According to Brian Doherty, Peter Boettke notes that, "Mises would say that a noneconomist might advocate socialism, but once you were an economist you wouldn't. Then Oskar Lange came along and started trying to use an economic argument to defend socialism. It hit Mises and Hayek like a 2 x 4 to the head."
There seems to be a similar pattern of belief in the idea that some on the forum seem to hold that advocates of Austrian economics are the only folks around with even the slightest bit of common sense, and that opponents, socialist opponents in particular, are always economically ignorant and often asininely stupid to an extent that approaches comedy. Of course, plenty of socialists share this belief about Austrians.
"Austrians think that value comes from the subjective valuations of individuals in a market and has nothing to do with the amount of labor that goes into a product, so this must be the only way to effectively measure somethings social cost. It's so obviously ridiculous that I don't know why people still try to use it."
"Well, I really don't see the point in engaging in this debate, insofar as Austrian economics is not so much a serious theory as it is a matter of blind faith, an ideological justification of the market. Hayek, in fact, concedes the case when he says that 'if we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic.' As for the point about the alleged logical impossibility of preforming the calculations, complete nonsense, whoever said that evidently doesn't have a very firm grasp of either logic or economics. If the task was logically impossible, as it is claimed, then the market couldn't preform it anymore than a planned economy."
How many people here would react to these comments with angry or bitter resentment, insisting that they were riddled with inaccuracies, and then shoot back comments of the exact same nature at socialists and socialism? Can we perhaps acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree, that even those with harshly divergent economic viewpoints might not be mentally challenged or stupid and perhaps even admit that some might be economically informed in a general sense, even while retaining the opinion that their line of thought is economically flawed?
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties must force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith
Socialists are not necessarily either stupid or evil; many sincerely believe wrong things for reasons they think are good.
What's your point?
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Many Austrian economics started out as Marxists.
I don't know of any that took the reverse path.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I can admit whatever is true.... but the evidence is pretty slim that the people you quote (who dropped such howlers) have any kind of basis to demand intellectual respect within that realm of human knowledge known as economics
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Stranger: Many Austrian economics started out as Marxists. I don't know of any that took the reverse path.
There was austro-marxists.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Just an attitude of superiority that I feel is unnecessary. It's certainly not universal, but it's excessively prevalent. Is there agreement that it exists to some extent?
Incidentally, I went from intuitive agreement with Austrian arguments to anarchism.
You are correct, and I've said this forever, just because you are the smartest person in the world does not mean that you will come up with the right answer, or that just because you are stupid doesn't mean that you will come up with the wrong answer. Indeed when anyone tells me about how great a politician is because he is "smart" I just get pissed off because I don't care how smart he is, that does not mean he will do the right thing, smart people can be the stupidest of us all.
In short, good point and one I believe many of us overlook.... Although the first quote up there wants to make me breathe fire.... Just because labor plays a part in cost doesn't mean that it is the only thing, it just means that that is a cost from which the price cannot go any lower..... Labor theory of value gets me so riled up that I start pacing around my computer thinking about exactly what it would mean for reality.... It would mean that I could by a metal rack or somthing for like twenty bucks, smash it around with the sledge hammer for a while, and then sell it for thirty bucks or somthing.
kiba: Stranger: Many Austrian economics started out as Marxists. I don't know of any that took the reverse path. There was austro-marxists.
When?
Leviathan:There seems to be a similar pattern of belief in the idea that some on the forum seem to hold that advocates of Austrian economics are the only folks around with even the slightest bit of common sense, and that opponents, socialist opponents in particular, are always economically ignorant and often asininely stupid to an extent that approaches comedy.
Who specifically?
Leviathan:Of course, plenty of socialists share this belief about Austrians.
Some may. Some may not. How is it relevant what people "believe"?
Leviathan:How many people here would react to these comments with angry or bitter resentment, insisting that they were riddled with inaccuracies, and then shoot back comments of the exact same nature at socialists and socialism?
Why would anyone be angry and bitter? They are riddled with inaccuracies, but its not the end of the world.
