4. Then you implied that Mises presented inconsistent or schizophrenic views (atomistic-individuals in some quotes, socially-conditioned-individuals in others). So this "confession" would mean Mises should accept the notions of "group mind", "Volksgeist", or that values/judgements are derivatives (ie causally determined) of society, instead of criticizing them.

There is a third option you seem to ignore: Individuals have are actors with free-will (that is "not causally determined by something else"), yet can exchange ideas and thus be influenced by others in society.

If you are stuck in a binary world (individuals are atoms, or, individuals are determined by society) and ignore the straightforward third model, then I understand that Mises's claims would seem puzzling since they don't fit in either option of this false dichotomy.

2) "Mises, at the end of each quote, actually negates the very thing he said"

How so?
I am an individual who has apples, some I grew myself and some I obtained from exchange with others. Am I contradicting myself? Am I equivocating?
Similarly, I am an individual with values and ideas, I can also exchange or get ideas and values from others. No contradiction.

3) "The fact that Mises made a direct confession, regarding the legitimacy of social conditioning"

How so?
I have preferences that stem from my personality and were influenced by interactions with others. Am I confessing to "social conditioning"? Am I confessing that "my choice [are] determined by social conditions and environment"?

Let me ask another way: Do you have preferences?
I'm going to assume the answer is yes.

This necessarily means there is a distinct "you". Your action is not a deterministic result of your environment. You have free-will and personal preferences. And yet, I don't have to claim that you are disconnected from society. I do recognize that you exchange ideas with others (as we are now) or they influence you.

If you instead think your actions are determined, please let me know so I can cut the conversation short and economize my time.

4) "I think the fact that capitalist action is about profit, ends up being a scathing moral indictment against capitalism itself."

This is a very interesting claim.  I'm not sure what is "capitalist action" (as opposed to "non-capitalist" actions), but I will attempt to show (using a Misesian line of analysis) why all actions are necessarily about profit.

Let's start with the concept of "action". A human act with a purpose. This means he is pursuing some end/goal, which he perceives/expects to be superior to the current situation (which he feels some un-ease with). Otherwise, he would not act. Hopefully, this is uncontroversial and tautological.
 
Assuming we agree to this point, the concept of profit emerges.
This expected superiority is the profit. It is also called benefit. Mises sometimes calls it psychic profit (to differentiate from a specific sub-set of profits that involve the exchange of resources).
All action necessarily pursues a profit/benefit, otherwise it would not be undertaken.
 
Note that the root cause of my preference is irrelevant to this analysis. I have a preference, I pursue it because it gives me a benefit, regardless of the preference itself (I like meat or I hate meat) or its origins (you convinced me that eating meat is immoral).

As for the morality of capitalism, it never hurts to make terms clear (please let me know if the definition is incorrect). Capitalism is the system of property rights and voluntary exchange.
 
As I established a few lines earlier, all action pursues profit.
That said, it is true that not all action pursues monetary or material profit. For instance, teaching your kid, or reading poetry, or curing cancer.
 
Does capitalism mandates that actions should focus on monetary profits? As defined, it does not. Property rights simply enable one to pursue the person's own goals with his/her property. It's still fine to teach your kind, read poetry or cure cancer. I'm curious what (if anything) makes you think otherwise. To my knowledge there is nothing in Mises's writings suggesting that monetary profits are specifically desirable.

5) You claim "the consumer is driven to make choices on the basis of value, and his values are determined [can be manipulated by social forces and propaganda]"

Let's assume arguendo that people are determined the way you claim. Then capitalism (system of property rights and voluntary exchange) would still be a superior to any other social organization, because I can become a hermit farmer or form shielded communities if I want to escape the "manipulation".  Also, competitive forces would tend to counter-balance the manipulation. If I manipulated you ("my mud pies are great, you must buy them!"), then anyone with an interest to sell you anything also has an interest to counteract/undo my manipulation and explain to you that mud pies are just mud.


----------FLIGHT----------
  

"I asked: Do you seriously think that is what [Mises] means by individual ("autonomous, uninfluenced, born yesterday, unaffected by history, individuals")? You did not provide a direct answer..."

This is not true. I answered this question before you even asked it, 'sole cause is exactly how I take Mises to mean it.' Yes, I "seriously think" this is what Mises means by individual. So when he said, "...economic activity has no other basis than the value scales thus constructed by individuals," and I said, 'this is false' -- what I said was true. The question you asked had already been answered, which is why your question is a re-emphasis.

