What, then, accounts for the discrepancies between the rate of capital accumulation throughout history? Mises is making an assumption regarding the behavior of all humans that is unsupported not only by historical analysis, but cultural anthropology and even cognitive science. Perhaps "man acts" in some sense, but he does not exist as a transcendent, holistic entity. Man's actions are limited by the cultural milieu in which he resides- cultural anthropology shows us societies in which economic activities (how people go about getting whatever it is they "want") are fully determined by their social relations. This isn't the result of some unnatural suppression of man's basic human nature and "cognitive freedom" (if it was, the soviets sure could have taken a lesson from the bush man, eh?
) indeed, it is crucial to human existence.
I bring up cognitive science mainly because recent trends seem to suggest certain "embodied" qualities to the phenomenon known as consciousness (Think of chomskyan "deep structure") - that is to say consciousness is rooted in the physical stucture of the human brain, an object that is the result of millions of years of evolution determined by environmental factors- including the presence of other members of the species. The general idea is that the brain is structured on a metaphorical basis- that is, thought is the result of juxtaposition of pre-existing concepts. We learn and understand new concepts by reframing our mental terms of reference in a manner that is synchronous with our current knowledge.
Anyway, my main problem with Mises is his insistence upon a certain definition of "human nature," while the scientific disciplines that are actually concerned with the question provide evidence overwhelmingly to the contrary.
Threaded Mode