Whose economic views and vision do you most agree with?

[Broke Wave]

I would disagree with the idea that Hayek didn't bring anything to the field of economics, I think his work and writings on the limitations of knowledge were especially important considering the time period he was writing in. The importance of pricing mechanisms were considered trivial by Market Socialists like Oskar Lange who thought that resource allocation and prices could be set by a board. I find it difficult to see how anyone can look at the writings and debates during the Socialist Calculation Debate and not see how it impacted economics in general.

In terms of Friedmans helicopter point, it was a metaphor and you don't have to be a Monetarist to agree and/or understand what he was getting at. Here is the quote in it's proper context on Page 29 http://tylerawatts.com/uploads/Friedman-The_Mystery_of_Money.pdf and here is Brad Delong ( A Keynesian) on the "Helicopter Drop" http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/07/helicopter-drop-time-paul-krugman-gets-one-wrong.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: BradDelongsSemi-dailyJournal (Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal)

Yes I definately jumped the gun with regards to Hayek, I actually had to read Road to Serfdom and my professor really liked it although he is not on the same side as Hayek. However, if you compare him to Friedman or Keynes on the economic theory front, he is very much a lightweight. I understand also that it was a metaphor, the point is that it was the opposite of what he was preaching with regards to restrictive monetary policy.

Brad Delong is more of a neo-Keynesian along with J.Sachs and they seem to throw rocks at Krugmans throne from time to time for some reason

 

[ogc163]

Yes I definately jumped the gun with regards to Hayek, I actually had to read Road to Serfdom and my professor really liked it although he is not on the same side as Hayek. However, if you compare him to Friedman or Keynes on the economic theory front, he is very much a lightweight. I understand also that it was a metaphor, the point is that it was the opposite of what he was preaching with regards to restrictive monetary policy.

Brad Delong is more of a neo-Keynesian along with J.Sachs and they seem to throw rocks at Krugmans throne from time to time for some reason

Keynes wasn't all that impressive on the theory front imo, his thesis in the GT is built around the underconsumption theory of depressions which was put forward by Thomas Malthus and Sismondi before him.

Friedman wasn't really for a restrictive policy/tight policy he was more in favor of a stable/predictable policy that didn't change up based on the whims of vested interest, in that regard I personally would not label Greenspan a monetarist and/or even a strict rule based monetary economist. There is debate as to whether or not Friedman would have been supportive of QE, I lean toward the group that feels he would have been unsupportive based on the criticisms of Bernanke put forward by Friedman's co-author Anna Schwartz who did not feel QE was necessary.

 

[Broke Wave]

a metaphor, the point is that it was the opposite of what he was preaching with regards to restrictive monetary policy.[/quote]

Keynes wasn't all that impressive on the theory front imo, his thesis in the GT is built around the underconsumption theory of depressions which was put forward by Thomas Malthus and Sismondi before him.

Friedman wasn't really for a restrictive policy/tight policy he was more in favor of a stable/predictable policy that didn't change up based on the whims of vested interest, in that regard I personally would not label Greenspan a monetarist and/or even a strict rule based monetary economist. There is debate as to whether or not Friedman would have been supportive of QE, I lean toward the group that feels he would have been unsupportive based on the criticisms of Bernanke put forward by Friedman's co-author Anna Schwartz who did not feel QE was necessary.

Friedmans wishy washy monetary policy views are probably the least important of his contributions to the field of economics IMO. The most important legacy he left us with is Neo-Liberalism and deregulation as an economic stimulus, which si what I said Greenspan would be a disciple of Friedman for. That has turned out to be an utter failure according to Greenspan himself, therefore I don't think his theoretical economics views are as important to his legacy as his views on fiscal policy.

Friedman would have supported or been against QE depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time.

 

[NubianVitruvian]

Marx and my own. Economy is a business. Life is a business. Food, water, shelter a business. And at the end of it all, we don't really need money to figure out how to put it all together in a way that works for us all.

Money is a motivator, it is the middle man. It is not the be all and end all. I'm thinking outside the box, looking in. We control everything inside the box.

We can use the economy as the means to achieve a globalist, humanist society. Though this may not happen in our life time, it is the seed we should plant for our children. Only the elites will tell you otherwise.

 

[714562]

1. Has next to nothing to do with what Marx actually wrote, and has already been addressed in the thread.

I'm rolling my eyes at you.

