... what do you think?

It has been about two or so months since Paul and I have started debating and I wanted to know, firstly, who else is reading these posts and more importantly, what you all think of these ideas, as well. I feel that your comments to this particular post about previously mentioned concepts could help steer future our postings. Thanks!

political economy

If you were to accept this definition of economics as “the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services,” then hopefully you would recognize that this study cannot be ideology. I think this is important to point out because some people (like Paul) would try to paint a picture of systematic natural economic liberty where the “free market” is “self-regulating.” This classical liberalism treats market-based system as the highest form of economic exchange. However, after looking at the historical record and archeological evidence, folks may recognize something important about humans as opposed to other animals. First and foremost, we distinguished ourselves from the rest of the world’s inhabitants when we began producing our means of subsistence. In other words, through technology whether it is a stone tool or the steam engine, humans have been able to manipulate their environment thus determining their social organization.

Because the influence of political and economic institutions is interrelated and interdependent, a study of economics cannot be divorced from a study of political decisions and actions. However, the two academic disciplines of political science and economics are separated and sanitized (where the later characterization of economics comes after years of personally studying the right-wing, ahistorical, and pseudo-scientific justifications for mass exploitation with charts and graphs).

So just as feudalism ended, there is the potential for capitalism to end as well. And though class struggle and direct democracy, the world will be rid of exploitation and misery as people rationally plan to utilize the world’s resources sustainably.

Economics and The Free Market

Economics
"The most common misunderstanding about economics is that it is only about money and commerce...economics concerns everyone and everything." [1] Economics is not just a countries GDP, imports and exports; not just about making monetary profit and avoiding loss. It is about individuals, their interaction which each others and their environment. Ironically, although the economy can be studied, it cannot, with any degree of certainty and consistency, be controlled without relinquishing the liberty of individuals.

The Free Market
I am reluctant to use the term Capitalism, not necessarily because it carries negative attributes, but it does not accurately portray a Free Market. However, the terms are typically synonymous with one antother. "The free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or non-tangible services." [2] A Free Market allows for free exchange and free entry, not to mention free exit.

Although there appear semblances of a Free Market in today's economy, there exists a ranging degree of control from central planners, ie politicians and government officials. Coercive and aggressive restrictions, regulations, and mandates, inhibit not not individuals, but firms from free exchange and free entry in the market. We live in a mixed economy, where many industries are more centrally controlled than others, yet where a free market attempts to thrive. The less restrictions, regulations, and mandates on a market, the better off a market will be able to self manage and self correct.

[1] Rockwell, Lew, The Free Market, Vol. 24, No. 1, January 2006
[2] Rothbard, Murry, The Free Market, Vol. 24, No. 1, January 2006

... more on historical materialism

As I mentioned within a comment to the last post of mine titled "Philosophers have merely interpreted the world," stated Marx long ago. "The point, however, is to change it," Paul Siegel's The Meek & the Militant and John Bellamy Foster's Marx's Ecology both informed my understanding of Marx's dialectical/historical materialism.

Foster indicates that "in developing historical materialism [Marx] tended to deal with nature only to the extent to which it was brought within human history, since nature untouched by human history was more and more difficult to find. The strength of his analysis in this regard lay in its emphasis on the quality of the interaction between humanity and nature, or what he was eventually to call the "metabolism" of humanity with nature: through production" (114). Foster later cites from Marx and Engels' Collected Works that humans "themselves begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organization. By producing their means of subsistence [humans] are indirectly producing their material life" (7-8).

And as Siegel outlined after explaining the particular materialism of Feuerbach, "the older non-dialectical materialism did not see the historical process in which people collectively seek to answer social questions only when these questions are thrust upon them. In this historical process human activity is both the product of social development and a cause of social development. In transforming its social environment, humanity transforms itself, buts its transformation of society is limited by historical conditions, in the first place the level and power of the productive forces" (61). As Paul D'Amato indicates in the Meaning of Marxism, "the transformation from one mode of production to another was not smooth or automatic. Each ruling class would at first act to lead society forward, then as their rule progressed, would act to prevent any changes to the system from which they benefited" (35). Lastly, as I've indicated earlier within this blog, the working class, on the other hand, is in a unique historical position to liberate humanity from the exploitation, oppression, and misery created by the constraints of class society, particularly those consolidated under a market-based economic system.

Idealism: Ideas NOT Ideals

Idealism is a confusing term. It has two (perhaps more) meanings. But let's just settle in on the ubiquitous meanings. Many times, individuals may jump between the two meanings and not even realize it. One meaning invokes ideals, a conception of perfection. This meaning seeks the perfection, and that perfection is obtainable. The other meaning deals with ideas, that is, knowledge dependent on the activity of the mind. The mind, namely the human mind plays a central role. Praxeology does not deal with ideals, but rather requires ideas. Praxeology does not investigate perfection, per se, but instead examines the actions emergent from the human mind. Rene Descartes summed it up well, "Cogito, ergo sum" (Latin for "I think, therefore I am").