My position is articulated thus: I hold that Mises does in fact assume the existence of autonomous individuals who make autonomous choices. I hold that Mises contradicts himself on this point as a matter of posture, as a matter of lip service (in an attempt to evade the charge of having to explain the existence of autonomous values and autonomous individuals). Mises (though he believed this) knew he could not defend it, which is why he offered lip service.

What I think is irrelevant; what matters is what Mises actually said, and the fact here is that his statements come into contradiction with each other.

The gravity of the situation is that you failed to realize the ramifications of your citation. My position was not contingent on Mises formally denying social conditioning, my point was that he has to deny it, because it not only undermines his moral position (when it comes to individualism), but it also undermines his criticism. When you cite a quote claiming he is embracing the supremacy of social conditioning, in relation to individual values, what you are actually doing is undermining his case against Marxism. Do you understand this? If Mises affirms the relevance of social conditioning, when it comes to the formation of values; when it comes to the existence of individuals, then by what logic does he seek to criticize Marxism?

As Mises says: "According to the Marxist conception, one's social condition determines one's way of thought." Socialism, Introduction pg.18 Liberty Classics 1981

If the quote you provided from Mises affirms the same thing then Mises has a serious problem. As I have already said, you must now argue that Mises did not actually mean what he said. However, when you originally cited this quote you cited it exactly in the context of Mises affirming the supremacy of social conditioning in relation to the individual. If you deny this quote then you affirm my original premise.

Do you understand the dilemma here? My point has always been that Mises cannot deal with the ramifications of social conditioning. When you come along, arguing that he affirmed social conditioning, you merely manifest a fatal contradiction in his position. So then, what is the opposite of the "Marxist conception"? If Mises rejects social conditioning, then how does he explain the formation of individual values? (And more importantly) if his entire apologetic is set against historical determinism and social conditioning, then what does it mean if we find an affirmation of these things in his writings? Am I creating the confusion by misreading Mises, or is Mises creating the confusion by contradicting himself?

If Mises rejects social conditioning, then my point stands; if he affirms social conditioning, then he is catastrophically impaired in his criticism of Marxism. Indeed, he is brought into tragic contradiction with himself.

-------------------

I said, 'Mises, at the end of each quote, actually negates the very thing he said.'

You asked: "How so?"

Given this: "Inheritance and environment direct a man's actions. They suggest to him both the ends and the means. He lives not simply as man in abstracto; he lives as a son of his family, his race, his people, and his age; as a citizen of his country; as a member of a definite social group; as a practitioner of a certain vocation; as a follower of definite religious, metaphysical, philosophical, and political ideas; as a partisan in many feuds and controversies. He does not himself create his ideas and standards of value; he borrows them from other people. His ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him." Ibid.

How do you then explain this: "Only very few men have the gift of thinking new and original ideas and of changing the traditional body of creeds and doctrines." Ibid.

From whence does this "gift" proceed?

"Few men have the power to deviate from the traditional set of values and to establish their own scale of what appears to be better and what appears to be worse." Ibid.

Explain this "power." What does Mises mean by "establish their own scale?"

To play your own game, do you "seriously think" that Mises is referring to socially contingent power, do you "seriously think" he is referring to a socially established scale?

We will here draw out the fatal contradiction between what you quoted, and what Mises says about free-will in other places:

"The choices a man makes are determined by the ideas that he adopts." Theory and History Chapter 5, The Free-Will Controversy

But Mises has already admitted "that [man] does not himself create his ideas and standards of value."

"The determinists are right in asserting that everything that happens is the necessary sequel of the preceding state of things. What a man does at any instant of his life is entirely dependent on his past, that is, on his physiological inheritance as well as on all he went through in his previous days." Ibid.

Pay attention: "What a man does at any instant of his life is entirely dependent..."

How does Mises seek to surmount this admission? The answer is with nothing more than bare assertion, equivocation, and an appeal to ignorance, all and all, a contradiction of the very thing he just said:

"Yet the significance of this thesis [that which is cited above] is considerably weakened by the fact that nothing is known about the way in which ideas arise." Ibid.

Here Mises contradicts himself, as he already gave us a formula for the formation of ideas: "Inheritance and environment direct a man's actions... His ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him."

