Much of the debate between libertarianism and socialism boils down to the methodology* of understanding, i.e. methodological individualism vs. historical materialism. Marxist use the term "ideals" in reference to the austrolibertarian methodology, that is is not applicable in the "material" world.
Mises and perhaps many of his cohorts is often cited and seen as being "atomist" or "reductionist" in terms of methodology, focusing on the individual. Was Mises an "atomist"? The implication of being an atomist, is that it doesn't lead to anything worthy of applicable to the "material" world.
The strongest I have found against Historical Materialism is that it is humans that through human ideas and innovation, they are they ones that create the material in the material world, hence support for Methodological Individualism.
What are the strongest arguments against Historical Materialism? Supporting Methodological Individualism?
*Bob Murphy: forgive me if I have used this term in haste;).
Wait, doesn't Hayek demolish this stupid allegation of atomism in The Counter-revolution of Science?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Wait, doesn't Hayek demolish this stupid allegation of atomism in The Counter-revolution of Science?
Thanks for pointing me to the right direction. I will most definitely look into that. Any suggestions for DEMOLISHING historical materialism?
After following several links and references from Hayek, though not directly associated, I ended up here, on countering Historical, but not necessarily materialism:
http://www.mises.org/epofe/c1p1sec4.asp
Thanks for pointing me north.
ViennaSausage:Was Mises an "atomist"?
No.
ViennaSausage:Any suggestions for DEMOLISHING historical materialism?
Check out Mises' Theory and History for answers to both of these questions.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Cool thanks. I just read chapter 7 of your suggestion, specifically attacking Historical Materialism. However, my main qualm about Mises's arguement is that they utilize methodolgical individualism and praxeology (obviously). Not that using those tools are bad, but I conjecture the opposition could state that utilizing it is a circular arguement since it is self-referential, similar to Marxist stating Historical Materialism for the basis of socialism, yet Marx "created" historical materialism, self-referential arguing. The big advantage (or disadvantage) is that MI and prax have logic on their side, wheras HM just builds on emotion.
One thing I wonder, about holists, is how do they save their own work from merely being the product of social forces or something like that? What is to save their work from bias? Much like with determinists, it seems like they're advocating incoherent nonsense.
Jon Irenicus:One thing I wonder, about holists, is how do they save their own work from merely being the product of social forces or something like that? What is to save their work from bias? Much like with determinists, it seems like they're advocating incoherent nonsense.
Holists can't. We are all biased.
Determinism is quite perplexing. They posit that the past influences the present and the future, that history induces events future history. At a very minute superficial level, there is a bit of veracity in that, granted one inserts individual action into the equation, rather than speaking collectively of the past and the future as a whole.
ViennaSausage: Jon Irenicus:One thing I wonder, about holists, is how do they save their own work from merely being the product of social forces or something like that? What is to save their work from bias? Much like with determinists, it seems like they're advocating incoherent nonsense. Holists can't. We are all biased.
I don't think he meant 'biased' in a trivial way. He probably meant in a serious way that undersmines the possibility of science.
Yeah, not in any way that'll allow them to penetrate through social constructs and reach the truth. Yet they think they have reached it, nonetheless.