Reference: Dictionary Definitions

dialectical materialism
noun
the Marxist theory (adopted as the official philosophy of the Soviet communists) that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces and are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. The conflict is believed to be caused by material needs.
source: New Oxford American Dictionary

idealism
noun
1 the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, esp. unrealistically : the idealism of youth. Compare with realism .
• (in art or literature) the representation of things in ideal or idealized form. Often contrasted with realism (sense 2).
2 Philosophy any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind. Often contrasted with realism (sense 3).
source: New Oxford American Dictionary

materialism
noun
1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
• the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency. See also dialectical materialism .
source: New Oxford American Dictionary

methodological individualism is a philosophical method aimed at explaining and understanding broad society-wide developments as the aggregation of decisions by individuals.
source: wikipedia.org

praxeology is a framework for modeling human action. The term was coined and defined as "The science of human action" in 1890 by Alfred Espinas in the Revue Philosophique, but the most common use of the term is in connection with the work of Ludwig von Mises and the heterodox Austrian School of economics.
source: wikipedia.org

"Philosophers have merely interpreted the world", stated Marx long ago. "The point, however, is to change it."

I've recently started reading Jared Diamond's Germs, Guns, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.  For those of you who aren't familiar with this Pulitzer Prize winner, Diamond goes through 13,000 years of history on all continents.  More importantly, with an exceptional command of the disciplines of geology and evolutionary biology, he makes concrete connections between real world conditions and turning points in prehistory and history.  Diamond utilizes historical materialism, albeit not explicitly, to determine the development (and destruction) of civilizations.  In featuring the conscious and unconscious actions of humans as the real movements that have produced technological advancements and the subsequent superstructure, that is, "the institutions and culture considered to result from or reflect the economic system underlying society," Diamond grants the reader an objective look into the past that outlines what is possible for the future of human societies.  Where this potential is scientific socialism with the majority of people rationally planning their economy not for profit but for human need.

So while "some idealists believed great ides shaped the material world" and "others argued that conditions didn't matter because only ideas are important," the validity of any idea about society can only be tested in practice not through rhetorical jousting.  As Paul D'Amato indicates in the Meaning of Marxism, "whereas the idealist places the mind above and outside of nature, the materialists argues that mind itself is a product of natural developments.  Minds cannot exist apart from the material world, and the material world existed long before any mind was able to experience it" (23-24).  So with such a methodology, that is, with historical materialism (which is sometimes referred to as dialectical materialism), social classes contend for power as contradictions arise in their material conditions where, specifically under capitalism, immense wealth exists next to abject poverty.

Human Action

The methodology of Austrolibertarians is praxeology. Praxeology is the science of human action. Praxeology builds upon the a priori fundamental axiom that human beings act. In essence, individuals engage is conscious actions towards chosen goals. One can deduce the logical implications from the fact that individuals act. While valuation and judgement is in the minds of the individual, it is only apparent when acted upon.

Labor Theory of Value... capitalism has needs, too!

Before capitalism, most people produced essential items for their survival. These societies produced “valuable” goods, however they did not place values on these objects. To put it another way, all human societies produce useful things but they did not produce them for exchange. For that reason, as Paul D’Amato wrote in the Meaning of Marxism “value is a meaningless category outside of market relations” as value is a “historically evolved relations between human beings.” So with the advent of class society and a greater division of labor, commodities began to be exchanged at an increasing pace finally consolidated under capitalist relations.

Since the main dynamic of this profit-driven economic system, capitalism, is the accumulation of capital to make more profit, how do capitalists make more profit you may ask? It is done through paying workers less much less than the wealth they create. So while capitalism may be portrayed as a system of "equal" and "free" exchange of commodities in the market, instead, inequality and exploitation are inherent to market based economic exchange.

Simply put, humans need to eat, sleep, and (depending on the climate) need some form of fuel, clothing, and shelter. Although much of the commodities created under capitalism are not necessarily created to fulfill human needs. Instead, they are produced for a market. Not only are the majority forced to sell their labor on the market for the means (i.e., money) to purchase commodities, necessary or otherwise, available within the market, but also within the dynamic is the need for entrepreneurs/capitalists/rent seekers to make a profit through mass exploitation in order to accumulate more capital to continue this godawful economic relationship that benefits the few while immiserating the majority.