2. "Born or designed to do" is not the word, and, again, has nothing to do with what Marx wrote. Neither does "a world in which people do things for each other purely out of beneficence." An expression of being is actually a bit metaphoric. When Marx talks about species-being (or, as I've seen Gattungswesen translated at times, genus-essence), he's not talking about anything related to a genetic predisposition toward a certain trade, but toward a notion of human potentiality to develop themselves freely and in any way they see fit. I'd say "skill-set," but that actually relates more to what Marx was critiquing. And when you consider the what the term "skill-set" denotes and connotes, then you would know that it has only so much to do with conditions of poverty. Anyone can develop a "skill-set," whether you have nothing or an obscene amount of money. But the thing about developing a "skill-set" within a capitalist political economy is: 1. It fundamentally constricts the type of work you can conceive of doing, the way in which you can do it, and how you will develop yourself at jobs and in free time, just based on perceived "skills" that you have. 2. Even when you don't work, you conceive of your skill set in explicit terms of working. 3. It's usually delineated through a capitalist gradient i.e., "I can make a lot of money doing this," "I don't care about how much money I can make doing this, I'm going to do what I love," or "I just want to make enough to live off of" (the second two of which are really just derivations of the first). And 4. The ability to fully develop is delineated by class, so that someone with abundant resources can blow money on figuring out their "skill-set," while a poorer person may not get to do so, or may only get to do so at great cost. Only the last one explicitly has anything to do with class. When talking about alienation or species-being, you can't just constrict it to a certain class. It was a general social critique.

When I say "born or designed," I mean in it in the sense that people perceive themselves as born or designed to do something. And all 4 of your "skill set" prong essentially boil down to poverty.

1. "I cannot do this because it won't make me enough money/I don't have the money to learn it/I don't have the time to learn it without going broke." That's poverty, not capitalism.

2. I'm good at swimming. It doesn't have much to do with being a lawyer. People whose material needs are satisfied are free to develop lots of skill sets that have nothing to do with work. They're called hobbies, leisure activities..."fun". Poor people have a limited choice of hobbies depending on how much stuff is required to participate. That's poverty, not capitalism.

3. People with a decent amount of money can make happiness/money utility judgments freely. The fact that material well being is a consideration isn't some disease. Even in a proto-economy, people can think in terms of, "perhaps I can make more goats if I do this, but I really would enjoy it if I did something else." Poor people don't have that luxury. That's poverty.

4. Right. Exactly. Poverty.

3. You should be more aware of when you contradict yourself in your own paragraph. A "capitalist market economy" is no longer truly a "capitalist market economy" when you have to rely on the strictures of the welfare-state to such a degree. And besides, channels of upward-mobility haven't existed for over three decades now, and poverty and misery still existed, they were just sublimated and externalized through the proliferation of mental health issues, issues of class, race, and gender, and through most of the economic misery being exported to the Caribbean, the Southern Cone, and Southeast Asia (before reading its head during the transition of the former Soviet states to liberal democracy, and then coming home to the US after decades of encroachment and the media and ideology smoothing over the symptoms of that encroachment).

Yes, of course. Successful models of capitalism aren't truly capitalism and failed models of Marxism are not ideal models of Marxism. Stock Marxist debating style. The fact is, there are degrees of all ideologies, as evidenced by the vast spectrum of Marxism itself. To wit, there are many ways to set up a society which still orbit around the central premise that goods and items are brought to market for a profit.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Enjoying reading this thread. Just out of curiosity, how many of you have coursework and education in economics and/or political science? How much? I didn't take an interest in econ really until after I graduated. I was a biology major, so I never took classes in those areas.

@Gallo, I'm surprised you chose Friedman. I would've thought for sure you would've said Keynes.

I was poli sci and came from a largely libertarian department. I read Marx, Friedman, Hayek, Nozick, Cowen, etc... But I didn't really get fully into depth with Keynes until recently. I think Econ is mostly bs/well wishing a lot of the time, but Keynes seems to be correct empirically more often than the rest of the big heads, though I think even Friedman is more interesting to read.

 

[TrueEpic08]

I'm rolling my eyes at you.



When I say "born or designed," I mean in it in the sense that people perceive themselves as born or designed to do something. And all 4 of your "skill set" prong essentially boil down to poverty.

1. "I cannot do this because it won't make me enough money/I don't have the money to learn it/I don't have the time to learn it without going broke." That's poverty, not capitalism.