Leviathan:Can we perhaps acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree, that even those with harshly divergent economic viewpoints might not be mentally challenged or stupid and perhaps even admit that some might be economically informed in a general sense, even while retaining the opinion that their line of thought is economically flawed?
I will ask again. Who has done otherwise? Who specifically are you appealing to?
by the way, there is no evidence at all that Mises or Hayek were somehow shocked by Lange's points. They dealt with him very well. I don't know where Pete B gets this stuff.
Also, left rev scares the living crap out of me, its like the political version of 4chan.... I mean come on! Even the set up is ominous as hell, why would anyone design a website like that?
The Late Andrew Ryan: Labor theory of value gets me so riled up that I start pacing around my computer thinking about exactly what it would mean for reality....
Labor theory of value gets me so riled up that I start pacing around my computer thinking about exactly what it would mean for reality....
Haha, I also have to pull my head away from many of the insane theories and ideas I stumble across regarding government intervention and socialism. This is especially so with the mainstream media.
And yeah, I also end up pacing around, chain-smoking and rambling on to myself like a lunatic. It's definitely not good for my health to constantly consider these things...
liberty student:Who specifically?
Conza, for example. But of course it's not limited to the forum. Let's take the "an"-cap meetup notification. I clicked on the link, and found:
In particular we generally think that - Voluntary socialism (e.g. monks making cheese) is harmless and kind of cute, but not our thing. - Gift, barter, labor-value whatever economies are generally the product of aesthetic concerns rather than genuine economic thinking.
This mirrors the attitude at Anti-State.com, where it's more often the case that people scream about the Anarchist FAQ authors being "crypto-Marxists" than address their points. It's the attitude of shocked disbelief by Mises and Hayek that any economist could advocate socialism. It's apparent in Rothbard's comment that "economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of 'needs' in some central data bank [openly false, incidentally]. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second."
i suppose you have superior criteria to delineate between economists and cranks-masquerading as economists ?
Stranger: kiba: Stranger: Many Austrian economics started out as Marxists. I don't know of any that took the reverse path. There was austro-marxists. When?
Like the 1920s and the 1930s.
Leviathan: This mirrors the attitude at Anti-State.com, where it's more often the case that people scream about the Anarchist FAQ authors being "crypto-Marxists" than address their points. It's the attitude of shocked disbelief by Mises and Hayek that any economist could advocate socialism. It's apparent in Rothbard's comment that "economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of 'needs' in some central data bank [openly false, incidentally]. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second."
Perhaps that is because the points have already been addressed ad nauseam.
Angurse: Leviathan: This mirrors the attitude at Anti-State.com, where it's more often the case that people scream about the Anarchist FAQ authors being "crypto-Marxists" than address their points. It's the attitude of shocked disbelief by Mises and Hayek that any economist could advocate socialism. It's apparent in Rothbard's comment that "economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of 'needs' in some central data bank [openly false, incidentally]. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second." Perhaps that is because the points have already been addressed ad nauseam.
I nauseate when someone used "wage slavery" to attack wal-mart or nike. Seriously.
Angurse:Perhaps that is because the points have already been addressed ad nauseam.
I don't think so, at least not in the case of anarchists specifically. I can't speak as assertively of other socialists as I'm an anarchist, but I still routinely get linked to Bryan Caplan's The Anarcho-Statists of Spain despite the fact that it was quickly rebutted by Iain McKay, principal author of the FAQ. I get that and Rothbard's aforementioned essay and treated like I'm exposed to Biblical prophecy instead of a rather meager literature that has been seen and addressed countless times before.
Leviathan:I don't think so, at least not in the case of anarchists specifically. I can't speak as assertively of other socialists as I'm an anarchist, but I still routinely get linked to Bryan Caplan's The Anarcho-Statists of Spain despite the fact that it was quickly rebutted by Iain McKay, principal author of the FAQ. I get that and Rothbard's aforementioned essay and treated like I'm exposed to Biblical prophecy instead of a rather meager literature that has been seen and addressed countless times before.