"The free-will doctrine is correct in pointing out the fundamental difference between human action and animal behavior. While the animal cannot help yielding to the physiological impulse which prevails at the moment, man chooses between alternative modes of conduct. Man has the power to choose even between yielding to the most imperative instinct, that of self-preservation, and the aiming at other ends. All the sarcasms and sneers of the positivists cannot annul the fact that ideas have a real existence and are genuine factors in shaping the course of events. The offshoots of human mental efforts, the ideas and the judgments of value that direct the individuals’ actions, cannot be traced back to their causes, and are in this sense ultimate data. In dealing with them we refer to the concept of individuality." Ibid. 

Not only is this false, but it is in direct contradiction with the quote you provided. It is also a direct contradiction of what Mises just said about determinism. Mises has already admitted that ideas are social constructs, they are not formed independently. If Mises was here pressed to explain himself he would immediately crack under the weigh of his own contradictions (not to mention the enormous burden he has taken on himself in deferring to the blank individual). Mises cannot have it both ways, he cannot claim the supremacy of ignorance, only to turn around and cite the individual as an explanation (most specifically after he has already admitted that what a man does is "entirely dependent").

In speaking of "human action" versus "animal behavior" he has literally said nothing to negate the fact that these both take place [provided there is a legitimate difference?] within a larger social picture (they are not the cause of themselves). A man chooses in accord with his values, and his values are determined by his social relations (to use Marx's term).

The contradiction here exists precisely because Mises is trying to have it both ways; he desperately needs to be able to affirm the sovereignty of the individual, but he knows he cannot deny the reality of social conditioning. Hence, he once again tries to recover himself with a form of lip service:

"But in resorting to this notion we by no means imply that ideas and judgments of value spring out of nothing by a sort of spontaneous generation and are in no way connected and related to what was already in the universe before their appearance. We merely establish the fact that we do not know anything about the mental process which produces within a human being the thoughts that respond to the state of his physical and ideological environment." {to appeal to ignorance regarding the micro details of the "mental process" is to change the subject, this is a red herring; appeal to ignorance does not negate the fact of social conditioning; it is merely to state that one does not know exactly how it works}

Here Mises admits that "human action" (which he distinguishes from "animal behavior") is not the result of "spontaneous generation." This nullifies what he just said about "human action" in contrast to "animal behavior." In other words, even if there is a difference between "human action" and "animal behavior" this difference wouldn't matter when it comes to freedom precisely because "ideas and judgments of value [do not] spring out of spontaneous generation [but] are connected and related to what was already in the universe before their appearance." {it is significant that he cited this precisely to qualify what he said about human action and man's choice}

In other words, the view that they are "spontaneous" is itself a mere "appearance" given the fact of causality.

Mises knows he cannot defend his idea of libertarian freedom, which is why he constantly contradicts himself by affirming the supremacy of determinism.

"You initially thought that Mises presents an individual disconnected from society (which is not what he wrote, and I think is false)."

I still hold this view insofar as I have demonstrated this view.

You cited one quote. I gave multiple readings from Mises which demonstrate a contradiction in his view. Having to spell-out these contradictions makes an exchange with you exceedingly time consuming, with little reward for my effort.

***But what is this! You want to argue against the very thing you think is false:

"There is a third option you seem to ignore: Individuals are actors with free-will (that is "not causally determined by something else"), yet can exchange ideas and thus be influenced by others in society. If you are stuck in a binary world (individuals are atoms, or, individuals are determined by society) and ignore the straightforward third model..."

You say I "ignore" a "third option," where does Mises provide this *imaginary* option? [This is your *asserted* explanation not his.]

This is a "model"? These are indeed "straightforward" assertions. But on what are these magical-assertions-of-freedom based? Do you deny that "inheritance and environment direct a man's actions?"

Do you deny, that man "does not himself create his ideas and standards of value; he borrows them from other people. His ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him?"

Do you admit with Mises that "determinists are right in asserting that everything that happens is the necessary sequel of the preceding state of things. What a man does at any instant of his life is entirely dependent on his past, that is, on his physiological inheritance as well as on all he went through in his previous days." (?)

Unless you are prepared to argue that "preferences" come before "values" (which is not Mises's position), then how you answer the above questions will determine the contingency of your idea of preference... and if you side with Mises, then social factors (social "inheritance" and "environment") ultimately determine your values and ideas.