2. I'm good at swimming. It doesn't have much to do with being a lawyer. People whose material needs are satisfied are free to develop lots of skill sets that have nothing to do with work. They're called hobbies, leisure activities..."fun". Poor people have a limited choice of hobbies depending on how much stuff is required to participate. That's poverty, not capitalism.

3. People with a decent amount of money can make happiness/money utility judgments freely. The fact that material well being is a consideration isn't some disease. Even in a proto-economy, people can think in terms of, "perhaps I can make more goats if I do this, but I really would enjoy it if I did something else." Poor people don't have that luxury. That's poverty.

4. Right. Exactly. Poverty.



Yes, of course. Successful models of capitalism aren't truly capitalism and failed models of Marxism are not ideal models of Marxism. Stock Marxist debating style. The fact is, there are degrees of all ideologies, as evidenced by the vast spectrum of Marxism itself. To wit, there are many ways to set up a society which still orbit around the central premise that goods and items are brought to market for a profit.

1. Good for you. It still doesn't make what you wrote have anything more to do with what Marx wrote than it did in the wee hours of the morning.

2. And...that still has nothing to do with species-being. I mean, literally has nothing to do with humans perceiving themselves as being "born" to do anything, just that they have the potential to develop themselves in any direction that they please. In fact, to perceive yourself as being born to do something, to constrict yourself in that way is actually pretty much the anti-thesis of man conceiving of his productive capacity through the lens of existing as a "universal and therefore free being" that can conceive of (imagine) the product of his work in any way and then materialize it.

Your poverty point is beyond reductive: Your rebuttal to my first point has literally nothing to do with what I wrote, as nothing I wrote related explicitly to money. The second point is about the act of "doing" work, even when I'm doing a hobby (you "work" at being better at swimming, you do not swim professionally because you do not have the proper skill to make it your career. I love to "work"-out, but it's not a career for me because I don't care for the "work" needed to make it a career. Do you not "work" to get better at your hobbies? It's a capitalist logic). Hobbies are often things you either do not work at/cannot work at/aren't skilled enough to work at for various reasons, defined in relation to your ability to perform your work duties, regardless of your social status (I work 8-9 months out of the year. I make far less and, in fact, work less than many of my friends. Thus I have more time for my "hobbies"). It's not about poverty, it's about the logic of labor within a capitalist society. The third point is a miscomprehension of what I wrote as well: a son of an oil tyc00n can easily go into a career solely on the reasoning of "it makes a lot of money," even though he has a lot of money, and a poor person could easily make a decision of turning down ridiculous salaries for more modest ones solely based on one of the other two factors. Homo economicus is an inhuman logical conception of man, since they do not always think in that manner. And I don't know why you had to write that last sentence when I blatantly admitted that the last point was the only one that had anything to do with class (and it's CLASS that you're looking at, not poverty. Two very different things).

3. If you didn't mean "capitalist market economy" (an economy where goods are explicitly meant to be valued and distributed through the capitalist free market), then don't use it. Use "mixed economy." Not that my point wouldn't still stand either way, since the examples I gave apply to both types of social organization, and they even apply to your vaunted examples of Western Europe (check the youth poverty rate in the region, the collapsed of Ireland, Portugal, and Spain's economies, the increasingly spatially segregated and polarized societies, and the frantic attempts by the EU to hold everything together, due to the stupidity of their own treaties). Your point about my "Marxist arguments" was basically an ad hominem attack, and proves that you probably don't read Marx much, if at all. The fundamental political construction of the USSR and China had next to nothing to do with Marx's conceptions of socialist governance. They were really bureaucratic State Capitalist institutions more than anything.

Respond to what's written next time.

 

[714562]

1. Good for you. It still doesn't make what you wrote have anything more to do with what Marx wrote than it did in the wee hours of the morning.

I mean, I'm not going to go fishing for what was said. I'm just not. If you'd like to make a point, then make it. You're in no position to be self-referential.

2. And...that still has nothing to do with species-being. I mean, literally has nothing to do with humans perceiving themselves as being "born" to do anything, just that they have the potential to develop themselves in any direction that they please. In fact, to perceive yourself as being born to do something, to constrict yourself in that way is actually pretty much the anti-thesis of man conceiving of his productive capacity through the lens of existing as a "universal and therefore free being" that can conceive of (imagine) the product of his work in any way and then materialize it.

Not really. People think of themselves as being born to do something just because they really, really have an affinity for the type of labor required. I can listen to Van Halen and think, "Damn I love this. I was born to do this." I am free to change my conception when I find out I have no ear for guitar. That kind of conception and re-conception is precisely what we're talking about.