I'm not sure what point you are referring to, more importantly I don't know what "anarchist" Spain has to do with Austrian Economics. Are you sure that isn't a history debate?
Note:
Right off the bat I find the rebuttal quite alarming.
"Given that the population of Catalonia was nearly 3 million in 1936, a figure of 5 000 deaths hardly amounts to "large-scale" murder by any means."
Seriously?
Quibbling over "tones" and inferences is no way to conduct a rebuttal. And the authors constant conflation of "capitalists" with anything state related also makes it look as if he's already overstepping his intentions.
kiba: Like the 1920s and the 1930s.
Hard to believe considering Bohm-Bawerk's Marx and the Close of his System came out thirty years before.
Leviathan:Conza, for example.
Well Conza is over the top but that's his thing. I don't think it reflects the entire forum by any stretch of the imagination.
Leviathan:But of course it's not limited to the forum.
No of course not, even though you inferred it was prevalent on the forum.
Leviathan:Let's take the "an"-cap meetup notification. I clicked on the link, and found:
I don't think what people do on other websites really has any bearing on what goes on here.
Leviathan:This mirrors the attitude at Anti-State.com, where it's more often the case that people scream about the Anarchist FAQ authors being "crypto-Marxists" than address their points.
Again, not my problem (or the problem of anyone here not associated with that site) to bear.
Leviathan:It's the attitude of shocked disbelief by Mises and Hayek that any economist could advocate socialism.
I can't speak for either of them. They aren't around to speak for themselves.
Leviathan:It's apparent in Rothbard's comment that "economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of 'needs' in some central data bank [openly false, incidentally]. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second."
Was anything he write about anarcho-communism false, or do you just not like his tone? I'm trying to figure out if your issue is one of truthfulness or aesthetics.
Angurse:I'm not sure what point you are referring to, more importantly I don't know what "anarchist" Spain has to do with Austrian Economics. Are you sure that isn't a history debate?
I take it as another indication of arrogance that Internet Austrians think anarchism defeated with no substantive literature against it among their works solely because of an unsourced diatribe of Murray Rothbard, some criticism of Chomsky's economics by James Ostrowski, and a rebutted essay by Bryan Caplan, who is a known anti-Austrian. Rothbard's quoted comment is an example of the rude arrogance that I find unappealing.
Angurse:Note: Right off the bat I find the rebuttal quite alarming. "Given that the population of Catalonia was nearly 3 million in 1936, a figure of 5 000 deaths hardly amounts to "large-scale" murder by any means." Seriously?
My own view is that there was some degree of unjust violence connected to the social revolution, but that it was a natural consequence of decades of oppression by capitalists and the fervor of a wartime environment. These weren't your friendly little office supervisors and business owners of today; these were industrialist despots of an earlier era that were targeted. But some instances of murder do not stain the entire revolution if they remain an exception to a general rule rather than a rule itself, and are simply an unavoidable circumstance of human imperfection. Regardless, let's not stray too far off-topic.
Angurse:Quibbling over "tones" and inferences is no way to conduct a rebuttal.
In its entirety, the rebuttal seems to me sound.
Angurse:And the authors constant conflation of "capitalists" with anything government related also makes like he's already overstepping his claims.
Anarchists regard Western market capitalism and its derivatives and Soviet state capitalism and its derivatives as similar in their hierarchical and authoritarian nature. They are both based on the existence of an elite upper class that owns and controls the means of production, so though they're technically different modes of production, they retain similar hierarchical structures.
liberty student:Well Conza is over the top but that's his thing. I don't think it reflects the entire forum by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, it went so far as to have him banned from the RPF, but regardless, I see the same arrogance elsewhere. And someone just countered your remark that no one would be bitter or frustrated because of the RevLeft comments by noting that he wanted to "breath fire" when he read advocacy of the LTV that he disliked.
liberty student:No of course not, even though you inferred it was prevalent on the forum. I don't think what people do on other websites really has any bearing on what goes on here. Again, not my problem (or the problem of anyone here not associated with that site) to bear. I can't speak for either of them. They aren't around to speak for themselves.