So far as I can tell, what Mises said about ideas and values is "straightforward," and yet, because of the line you take it seems you must argue that this is not the case.

I believe in determinism exactly the way Mises said it, though I would expand the field to include history. (Events now are not isolated from events that came before).

I can engage the rest of your discourse, but I don't want to. I feel like I am having to educate you as we go. You might think this is unfair, but I have done a great deal of work in bringing propositions together from both sides of the debate. I have consistently shouldered many separate objections (from several different people) which have been raised in an attempt to posture toward the impression of some kind rationality. I have tried to engage honestly and fairly.

I am content to let the readers decide from Mises's own words.

Just because you do not perceive your own contradiction in this exchange, does not mean it will not be perceived by others.

My original thesis stands: Economic activity is a social phenomena, not an independent phenomena. Activity itself is not isolated from a larger chain of causality. But Mises needs it to be this way so he can leverage his moralism of responsibility and reward, crime and punishment... ultimately so he can pseudo-justify his theory of inequality.


Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

-
-

What I Think About Philosophy- Jersey Flight

Marx has this famous quote...

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Theses On Feuerbach, paragraph 11

Philosophy has a direction. I posit that philosophy leads us back to life, which in turn, leads us back to the world. If philosophy is good for anything then it must be good for awareness. But what does this mean? It means we awaken to the reality in which we exist (some might call this a system); it means we realize our oppression... after all, what good is philosophy if it cannot make us aware of oppression? What if it can only oppress? If this was the nature of philosophy then it would have no distinction from that of religion. (Given) there are many different directions that one might go in philosophy, but my claim is that there is a hierarchy, in this sense philosophy must make contact with life, precisely because life is what we are, precisely because philosophy is life (without life there would be no philosophy).

It is a strange game to gamble on the semantics of words like truth, only to be the subject of a system which denies the power of this game. This makes us stupid, and I contend that philosophers are supposed to be wise.

What I will call "systems of power," these literally dominate our lives. A vision of reality is injected into us, and very few understand at the level of this injection. We mistake our impressions of the world (our injections) for the world itself... but how foolish and naive are we... what about the controllers? What about those who figured out how to inject us with what they want us to believe? Does the direction of our philosophy make us aware of control or does it make us the subjects of control? [Indeed, who can perceive this?]

Philosophers are largely stupid because they pit mind against mind, they do not know how to work together (this limits the ground they can cover, it restricts their ability to accomplish).

I contend that philosophy is premised on life and life is premised on the world. A philosopher then, is one who is concerned with the nature and quality of life, and thus, the nature and quality of the world. I am the subject of a social system of power, but if I am a good philosopher I will strive to deconstruct this system, not only for myself but for the good of my fellow creatures, even as my good is bound up in the good of the whole, I will seek to free myself from that which restricts my life. However, it seems that philosophy (what it has become, or perhaps has always been) is the kind of game one plays in order to forget that one is the subject of power. Philosophy (in its present bourgeois form) is the kind of game one plays in order to restrict what one sees. Instead of feeling the authenticity of a lament at the clattering of one's chains, one has learned how to be complacent; one has learned blindness, one can now utter that one does not have chains! No, my friends, this is not philosophy, philosophy learns to see the terror and ugliness of the world, it teaches us to resent our chains; it teaches us where and when to apply resistance; it offers a more calculated and targeted response to the systems and agents of power; from it and though it, we learn that resistance is moral because it acts in favor of life!

-
- 

HARD QUESTIONS FROM MARX - Jersey Flight

When people think of Marx, sadly they think of historical "Marxism." This serves to poison the well against legitimately considering what Marx actually said; after this one reads Marx with colored glasses. Just because people have used Marx's ideas to bring about destruction does not mean that Marx's ideas are false or inherently dangerous. They are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people, even as they are oppressive if they are used oppressively. They are most certainly dangerous to the ruling class's monopoly of power, as they threaten emancipation from ruling class control, they threaten to destabilize and abolish ruling class power.