Your poverty point is beyond reductive: Your rebuttal to my first point has literally nothing to do with what I wrote, as nothing I wrote related explicitly to money.

Then what in the bejeesus did you mean when you said developing a skill set restricts the type of work you can conceive of doing? Or did you just mean that setting on one career path restricts your ability to enter other forms of labor as a career? Why is that even sinister? Someone who's devoted their entire life to being a farmer can't instantly become a silversmith for quite a few reasons -- having a family being one of them. Those types of constraints have existed since time immemorial. Capitalism didn't create them.

The third point is a miscomprehension of what I wrote as well: a son of an oil tyc00n can easily go into a career solely on the reasoning of "it makes a lot of money," even though he has a lot of money, and a poor person could easily make a decision of turning down ridiculous salaries for more modest ones solely based on one of the other two factors. Homo economicus is an inhuman logical conception of man, since they do not always think in that manner. And I don't know why you had to write that last sentence when I blatantly admitted that the last point was the only one that had anything to do with class (and it's CLASS that you're looking at, not poverty. Two very different things).

Ah, so it really just boils down to the fact that economic conceptions of man don't sit well with you from a moral standpoint? Like, the notion that mean seeks to obtain the highest possible well-being for himself is repugnant to you, even as an economic abstraction, is icky? That's far, far more reductive than anything I've said. As long as there's a human conception of what utility really is, then there's nothing wrong with homo economicus. In fact, homo reciprocans and the worth of reciprocity can be incorporated into personal utility functions in a capitalist society. That's perfectly fine. In fact, positive reciprocity correlates with high income.

3. If you didn't mean "capitalist market economy" (an economy where goods are explicitly meant to be valued and distributed through the capitalist free market), then don't use it. Use "mixed economy." Not that my point wouldn't still stand either way, since the examples I gave apply to both types of social organization, and they even apply to your vaunted examples of Western Europe (check the youth poverty rate in the region, the collapsed of Ireland, Portugal, and Spain's economies,

Recessions and currency debasement are pre-capitalist.

See: Roman Empire.
See: Byzantine Empire.
See: England in 1340.

...or any number of examples, really.

the increasingly spatially segregated and polarized societies,

Debatable.

The fundamental political construction of the USSR and China had next to nothing to do with Marx's conceptions of socialist governance. They were really bureaucratic State Capitalist institutions more than anything.

Okay. I'll bite. So what's your model Marxist society then, hmm? Barcelona during the civil war?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

 

[TrueEpic08]

I mean, I'm not going to go fishing for what was said. I'm just not. If you'd like to make a point, then make it. You're in no position to be self-referential.



Not really. People think of themselves as being born to do something just because they really, really have an affinity for the type of labor required. I can listen to Van Halen and think, "Damn I love this. I was born to do this." I am free to change my conception when I find out I have no ear for guitar. That kind of conception and re-conception is precisely what we're talking about.



Then what in the bejeesus did you mean when you said developing a skill set restricts the type of work you can conceive of doing? Or did you just mean that setting on one career path restricts your ability to enter other forms of labor as a career? Why is that even sinister? Someone who's devoted their entire life to being a farmer can't instantly become a silversmith for quite a few reasons -- having a family being one of them. Those types of constraints have existed since time immemorial. Capitalism didn't create them.



Ah, so it really just boils down to the fact that economic conceptions of man don't sit well with you from a moral standpoint? Like, the notion that mean seeks to obtain the highest possible well-being for himself is repugnant to you, even as an economic abstraction, is icky? That's far, far more reductive than anything I've said. As long as there's a human conception of what utility really is, then there's nothing wrong with homo economicus. In fact, homo reciprocans and the worth of reciprocity can be incorporated into personal utility functions in a capitalist society. That's perfectly fine. In fact, positive reciprocity correlates with high income.



Recessions and currency debasement are pre-capitalist.

See: Roman Empire.
See: Byzantine Empire.
See: England in 1340.

...or any number of examples, really.



Debatable.



Okay. I'll bite. So what's your model Marxist society then, hmm? Barcelona during the civil war?

1. OK, if you're not going to do research to actually figure out if what you're saying has any base in Marx's vast literature (or really, just look at what @fkdmR wrote), then there's no reason to debate you. You're just arguing on presupposition at that point.