Value is in the Mind - Subjective Value Theory

Humans have free will. With that will, individuals can think and act accordingly, granted that the individual is not harming or coercing any individual. Value in turn, is subjective to each individual. Each individual decides on their own volition what objects, things, are valuable to themselves. What is valuable to me, is not necessarily valuable to you.

An object becomes valuable only because there exists at least one individual who believes that this object can help satisfy his or her subjective desires. Value is not inherent to an object for the fact that the value of an object changes over time. For example, salt used to be like gold, in that it was used to preserve foods, now it is a cheap commodity. Furthermore, value is not inherent in the production/labor process of an object. For example, think of the recent bombed X-Files movie, the cost of production/labor is far higher than actual returns. Since value is decided in the human mind, there is no objective measurement.

Jerald: However, all this talk of the "invisible hand" and "free trade" were rhetorical devices to push and prod the nobles who believed wealth came not from production but from the precious metals they extracted from abroad (think enslavement and genocide).

In the context of the quote above, the derivative of wealth is in err, suggesting wealth derives from production. Transpose wealth in terms of value, where individuals value wealth, implying that value comes from production/labor. However, actually value is only in the minds of individuals. On a side note, a libertarian frowns upon enslavement and genocide since it violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

The Non Aggression Principle

...but it must ensure that the national elites are economically competitive on a global scale. The result being increased militarism by dominant economic powers not only by building military bases worldwide, but also by having missiles in space.

This is not a consequence of Free Market Capitalism. One tenant of libertarian thought is the NAP, non-aggression principle, hence utilizing military force to dominate economic power is not consistent with Free Market Capitalism.

The history of the term corporatism/corporatist dates back to the mid-1800s where the European working class began to show more interest in socialism due to the harsh working and living conditions under capitalism.

Regardless of the etymology of the term, I provided a definition re appropriating corporatism in the context of the article. Whatever the term used, it is meant to denote the collusion/collaboration of the state and business regulating/restricting the free market.

I want to get a clear definition of socialism, one that we can, to the best of our abilities, agree to. Here are the two definitions we provided.

Paul: (Socialism) attempts to take matters one step further creating centralized control of the market. Socialism attempts to plan not only the means but the ends of production.

Jerald: In gaining power to rationally organize society (i.e., planning the production and distribution of goods), people will also be free to participate in the running of society...

Would we be able to agree to this:
Socialism rationally organizes society, planning the means and ends of production, (i.e. planning the production and distribution of goods) with individuals freely participating in running society.

The Misconception of Capitalism

Capitalism is the voluntary and free exchange of goods and services. There is a misconception that, taken as a whole, the type of economic system we have in the United States is capitalism. However, sticking strictly to the definition, the United States, although leaning towards exchanging goods and services (and apparently drifting the other direction), does not have a completely free and voluntary market.

The type of economy we have is a mixed economy, where business and government collude/collaborate, whether with good intention or ill, meddle in the voluntary and free exchange of individuals, creating a forced monopoly in an industry. A centralized entity has created a forced monopoly, in several industries, for example, education, health insurance, and banking (of which I will detail in further posts.) This is known as corporatism.

Socialism takes the idea of the mixed economy further, rather than just regulating and/or restricting voluntary and free exchange in the market, it attempts to take matters one step further creating centralized control of the market. Socialism attempts to plan not only the means but the ends of production.

"Capitalism has created its own gravediggers..."

Some economists claim that commodity production is inherent to human societies, or to take an anthropological term, that market based economic exchange is a cultural universal. This, of course, is false, and even a brief look at human history and pre-history indicates that for much of their time on this planet human beings (i.e., homo sapiens sapiens) have collectively or individually produced goods for their own consumption. Only recently has commodity production for the market been the dominant form of economic mode of existence. And this market was not a “natural” distribution mechanism either. So while capitalism has created the technological capabilities to produce enormous wealth, this economic relationship is still based on mass exploitation.

Within Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution, she indicates the three principal results of capitalist development which include (1) “the growing anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to ruin”; (2) “the progressive socialization of the process of production, which creates the germs of the future social order”; and (3) “the increased organization and consciousness of the proletarian class, which constitutes the active factor of the coming revolution.” Essentially, as Marx argued, capitalism has created its own gravediggers.

So in short, scientific socialism (as opposed to utopian socialism, bourgeois socialism, etc.) is achievable through class struggle where the working class wrests political power from the capitalists who control the state. In gaining power to rationally organize society (i.e., planning the production and distribution of goods), people will also be free to participate in the running of society, not to mention pursue the creation of art, music, literature, etc. To gain a better understanding of revolutionary socialism, a reading of Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, and Antonio Gramsci’s writings and the history of revolutionary upheavals such as the Russian Revolution will be enormously rewarding.

