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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Jerald is correct in stating that economics cannot be divorced from the study of political decisions and actions. The austro-libertarian perspective takes on both austrian economics and libertarianism, an economic theory and political/governmental ideology respectively. An individual does not have to be an austrian economist to be a libertarian and vice versa. Most austrian economist happen to be libertarians, but libertarians are not necessarily austrian economist. Many libertarians would fall under the category of Chicago, Neoclassical, and to a lesser extent Keynesian Economist. Austrians differ vastly on all these schools in terms of economics. Hence, while austro-libertarians are advocates for free markets, austrian economists will still be able to explain the current state of the economy in any type of market or lack thereof (socialism).
Jerald is also correct in distinguishing humans from other inhabitants, where humans can think, act, and invent. As strange as it may sound, austrian economics does not use many charts and graphs. Graphs and charts are used as pedagogical devices when contrasting other economic theories. However, if you look at any austrian economic textbook, you will find only a handful of pages (if any) of graphs and charts, whereas the other economic schools will have graphs and charts on almost every page.[1]
Now for the disagreement. If there is any theory as pure ideology, you can place your bets on socialism. How much more ideological can you get: "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?"
What is ideology? I looked this word up on dictionary.com and found a few definitions. The first one may lend itself to my argument. If you were to take ideology as “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group,” then some (like Paul) could construe Marxism to be an ideology. However, Marxism, is above all else, a method of analysis. So while it is true that socialists utilize Marxist theory to “guide” working class struggle, the contradictions under capitalism are what compel workers to struggle in the first place. That is, class antagonisms are historically based and not construed in an academic’s office.
On the other hand, what is bourgeois ideology in its more extreme form can be see in Paul’s position where Austrians view entrepreneurship as the driving force in economic development, see private property as essential to the efficient use of resources, and see government interference in market processes as counterproductive. An example of what this ideology does to a society when implemented was seen in Chile during the 70s. As advocated by the Chicago boys, the dictator’s “modernization program” included a reduction of the state’s role in the economy, vast privatization of public companies, opening the economy to foreign investment through deregulation, and the elimination of labor rights to promote labor “flexibility.” To be sure, Chile experienced a boom, however, this was at the expense of democratic rule and justice for the majority of Chilean workers.
Now you may ask, why was this example important to an understanding of Marxism. First and foremost, capitalist exploitation can exist under a brutal dictatorship as well as under a democratic republic as we see in the US. Next, what comes to mind while thinking about Pinochet and following the disgusting police-state tactics in St. Paul outside of the Republican National Convention is the level of repression to which states resort in order to squelch dissent.
Paul may want to claim that state repression is not a consequence of capitalism (free market or otherwise) and then turn to his trusty “NAP, non-aggression principle,” but doing so only fails to understand the dynamics of class society that are inherently repressive and exploitative. To ignore such a connection would be to tout ideology.
The Entrepreneur
If you notice in my post where I stated that the entrepreneur is responsible for change, I gave a caveat that it was not necessarily the Silicon Valley type. An entrepreneur is an individual who sees a need/want by others and attempts to fill that need/want. This entrepreneur can be like Steve Jobs with the iPhone, the Mom and Pop local bakery, or the local food co-op. Even Marx himself can be considered an entrepreneur, he conjectured the needs/wants of the proletariat, and attempted to do something about it. The entrepreneur puts him/herself at risk, because he/she can lose it all, but at the same time, has potential to gain. That gain/loss can be either monetary profit, psychic profit, or both. Sometimes an entrepreneurs conjecture is right, and sometimes it is wrong. Regardless, all change comes from an entrepreneur.
Ideology and Society
You want to talk about ideological implementations, take a look at Russia and its successes, err, failures. As for Chile, after reading the wikipedia entry, it appears it was state-capitalism, not free market.
State Repression and Capitalism
A distinction needs to be reiterated, that the capitalism I support is the free market. This implies very little (if any) state intervention. Pigeon holing free market capitalism with other forms such as state capitalism, corporate capitalism, etc... is akin to pigeon holing Maoism, Leninism, and Marxism into one category. While on the surface, their may be commonalities, the devil is in the details of how each is carried out. I could flat all call all forms of socialism and communism, totalitarian, and be done with the argument. But that would not delve into the nuances of each theory.
The State and Police-State
I am going to have to agree with you here. (More and more we appear to agree.) Not agree that capitalist exploitation is the culprit, but that the state resorted to police-state tactics to squelch dissent. That is aggression, and not consistent with the austro-libertarian point of view.
While Paul would like to call every human a potential entrepreneur, this glosses over the dynamics of capitalism where the driving force of market-based economic exchange is profit and where this profit is supposedly a “reward” for an entrepreneur. So with Paul claiming that “change” comes from an entrepreneur, he is attempting to justify continuing mass exploitation that produces such profits for the entrepreneur (i.e., capitalist). He may not know this or not, but essentially, this is what underlies his acceptance and advocacy of market-based economic exchange.
Now that Paul brings up (and naively demonizes) Russia, lets talk about it. With the Russian Revolution of 1917, the working class of the time was guided by the most militant and class conscious workers who studied the dynamics of the system and advocated for socialism where human need prevails over ruling class greed. The Russian Revolution is an example of the potential of working class unity in action. The Russian working class led by the Bolsheviks “initiated changes unheard of even in the most advanced capitalist countries. It granted freedom to the oppressed nationalities, established workers’ control in the factories, and distributed land to the peasantry. It established the right of immediate recall for all elected officials. It legalized divorce and decriminalized homosexuality. It initiated mass literacy campaigns and began producing cheap editions of great Russian literature. It opened up free nurseries for children and communal kitchens and laundries in order to free women form the drudgery of housework. Lenin and the other revolutionaries reiterated that initiative of ordinary workers, struggling to reorganize society.”
Of course there are people who would like to detract from the potential of working class solidarity and the abundant possibilities with working class political conquest by playing up the counter-revolution by Stalin and the bureaucratic nightmare that ensued. These same people neglect to mention the 14 capitalist governments that sent armies to Russia to kill the Bolsheviks and the working class and the destitution that followed due to the civil war. But we know where they stand!
And for the record, I (and whoever else reads these things) knows Paul advocates “free” market capitalism. I also know that history has shown what deregulation does to economies in the long run, whether it be Chile in the 70s (as an extreme form) or the rest of Latin America over the last few decades. Neoliberalism takes no prisoners.
Post a Comment