2. And this is reason #1 why you should actually do a little bit of research before talking about these types of concepts (we're on the internet. There's an ENTIRE ARCHIVE OF EASILY FOUND WORKS BY MARX. It doesn't really take that long). This, again, has nothing to do with species-being. But...I'll admit that I might not have been completely clear. So I'll go over it briefly.

Developing a skill-set within a capitalist context is related to a conception, by you or otherwise, of the division of labor that you can conceive of, as well as the position of value that a given occupation may hold within the economy ("how much can I make from it?," as well as "does this have a properly dignified position within the economy?" Only so many people want to be garbagemen, even though they make quite a good salary). It's fundamentally restricted by the material and, for lack of a better word, ideological conceptions of the capitalist economy. Therefore, before you even think of developing a skill-set, there is a limitation on what you may conceive of, thus a limitation on the fulfillment of species-being. What you wrote about formulating and reformulating what you can and can't do has nothing to do with this, as I'm not talking about your specific ability at anything, just the ability to do something and develop it to your own free and purposeful ends.

3. No, Homo economicus is literally a concept with no basis in reality, at least not in the manner that it has been theorized in (from Pareto to Robbins to Becker, and many inbetween those three, that is). That's my issue with this, and tons of research has gone into showing how little it is reflected in the real actions of men and women. I have problems with Homo reciprocans as well, mostly because it, like Homo economicus, tries to generalize a specific type of situation across the whole of a population without considering whether it actually has a true basis in reality. Reciprocans has more of a basis than economicus, but it's still overly general. At least the research I've seen doesn't generalize in the way theorists of Homo economicus do.

4. Not responding to the point about recessions because that has nothing at all to do with what was discussed there.

5. Ad hominem. This has everything to do with conceptions of Marxist Socialism and nothing to do with my conceptions of a properly Marxist society (which aren't even really that Marxist, more Anarchist than anything). According to the tenants of Marxist Socialism as defined by the Critique of the Gotha Programme (and some might even say The Civil War in France), what was constructed in the USSR and China had nothing to do with his theories. The children of the Third International are the children of Vladimir Lenin's political organization, not Karl Marx's theories.

 

[714562]

Developing a skill-set within a capitalist context is related to a conception, by you or otherwise, of the division of labor that you can conceive of, as well as the position of value that a given occupation may hold within the economy ("how much can I make from it?," as well as "does this have a properly dignified position within the economy?" Only so many people want to be garbagemen, even though they make quite a good salary). It's fundamentally restricted by the material and, for lack of a better word, ideological conceptions of the capitalist economy. Therefore, before you even think of developing a skill-set, there is a limitation on what you may conceive of, thus a limitation on the fulfillment of species-being. What you wrote about formulating and reformulating what you can and can't do has nothing to do with this, as I'm not talking about your specific ability at anything, just the ability to do something and develop it to your own free and purposeful ends.

So the mere fact that one LIVES in a capitalist economy automatically taints any career choice they make? What you're saying is ridiculously glib. Even in a barter economy, people perceive things through "capitalist gradients" and weigh those gradients against perceived personal satisfaction. None of this has anything to do with capitalism. It's all just a part of the process people consider when they decide what they want to do with their lives.

3. No, Homo economicus is literally a concept with no basis in reality, at least not in the manner that it has been theorized in (from Pareto to Robbins to Becker, and many inbetween those three, that is). That's my issue with this, and tons of research has gone into showing how little it is reflected in the real actions of men and women. I have problems with Homo reciprocans as well, mostly because it, like Homo economicus, tries to generalize a specific type of situation across the whole of a population without considering whether it actually has a true basis in reality. Reciprocans has more of a basis than economicus, but it's still overly general. At least the research I've seen doesn't generalize in the way theorists of Homo economicus do.

...so many model of people making judgments toward their subjectively defined ends has ZERO BASIS in reality? Pure hyperbole. Of course there are constraints, such as asymmetry of information, human nature, etc. But to say that people acting towards their own self interest has no basis in real life is just a ridiculous conclusion. If anything, it is too literal a construction of real life, as opposed to being too fantastic. At least in terms of an economic construct for those seeking to share/sell the fruits of their labor, homo economicus is extremely pertinent. And anyway, the whole of Marxism is a sweeping historical generality, so what's the problem with being general?