The Principle of Liberty - Libertarianism and Free Exchange

A little over 230 years ago, the United States of America declared its independence from Great Britain, forming a union that protected the unalienable rights of the individual. An individual human being is sovereign over his/her body, extending to life, liberty and property. Individuals are free to act, granted that they are not initiating force or fraud against the life, liberty, or property of another human being. The US Federal Government was fairly libertarian in that the Constitution was written to restrain or restrict the actions of Governments will against individuals. The personal and economic liberties for voluntary exchange were protected.

However over time the rights of the individual and of the various States were usurped by the Federal Government. Laws now restrained and restricted the actions of individuals rather than the government. Individual rights of voluntary exchange were stricken towards coerced and mandated forms of exchange. Slowly, goods and services that were traditionally exchange voluntarily by freely associating individuals, garnered greater and greater control by the government: money, retirement, food supply, drugs, healthcare, taxes, education, etc...

Two factions emerged, modern day liberals and conservatives, aka Democrats and Republicans. Each, respectively, only supports half of the liberties we had during the founding and childhood of this country. Liberal rhetoric supports personal liberties. Conservatives rhetoric supports economic liberties. While politicians of both ilk talk the rhetoric of personal and economic liberties, their actions suggest otherwise: bigger government further restricting the liberties of the individual.

During the digression in the up and coming posts, I will further develop the libertarian and free exchange concept. I will also detail the violation of our inherent rights as individuals and provide methods of putting the pieces of liberty, supplanted by the factions of politicians, back together. I will provide support for why libertarianism and free exchange appears as the ideal choice in giving individuals the opportunity to live our lives the freest not only for one as the individual, but also with and for our fellow humans beings.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution:_A_Manifesto
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mission/
http://mises.org/etexts/classical.pdf

Why socialism?

If you're at all in touch with reality and not in a self-sustaining delusion, you've noticed that the price of gas, food, and other goods have increased dramatically while the global economic system is undergoing a severe crisis. This, on top of declining wages, vanishing benefits, worsening working conditions, and a credit shortage, has resulted in a desperate global populace. For instance this past June closer to home, 3,000 people lined up outside Milwaukee's main welfare office when rumor spread that emergency food vouchers would be distributed to those in need when the center opened its doors on Monday morning. Monday morning came and went and these folks still are still in need of material assistance.

Since I'm on the topic of lines, just last week, hundreds of people stood in line outside of their local branch of Pasadena-based IndyMac Bancorp. to withdraw what they could of their savings, retirement or otherwise. What alarms me most is that bank runs have not been seen since the Great Depression! And more alarming may be the reports coming from the FDIC indicating that these runs are bound to increase as 90 others are on their list of "problem" banks.

So in the wealthiest nation on the planet, more and more people are going to bed hungry and malnourished, and across the globe, hundreds of millions of people are barely struggling to survive. And it comes down to the fact that working people can't afford to feed themselves nor their families. So after we begin to sift through the rhetoric coming from world leaders or cable television pundits or economists from elite universities, we should ask ourselves this question: what is really preventing us from feeding ourselves?

Some would say, there are just too many damn people on this planet. However this Hobbesian argument does not hold since "according to the FAO [United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization], with record grain harvests in 2007, there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone--at least 1.5 times current demand. In fact, over the last 20 years, food production has risen steadily at over 2.0 percent a year, while the rate of population growth has dropped to 1.14 percent a year. Population is not outstripping food supply." Since it is the case that our present society has the technological capabilities to feed everyone one and a half times over, why does the dominant economic system deny the world's people the wealth of foodstuffs it creates?

In short, it is because capitalism fails to prioritize human need. Since food, as well as other goods, are treated as commodities bought and sold on a market, people who most need it can't afford it. And by capitalism I mean an economic system where firms are driven to increase profitability as they compete with each other for market share.

This post will be one of many that will hopefully win you to the argument that while capitalism has produced incredible wealth and prosperity for the few, it has also produced poverty, destitution, and misery for the many. So why socialism? Because the only way to rid the world of war, poverty, racism, sexism, and every other form of oppression and the only way to begin to seriously address the environmental meltdown taking place, workers much organize themselves to win political power to fundamentally change the economic basis of our society. This change does not come by electing new leaders, but by raising everyone up to become leaders and organizers. The society these worker/organizers will create thrives on rationally planning the economy where workers not only foster sustainable economic relationships but also ecological ones. To do so takes a long term class struggle, a democratic, concerted effort to take over workplaces and communities and attempt to solve the problems we face as workers (and the political and economic elites have utterly failed to address). Because as workers united, we cannot be defeated.


Here are some links to the occurrences I've mentioned above...

http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/26/desperate-in-milwaukee
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080718.RKOZA18/TPStory/Business
http://socialistworker.org/2008/05/23/can-whole-world-be-fed