I'm speaking of a movement-wide arrogance. This forum will naturally draw attention because of its prominent role, but it's hardly limited to this forum.
liberty student:Was anything he write about anarcho-communism false, or do you just not like his tone? I'm trying to figure out if your issue is one of truthfulness or aesthetics.
Well, it happens to be true that what he wrote about anarchism was generally false (except for his one-time acknowledgment of his non-anarchism and that of "anarcho"-capitalism), but to note that anyone who advocated anarchist communism specifically was undoubtedly economically ignorant was an indication of snobbish arrogance.
Well often times folks who aren't willing to compromise in order to go along to get along are considered to have a superiority complex. If someone is among a group of people, and 10/11 say that the state paying for roads is a good thing but 1/11 says no; that 1/11 will likely be labeled as contrarian, selfish etc. And frankly being accused of having an attitude of superiority should be worn as a badge of honor; it means your opponent has run out of ammo and has been forced to resort to the populist 'he's not a man of the people' nonsense.
Leviathan:Well, it went so far as to have him banned from the RPF
I don't know the specific context of Conza's ban there, but that's not relevant to what happens here. RPF for sure is not Austrian or libertarian, the moderators there are very much pro-state, pro-status quo.
Leviathan:And someone just countered your remark that no one would be bitter or frustrated
Is that what I wrote?
Leviathan:I'm speaking of a movement-wide arrogance.
What movement? It is like herding cats around here. Even the moderator staff gets into it with one another from time to time over ideological issues.
This notion of a movement, any "movement" for that matter has little appeal to me.. I certainly see little evidence of it here.
Leviathan:Well, it happens to be true that what he wrote about anarchism was generally false (except for his one-time acknowledgment of his non-anarchism and that of "anarcho"-capitalism), but to note that anyone who advocated anarchist communism specifically was undoubtedly economically ignorant was an indication of snobbish arrogance.
So was this neither, either or both?
I'm superior.
Leviathan: but to note that anyone who advocated anarchist communism specifically was undoubtedly economically ignorant was an indication of snobbish arrogance.
Leviathan:I take it as another indication of arrogance that Internet Austrians think anarchism defeated with no substantive literature against it among their works solely because of an unsourced diatribe of Murray Rothbard, some criticism of Chomsky's economics by James Ostrowski, and a rebutted essay by Bryan Caplan, who is a known anti-Austrian. Rothbard's quoted comment is an example of the rude arrogance that I find unappealing.
How? The history of Spain has nothing to do with economics, pointing out the non-relation between the two seems like a first priority. I think you have a problem with internet-Ancaps. Using Bryan Caplan, "a known anti-Austrian" as an example seems to strengthen my point.
Leviathan:My own view is that there was some degree of unjust violence connected to the social revolution, but that it was a natural consequence of decades of oppression by capitalists and the fervor of a wartime environment. These weren't your friendly little office supervisors and business owners of today; these were industrialist despots of an earlier era that were targeted. But some instances of murder do not stain the entire revolution if they remain an exception to a general rule rather than a rule itself, and are simply an unavoidable circumstance of human imperfection. Regardless, let's not stray too far off-topic.
Prove all 5,000 of them industrial despots of an earlier era. I don't see why the murder of people in special conditions is permissible or overlookable, even one innocent person for that matter isn't something to overlook, namely I'm a voluntaryist.
Leviathan:In its entirety, the rebuttal seems to me sound.
It's ok. The author shows a clear bias and is really just chasing anarcho-capitalism (which is to be expected given who the author is) and not sticking to showing the glory or horror that was "anarchist" Spain. And I could really care less about how "you can call it anarchy if you narrowly define state." I've read Bolloton's "Spanish Civil War" and he makes it clear that in the case of Spanish "anarchy" it hardly means liberty.
Leviathan:Anarchists regard Western market capitalism and its derivatives and Soviet state capitalism and its derivatives as similar in their hierarchical and authoritarian nature. They are both based on the existence of an elite upper class that owns and controls the means of production, so though they're technically different modes of production, they retain similar hierarchical structures.
