tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post114484863126717042..comments2024-03-26T04:21:43.535-05:00Comments on Free Association: Capitalism versus CapitalismSheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1145095909338814762006-04-15T05:11:00.000-05:002006-04-15T05:11:00.000-05:00Adam--I too think that is one of the odd things th...Adam--<BR/>I too think that is one of the odd things that Dr. Reisman had to say in his critique, although he made some other interesting points. I'll have more to say in due course.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1145065698065190352006-04-14T20:48:00.000-05:002006-04-14T20:48:00.000-05:00I read George Reisman's essay in Journal of Libert...I read George Reisman's essay in Journal of Libertarian Studies and was surprized and kinda disgusted by his (Randist) definition of "individualism"<BR/><BR/>He writes:<BR/>"Here Carson, the “individualist” anarchist shows himself to be<BR/>quite the collectivist, attributing to the average person qualities of<BR/>independent thought and judgment that are found only in exceptional<BR/>individuals."<BR/><BR/>I side with Carson's definition of individualism, and can only see Reisman's view as socialism or collectivism. Individualism means that, as a rule, each individual is capable of directing his own life. If most individuals are incapable of directing their own lives and must be subsumed into an unthinking mass (for their own good), then we have collectivism...whether it is run by a benevolent dictatorship of market selected (meaning "self-selected") "meritocrats" or by an elected aristocracy.Ricketsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579799843541826447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1145022964102026052006-04-14T08:56:00.000-05:002006-04-14T08:56:00.000-05:00About the flat earth assumption: I read in a back...About the flat earth assumption: I read in a back issue of Science magazine that cosmologists are pretty certain that the whole universe is flat! Why bother with just the Earth when we know the entire Shebang is flat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144950258033300412006-04-13T12:44:00.000-05:002006-04-13T12:44:00.000-05:00Brad,I think that's about right. The Marxists see...Brad,<BR/><BR/>I think that's about right. The Marxists see the exploitation of labor as something that results from "economic power," even in a free market. The Tuckerites see it as the result of unequal exchange caused by the state.<BR/><BR/>Technically, though, the Marxists didn't see the LTV as an ideal to be achieved, but as a description of how price actually functioned under capitalism, and fully consistent with exploitation of labor. And their ultimate goal was to transcend the law of value and make all goods free.<BR/><BR/>Sheldon,<BR/><BR/>Block would have been more accurate if he'd focused his critique on my treatement of the Tucker big four monopolies alone (or at least the land and money ones) because, from his perspective, a society with those forms of privilege would be pretty much laissez-faire. (He'd probably object to the state-enforced money monopoly, but not see it as having the same effects I do).<BR/><BR/>Even then, though, Rothbard would have objected to most property in vacant land on Lockean property alone, and emphasized primitive accumulation much more than Tucker did (whih was hardly at all). And it's possible to argue on purely Rothbardian principles that banking market entry barriers raise interest rates on secured loans. For that matter, it would probably be possible to argue from purely Misesian principles that the state's enforcement of artificial scarcity of land and capital makes labor artificially abundant and cheap in terms of land and capital.Kevin Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07525803609000364993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144947137217282612006-04-13T11:52:00.000-05:002006-04-13T11:52:00.000-05:00Right. I referred to what you *might call* somethi...Right. I referred to what you *might call* something. I made no statement about what you do or don't advocate and I linked to your article again right there at that point (even though I had also earlier in the post) specifically so people could see the context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144946322691864072006-04-13T11:38:00.000-05:002006-04-13T11:38:00.000-05:00Good post, Brad. But I don’t want my use of the te...Good post, Brad. But I don’t want my use of the term “free-market Bolshevism” to be misunderstood. I was not embracing the term or using it as a short-hand for an attitude of any kind. What I wrote is this: “In light of historical definitions and real-world systems, there is nothing incoherent about free-market socialism or free-market anti-capitalism (as long as one defines one’s terms). Indeed, in historical terms, free-market, or laissez-faire, capitalism makes as much sense as free-market Bolshevism.” In other words both terms, historically speaking, are contradictions in terms.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144944518351353852006-04-13T11:08:00.000-05:002006-04-13T11:08:00.000-05:00Thanks again, Sheldon. This post inspired yet anot...Thanks again, Sheldon. This post inspired yet another bat-shit crazy anarchist rant from me -- "<A HREF="http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/393" REL="nofollow">Rothbard's Reds Redux</A>".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144943568187156742006-04-13T10:52:00.000-05:002006-04-13T10:52:00.000-05:00Sheldon,I should correct my earlier post: it was b...Sheldon,<BR/><BR/>I should correct my earlier post: it was based on simply visiting Kevin's site and <B>not</B> the title of his book that I thought he was anti-free market. His blog title "Free Market Anti-Capitalism" appears to be a contradiction in terms if one thinks of capitalism as that "unknown ideal" of a laissez-faire, free market society. And maybe it was the red/black cover on his book that I subconsciously associated with anti-private property anarchists. I do realize where he is coming from now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144940865548905942006-04-13T10:07:00.000-05:002006-04-13T10:07:00.000-05:00Joe, nope, just anti-capitalist. I plan to discuss...Joe, nope, just anti-capitalist. I plan to discuss Roderick Long's point in a future post.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144939229452872062006-04-13T09:40:00.000-05:002006-04-13T09:40:00.000-05:00Sheldon Richman wrote ..."I was struck by how upse...Sheldon Richman wrote ...<BR/><BR/>"I was struck by how upset people can get when someone uses a term differently from how they use it -- even if he makes his usage perfectly clear and explicitly draws on legitimate historical precedent. This comes up on at least two occasions in the commentary on Carson. I've read Carson's book, and I had no trouble seeing how he uses the word "capitalism." Much of the book is devoted to showing that historical capitalism -- the real-life mercantilist political-economic system that most people attach that word to -- bears only superficial resemblance to the laissez-faire free market, which he favors."