Mises readers?

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by derrida

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 will only respond to this and not cognitive science, as it is not my area of expertise. The main problem I have with what Polanyi is arguing, which is not far from my historical materialist professor, is that they themselves assume the idea of "social units" that we are "hopelessly tied" to these "social groups". No one denies here that man is a social creature. I think to do so would be stupid on anyone's part. What we question is the idea that man somehow is restricted by this "social unit", i.e. class or social unit determine thought. Thus if you accept this interpretation of history, it is to deny free will. Yet we see that there is a transition from feudalism or capitalism, and how does that happen? My Marxist professor ultimately said it is a result of "untintended consequences", but we was careful to not attribute it to the individual yet how else can there be change if it is not from the individual that thinks and acts? Human action is a fact, it is a praxaeological law, and it is applicable to any society and any political or economic system. Thus to sum up what Mises meant, we care not for whatever psychological reason underlying mans actions because it would onyl be a guess, the only issue is that he acts.

Ultimately Marx' states that our thoughts are a result of our class or social unit. But if you take this logic far enough, it means that at one point man had to think first before any social unit would exist. In other words, thoughts are not determined by class, but the other way around. It started with an idea. Man has an idea. The idea attracts followers. The idea becomes an ideology. It becomes a religion - a 'true belief'. It is the current world of academia that is plagued by irrationalist modes of thought, e.g., Marxist epistemology, Racial or Nationalist epistemology, etc.They all share a common pattern in that each believes that because our thinking about the world is conditioned in a certain way, it does not grasp the world as it really exists.

History is a very pliable concept, you see. There are many things about history that have become mere phrases, and yet others that have become ideologies. "History is written by the victors", or "History repeats itself" are among the many catch phrases used. Even more groundbreaking is the 19th century Enlightenment that gave rise to materialist conceptions of history, whether history was viewed through the lense of race, or class, or any other group. Both Marx and Hitler excelled in this in that they created a historical model and said "All history is a class struggle", or "All history is a racial struggle". Anyone can find evidence and plug in the equation and say "I have proof". This assumes all men act within the constraints of their "group". In other words, it doesn't prove they do. It is more along the lines of they "ought" to act with the interest of the group in mind, which in reality is not the case. Even in Christianity why does someone do "good works" or follow Jesus message to "love thy neighbor", ultimately it is to save themselves, reach salvation. Thus with these materialist conceptions of history, of turning history into a point in time and saying that "this is the conception of history" and "it is within these groups that man acts", you prove everything and you prove nothing.

Thus Marxists contend that all class determines thought. The racialist contends that ones race determines thought. Those of us so unfortunate enough to disagree are labeled as "bourgeois" or "race traitor" and therefore cannot understand their theory therefore we are not worthy of a discussion, and thus you had the Communist kill off the brougeoise, and you had the Nazis kill of the other races. Feminists argue in a similar way, substituting "gender" for "class", and the racialists substitute "race" for "gender" and "class", and a hardcore religious fundamentalist will argue that "all history is a religious struggle". These never end. These interpretations of history are not looking at the world historically, as a process which can be attributed to human action, but rather are trying reduce history to a point in time and make it out to be something other than what it really is; what it ought to be. Thus, Marxism, racialism, feminism, etc., are not so much how the world was or is, but rather how it ought to be, for the theories to be valid.