The bottom line of the Gattungswesen argument is that, even if people are "alienated" by work, it's not all they do. The worker who is alienated in the factory may come home and engage in free labor on his paint canvas or his garden or whatever. Life presents many forms of self-fulfilling activity. Marx presupposes that everyone defines themselves in their work. To the extent that you want to be happy at your chosen profession, that may be somewhat true. But again, the inability to find fulfilling work for those capable of otherwise doing such work is poverty. Hence the social-safety net/redistributive tax system, which realizes that capital is, in some sense fungible, and seeks to promote one of the "virtues" of a capitalist economy - increased competition. Just as people invest in capital, so too does a conscientious democratic government invest in its capitalist citizens to make them ever more prosperous. The fact that people may perceive things through "capitalist gradients" just means that people do what they always did -- look at people who appear to have a lot of stuff and consider whether or not they can see themselves doing the same.

4. Not responding to the point about recessions because that has nothing at all to do with what was discussed there.

It does, but if you'd like to stop talking about it, that's fine.

5. Ad hominem. This has everything to do with conceptions of Marxist Socialism and nothing to do with my conceptions of a properly Marxist society (which aren't even really that Marxist, more Anarchist than anything). According to the tenants of Marxist Socialism as defined by the Critique of the Gotha Programme (and some might even say The Civil War in France), what was constructed in the USSR and China had nothing to do with his theories. The children of the Third International are the children of Vladimir Lenin's political organization, not Karl Marx's theories.

You're dodging the question. If all (allegedly) Marxist societies have thus far been improperly constructed, then give me a proper formulation. If you know what was wrong with those societies, then you have a basis for comparison with what is right...at least theoretically. So let's hear it.

 

[The Real]

Ah, so it really just boils down to the fact that economic conceptions of man don't sit well with you from a moral standpoint? Like, the notion that mean seeks to obtain the highest possible well-being for himself is repugnant to you, even as an economic abstraction, is icky? That's far, far more reductive than anything I've said. As long as there's a human conception of what utility really is, then there's nothing wrong with homo economicus. In fact, homo reciprocans and the worth of reciprocity can be incorporated into personal utility functions in a capitalist society. That's perfectly fine. In fact, positive reciprocity correlates with high income.

I don't want to jump right in the middle of the debate, but I would like to address this point, for you or anyone else reading and interested in this debate. Morals aside, the economic conception of man isn't necessarily scientifically grounded. Most of the science that suggests so is funded by the same people who promote neoclassical economics and want it to seem like a natural fit with a conception of human nature, and thus strongly reflects that bias in the way its findings are framed. I don't want to bog down this point with tons of links that sociologically illustrate this connection, but they can be found relatively easily through Google.

For example, you have neuroscience, and more specifically something like neuroeconomics, which, when biased in favor of neoclassical theory, as it tends to be, does things like frame the ventral tegmental region, where dopamine originates, as part of a functionalist utility mechanism, in which dopamine plays the "value" chemical (and this concept of value is not neutral- it's purely economic.) You have people talking about the brain as a machine for maximizing value, and scientists doing experiments that want to measure this value with MRI experiments around games or reward-based activity, which seemingly supports the thesis that the concept of homo economicus is an accurate portrait of human nature.

Now, the point isn't that these experiments and their findings are complete nonsense- they're still science, even if ideologically slanted. The point is that the theoretical assumptions and findings are framed in a way that itself isn't derived from the findings such that they make up the best view available to us. You can look at human decision-making and say it's utilitarian, maximizing value, which makes neoclassical economics and neoliberal capitalism seem optimal, but you can also look at all those exact same findings and suggest that they're, as the neuroscientist Benjamin Campbell puts it, minimizing disutility. This might seem like a trivial distinction at first glance, but it actually leads to a very different view of "human nature." On this view, which has been prominently represented in the life sciences, physics, cybernetics, and beyond for centuries, life, and subsequently, the brain, like other non-organic systems in nature, strives for homeostasis, not simply rational, maximal utility, and does so while receiving and processing new information that shapes its own future presuppositions about similar stimuli. This view of human nature is just as, if not more compatible with non-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization than with any kind of market economy, and not coincidentally is much closer to the view of human nature held by Marx and Engels.

 

[714562]

..

I don't want to jump right in the middle of the debate, but I would like to address this point, for you or anyone else reading and interested in this debate. Morals aside, the economic conception of man isn't necessarily scientifically grounded. Most of the science that suggests so is funded by the same people who promote neoclassical economics and want it to seem like a natural fit with a conception of human nature, and thus strongly reflects that bias in the way its findings are framed. I don't want to bog down this point with tons of links that sociologically illustrate this connection, but they can be found relatively easily through Google.