First of all, western market capitalism is state capitalism. Second, that doesn't really respond to the point.
I personally think you're going to get arrogance from a lot of different schools. No school has the arrogance market cornered. Same thing for angry people. They're all over the place.
If you've got a bunch of smart people who think they're right and who take their own ideas personally, you can bet some of them are going to be very cross when someone comes along and tells them they might be wrong.
Stranger:Hard to believe considering Bohm-Bawerk's Marx and the Close of his System came out thirty years before.
The Austro-Marxists weren't Austrian economists in the sense we're familiar with; they were the cream of the Marxian crop (if that means anything at all). All my professors say I'm following the wrong Austrian school.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:The Austro-Marxists weren't Austrian economists in the sense we're familiar with.
Are these Austro-Marxists in the literal sense (Marxists in Austria)? Otherwise names please.
Angurse:Are these Austro-Marxists in the literal sense (Marxists in Austria)? Otherwise names please.
Yeah, but they rejected dialectical materialism and fused Kantian philosophy with dialectical idealism. It included people like Baur and Adler. They're pretty much the roots of the English Labour party, the Nordic model, the french regulation school, and other socialist institutions. For the most part they were sociologists and philosophers more than economists, but they were (and still are) highly respected. Morons like Schumpeter praised them.
[deleted]
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm still flabbergasted as to how you can have anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialism. The terms seem entirely oxymoronic to me. As if somehow people will just magically, and fully of glee, submit themselves into serfdom of an organized body without force, and that it will not somehow just be another state. Hence the term anarcho seems contradictory.
To everyone: keep it clean. We mods will uphold the rules.
/thread
bloomj31: I personally think you're going to get arrogance from a lot of different schools. No school has the arrogance market cornered. Same thing for angry people. They're all over the place.
I haven't met any angry Austrians. I'm probably as angry as it gets due to what happened to me as a kid, which is not very angry compared to the communists that I've met.
Haha, what? Good joke. Make it funny next time. I'd ask for evidence of the views you proclaimed I hold above, but you haven't got any - so don't worry.
Regardless, you think people from the new age Venus project, those who believe in technocracy / anarcho-communism & a post scarcity world... you think they should be taken seriously? lol.
Leviathan:Well, it went so far as to have him banned from the RPF, but regardless, I see the same arrogance elsewhere. And someone just countered your remark that no one would be bitter or frustrated because of the RevLeft comments by noting that he wanted to "breath fire" when he read advocacy of the LTV that he disliked.
I got banned because I wouldn't let a moderator called LE [conservative constitution fundamentalist], get away with obfuscation & lies. I used the socratic method - walked her through the logic, and when it got to the clincher, the obvious - she refused to answer and tried to ignore the questions. I merely continued to point this out, when she used fallacy after fallacy to try avoid the unavoidable. I got banned for it. There was uproar from other users, it got emotional for her, very unprofessional. Anyway their loss, I moved on and so should you. Was for the best, much more productive now. lol Who are you anyway? And why is this even worth bringing up.
Conza88: Leviathan:Well, it went so far as to have him banned from the RPF, but regardless, I see the same arrogance elsewhere. And someone just countered your remark that no one would be bitter or frustrated because of the RevLeft comments by noting that he wanted to "breath fire" when he read advocacy of the LTV that he disliked. ... Who are you anyway? And why is this even worth bringing up.
... Who are you anyway? And why is this even worth bringing up.
Yeah LOL. He is an Ancommie, but he knows all the little stuff that goes on at RPF?
Re McKibbin's quote of bloomj31, "persoally I think you're going to get arrogance from a lot of idfferent schools."
True Believers tend to come off as being arrogant. Austrianism is, as I have learned, a way of life that people are to come to voluntarily, and not through any kind of coercive measures, to include the creation of particular institutional structures through any political process--even a democratic one. However arrogant Austrians may seem to be, they are merely defending their way of life; to their eternal credit, any thought of forcing it on anyone is a violation of their most fundamental tenet. (I was taken aback by the vociferousness of their responses to my post, "Improving Capitalism--a Lot.")