"For Marx, the revolutionary process was far more complicated, requiring ongoing education of the proletariat. For example, it was crucial for him that the proletariat acquire class consciousness because, without this consciousness, it would not come to the realization that the entire capitalist system must be abolished and replaced by a system that operates in the interests of working people, as opposed to a small, extremely wealthy minority. In other words, without class consciousness, members of the proletariat assume that their miserable condition is a function of their own individual initiative, or lack thereof, or simply bad luck, as opposed to resulting from naked class exploitation. But class consciousness is not simply gained instinctively since the bourgeoisie, for example, is relentlessly on a campaign to assert ideological hegemony by arguing that capitalism represents the highest achievement in individual freedom, fairness in the distribution of wealth, etc." Ann Robertson, The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict, What's Next, December 2003

Sadly, some people are totally oblivious to class distinction, they simply assert that it does not exist.* But the real question here is whether or not "class consciousness" is required to overcome the oppression of capitalism?

Those who think of the economic sphere in terms of bare choice fail to understand the fact that all economic choices are conditioned by a larger economic and social context. Choices made within a system are conditioned by that system. Those who argue for the existence of economic or social autonomy fail to comprehend the system in which they exist.

The question is who the system is setup to work for: those who exploit or those who are exploited?

Is there such a thing as exploitation? {We only ask this question to the most uncritical and naive among us.}

Is capitalism what the capitalist claims it to be, justice, fairness, the "highest achievement in individual freedom?" In order for this to be the case vast individual accumulation must not restrict individual freedom. Such accumulation must not pose a threat to the stability of communal living.

In order for this to be the case man's well-being must be dissociated from his economic standing. In order for this to be the case it must be true that some men have a greater right to the earth.

The hardest question regarding Marx is whether or not one can handle his ideas without seeking to fallaciously poison the well against him? The latter act however, gives testimony to the concrete power of Marx's ideas, which really amount to social and economic discoveries.

If "class consciousness" is required to overcome the oppression of capitalism, then man is wasting his time with mere impulsive reaction (emotional revolution). In this sense Marx targets the apex of social oppression; in this sense Marx, working in the spirit of intelligence, seeks to draw a straight line from oppression to oppressor from bondage to liberation. Instead of merely treating the symptoms Marx targets the disease in hopes of fully eradicating the problem. For those who comprehend the ambitious and deeply humanitarian nature of Marx's program it will be clear that he was one of the greatest human beings to ever walk the face of the earth. 


NOTES-------------

* "...the notion of class entails the notion of historical relationship. Like any other relationship, it is a fluency which evades analysis if we attempt to stop it dead at any given moment and anatomize its structure. The finest-meshed sociological net cannot give us a pure specimen of class, any more than it can give us one of deference or of love. The relationship must always be embodied in real people and in a real context. Moreover, we cannot have two distinct classes, each with an independent being, and then bring them into relationship with each other. We cannot have love without lovers, nor deference without squires and laborers. And class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs. The class experience is largely determined by the productive relations into which men are born—or enter involuntarily. Class-consciousness is the way in which these experiences are handled in cultural terms: embodied in traditions, value-systems, ideas, and institutional forms." E. P. Thompson, Preface to The Making of the English Working Class

Walter Benjamin on Thinking

"Everything is thought [gebacht]. The task is to make a stopover at every one of these many little thoughts. To spend the night in a thought. Once I have done that, I know something about it that its originator never dreamed of." Walter Benjamin, Fragment written ca. June 1928. Gesammelte Schriften, VI, 200. Translated by Rodney Livingstone.

If one merely stops-over at this thought one will have the key to thinking! 

One does not need to read fast in order to learn or develop a critical mind, one merely needs to think about what they read... one merely needs to think! (this is the opposite of simply passing over something casually). Man's failure to do this is a manifestation of his stupidity. However, the first thing one learns when they "stopover" is that not all thoughts contain enough substance to make for a quality night. Not all thinkers are worth the application of thought. The key is to spend one's life in the company of quality thinkers who create quality thoughts. Once we know how to think, the next task is to seek out quality thoughts. The task of a thinker is to strive to be a quality thinker by valuing and confiding in other quality thoughts and thinkers. He that would be a quality thinker must learn to ask quality questions, he must learn to discriminate against all things including himself. There is more to a quality thinker's thought than what appears on the shallow surface. He that has learned to think knows how to penetrate the deep. One does not have to work so hard to communicate with him who knows how to penetrate the deep. Some thinker's thoughts are like a labyrinth, inexhaustible in new discoveries. There are wells that will never dry up just so long as one knows how to draw from their depths.      

-
-