For example, you have neuroscience, and more specifically something like neuroeconomics, which, when biased in favor of neoclassical theory, as it tends to be, does things like frame the ventral tegmental region, where dopamine originates, as part of a functionalist utility mechanism, in which dopamine plays the "value" chemical (and this concept of value is not neutral- it's purely economic.) You have people talking about the brain as a machine for maximizing value, and scientists doing experiments that want to measure this value with MRI experiments around games or reward-based activity, which seemingly supports the thesis that the concept of homo economicus is an accurate portrait of human nature.

Now, the point isn't that these experiments and their findings are complete nonsense- they're still science, even if ideologically slanted. The point is that the theoretical assumptions and findings are framed in a way that itself isn't derived from the findings such that they make up the best view available to us. You can look at human decision-making and say it's utilitarian, maximizing value, which makes neoclassical economics and neoliberal capitalism seem optimal, but you can also look at all those exact same findings and suggest that they're, as the neuroscientist Benjamin Campbell puts it, minimizing disutility. This might seem like a trivial distinction at first glance, but it actually leads to a very different view of "human nature." On this view, which has been prominently represented in the life sciences, physics, cybernetics, and beyond for centuries, life, and subsequently, the brain, like other non-organic systems in nature, strives for homeostasis, not simply rational, maximal utility, and does so while receiving and processing new information that shapes its own future presuppositions about similar stimuli. This view of human nature is just as, if not more compatible with non-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization than with any kind of market economy, and not coincidentally is much closer to the view of human nature held by Marx and Engels.

Right, but he's saying it's complete nonsense.

I'm fine with the idea that homo economicus isn't literal reality. Just a decision-making model used by businessmen, economists, and the like. I'm also fine with a very broad definition of what the value to be maximized is. "Belonging" has value. A sense of community has value. Perhaps not monetary, which makes certain things hard to capture.

But corporations are slowly learning how to account for stuff like that, which is why the office is becoming more and more like a home. And why there's no overseer whipping me.

 

[The Real]

..
Right, but he's saying it's complete nonsense.

I wouldn't necessarily call it complete nonsense myself, but that's also a heavily contextual assessment. Like I said, I'd rather not jump into this debate on the whole. 1 on 1 with those longer posts is enough, and more fair.

I'm fine with the idea that homo economicus isn't literal reality. Just a decision-making model used by businessmen, economists, and the like. I'm also fine with a very broad definition of what the value to be maximized is. "Belonging" has value. A sense of community has value. Perhaps not monetary, which makes certain things hard to capture.

That's fair, but then, doesn't it become relatively useless as a concept? Its generality positively correlates with its circularity. In my opinion, the way its used by people making a general defense of capitalism or describing human behavior tends to be at the higher end of the vague and tautological. Again, though, tempting as it is, I don't want to start a conversation on this while you're already debating TrueEpic.

But corporations are slowly learning how to account for stuff like that, which is why the office is becoming more and more like a home. And why there's no overseer whipping me.

Here I will disagree- not that corporations are becoming better at modulating the work environment, but that this represents a general improvement in working conditions, since this modulation accompanies longer hours and the increasing penetration of career work outside of the office, into nights and weekends. In the early 1930s, Keynes famously predicted that the work day would be reduced to 3 hours over the next century (his endgame isn't all that different from Marx's vision of progress in labor,) when exactly the opposite is happening now in many places. Sweden's work week hit a historic high in hours last year, and they're one of the countries most protected against such developments. To me, that's a sign that the fanatical form of the utility-maximization view, implicitly held by these corporations, is winning by sheer force of imposition. I'm guessing, if you're into neo-Keynesian social democracy, that you judge these developments to be the result of views and developments that contradict those positions, which I guess is where the real debate begins, and where I'll step back for now.

 

[TrueEpic08]

So the mere fact that one LIVES in a capitalist economy automatically taints any career choice they make? What you're saying is ridiculously glib. Even in a barter economy, people perceive things through "capitalist gradients" and weigh those gradients against perceived personal satisfaction. None of this has anything to do with capitalism. It's all just a part of the process people consider when they decide what they want to do with their lives.



...so many model of people making judgments toward their subjectively defined ends has ZERO BASIS in reality? Pure hyperbole. Of course there are constraints, such as asymmetry of information, human nature, etc. But to say that people acting towards their own self interest has no basis in real life is just a ridiculous conclusion. If anything, it is too literal a construction of real life, as opposed to being too fantastic. At least in terms of an economic construct for those seeking to share/sell the fruits of their labor, homo economicus is extremely pertinent. And anyway, the whole of Marxism is a sweeping historical generality, so what's the problem with being general?

The bottom line of the Gattungswesen argument is that, even if people are "alienated" by work, it's not all they do. The worker who is alienated in the factory may come home and engage in free labor on his paint canvas or his garden or whatever. Life presents many forms of self-fulfilling activity. Marx presupposes that everyone defines themselves in their work. To the extent that you want to be happy at your chosen profession, that may be somewhat true. But again, the inability to find fulfilling work for those capable of otherwise doing such work is poverty. Hence the social-safety net/redistributive tax system, which realizes that capital is, in some sense fungible, and seeks to promote one of the "virtues" of a capitalist economy - increased competition. Just as people invest in capital, so too does a conscientious democratic government invest in its capitalist citizens to make them ever more prosperous. The fact that people may perceive things through "capitalist gradients" just means that people do what they always did -- look at people who appear to have a lot of stuff and consider whether or not they can see themselves doing the same.



It does, but if you'd like to stop talking about it, that's fine.



You're dodging the question. If all (allegedly) Marxist societies have thus far been improperly constructed, then give me a proper formulation. If you know what was wrong with those societies, then you have a basis for comparison with what is right...at least theoretically. So let's hear it.

1. Barter economy and capitalist economy are not even remotely comparable here. Barter refers to a system of immediate exchange, not to a mode of social organization and cultural logic. Barter is a method of good exchange, and does not permeate the entire fabric of society in the way that capitalism does. There's a fundamental difference in the way that labor is conceived of in Barter and in capitalism, that being: in Barter, you don't have to really ask the questions that I posed above because your options for continued subsistence are much greater than in capitalism. More over, barter does not have the affective and personal dimension that capitalism has, because the mode of exchange is more about your goods than your labor and labor time. Developing your skill-set based on the questions I posed is not something that is just separate from you, but affects everything about your life in a way that barter doesn't even come close to. If you can't understand this, I don't know what to tell you. I've explained it time and time again.

2. Let's do this in reverse:

"the inability to find fulfilling work for those capable of otherwise doing such work is poverty. Hence the social-safety net/redistributive tax system, which realizes that capital is, in some sense fungible, and seeks to promote one of the "virtues" of a capitalist economy - increased competition. Just as people invest in capital, so too does a conscientious democratic government invest in its capitalist citizens to make them ever more prosperous."

You're conflating one definition of poverty (The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount; qualitative) with another definition (The state of being extremely poor; quantitative) to make a point which has nothing to do with alienation or species-being. And an incoherent one at that.

The Homo economicus point: The fact that you named those exceptions makes my point. You cannot make such a generalization about life and the humans within it based on rational choice when your exceptions invalidate (not "force the researcher to modify," invalidate) the whole model. When you're talking about rational choice and humans making the best decision for their highest-possible well-being, you cannot create a theory based on that when it is either invalidated by whole societies, by the mere introduction of variables, examples within Western society from the last half-decade, or has to be stretched to such an extent as to make the theory into something completely different. Marxism doesn't have this problem. It's gone through modifications, but at the core Marxisms are related to Marx's theories, modified by observations and new theories, and when they are modified too much, they become something else entirely.

3. If you can't see the difference between the crises you mentioned and the economic problems of the Southern Cone, specifically relating to the latter's capitalist roots, I don't know what to tell you. There's no need to discuss the point.

4. I'm not answering the question because 1. It's irrelevant, 2. I don't have a personal conception of pure Marxism because I'm not a Marxist (I believe I said that I'm more of an Anarchist who takes many ideas from Marxism), and 3. I basically already answered the question. Marx outlined what his conception of socialism/communism was many times in many texts, specifically addressed in his critique of the Gotha Programme (against conceptions of socialism related to the existing Prussian state), The Civil War in France (in relation to the Paris Commune; loved what they did, wanted them to take and use the state), The Communist Manifesto (self-explanatory), against Mikhail Bakunin, and in fragments in many other texts. If you've read Marx, there shouldn't be any need to ask this question, because it's already there for you.

But you're not going to be convinced by this wall of text, so whatever. I've made my point over and over again. You're the one who disingenuously keeps trying to shift the argument to irrelevant territory. I have other things to do.