<BR/><BR/>Coincidentally, Roderick Long made the point in his <A HREF="http://mises.org/story/2099" REL="nofollow">Rothbard Memorial Lecture</A> that "capitalism" (and "socialism") are what Ayn Rand would call "package deal" anti-concepts. Not having read Carson's book, and based solely on the title of the book, I <B>was</B> under the impression that he was anti-"free market".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144923854760578252006-04-13T05:24:00.000-05:002006-04-13T05:24:00.000-05:00A final, final thought: Even if one has good theor...A final, final thought: Even if one has good theoretical grounds for doubting Carson's predictions, that would not invalidate his historical critique of (state) capitalism. After all, Carson does not say, "Labor did not get its full product, therefore there must have been state coercion." On the contrary, he argues, "There was state coercion, therefore labor did not get its full product."Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144922107861642652006-04-13T04:55:00.000-05:002006-04-13T04:55:00.000-05:00I'd like to amplify my final point, which built on...I'd like to amplify my final point, which built on Brad's. Kevin is simiply being a good praxeologist. He's making predictions about what people will do in a fully free and competitive market, where the state and its favored interests have not foreclosed alternatives through land monopoly and legal barriers to entry in banking and industry. Just as we know that a seller will prefer a higher to a lower price, so a worker will prefer a higher to a lower return on his labor. We can then trace out the consequences for the return on labor services of free competition and freedom of entry. Someone may disagree with Kevin's predictions of what would happen under voluntary exchange, but the critic should at least be clear on what Kevin is saying.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144919325354583892006-04-13T04:08:00.000-05:002006-04-13T04:08:00.000-05:00Carson's criticism of the history of (state) capit...Carson's criticism of the history of (state) capitalism is entirely separable from his (subjectivized) labor theory of value. One can be an Austro-subjectivist (as I am) and agree with his historical outlook and the distinctions he makes. As he points out, one can find a similar critique in Rothbard and Joseph Stromberg, no LTV theorists. LTV is a red-herring in this context. The fact is that Carson clearly distinguishes laissez faire (voluntary association), which he favors, from historical mercantilist capitalism, which he opposes. He simply insists on keeping the distinction in mind when he analyzes today's political-economic system.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say no criticism of the book is possible. See Murphy and Long. I'm just saying that Block's is off target.<BR/><BR/>Brad: I can't speak for Kevin, but that sounds valid to me. As I see it, he is making predictions about what would arise and not arise in a truly competitive economy. He proposes no interference with voluntary exchange.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144905844530262872006-04-13T00:24:00.000-05:002006-04-13T00:24:00.000-05:00I should have added -- excellent post, Sheldon! Th...I should have added -- excellent post, Sheldon! That's what I originally intended to first say, but then I got sidetracked responding to the above comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144905729322450562006-04-13T00:22:00.000-05:002006-04-13T00:22:00.000-05:00Kevin,Although I've had your book for weeks now, I...Kevin,<BR/><BR/>Although I've had your book for weeks now, I must confess to not having gotten very far in it due to time constraints from all the other stuff on my plate. However, I believe I have a firm enough grasp of where you're coming from that the following suggests itself to me as a point to be made...<BR/><BR/>Where Block said:<BR/><BR/><EM>But, Carson condemns them for theft on the ground that the wages they pay are not consistent with the labor theory of value.</EM><BR/><BR/>...that's inaccurate of Block because you mostly put forward a <STRONG>descriptive</STRONG> Labor Theory of Value as a proposed way of understanding how markets operate, when they are free. Block confuses that with the historical State Socialist understanding of a Labor Theory of Value as a <STRONG>prescriptive</STRONG> moral principle.<BR/><BR/>Would you agree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144897381269549322006-04-12T22:03:00.000-05:002006-04-12T22:03:00.000-05:00I meant to add: Block's reference to the phlogisto...I meant to add: Block's reference to the phlogiston and flat earth theories is very telling. As I have pointed out more than once, Bohm-Bawerk welcomed any future attempts by labor theory advocates to continue the debats, so long as it was on some basis other than appeals to authorities. I attempted to take up that challenge, actually addressing his criticisms on their own terms. Now it is subjectivists who are guilty of the sins that B-B criticized in Rodbertus and other labor theory advocates: appealing to authority, repeating cliches without directly addressing any of my counterarguments.<BR/><BR/>I know it is possible to write a reasoned, thoughtful criticism of my value theory that addresses what I actually wrote instead of talking past it, because Robert Murphy managed to do so. <BR/><BR/>I invite any independent reviewer to compare Murphy's criticism of my writing on value theory, with the criticisms of Block and Reisman. Murphy actually understood what I wrote and responded to it with his mind engaged. Block and Reisman simply played James Taggart, appealing to what "all right-thinking people know." Whether or not the labor theory of value is the equivalent of the phlogiston or flat earth theories, Block at least has not demonstrated. To refute anything requires paying attention and understanding what you're criticizing, and addressing it with reasoned counterarguments. What we got from him, instead, was the same appeals to authority and dogmatic cliches that Bohm-Bawerk complained of in his critics.Kevin Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07525803609000364993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144894465012879572006-04-12T21:14:00.000-05:002006-04-12T21:14:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Kevin Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07525803609000364993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144893807467487062006-04-12T21:03:00.000-05:002006-04-12T21:03:00.000-05:00Thanks a lot, Sheldon. I've already made enough c...Thanks a lot, Sheldon. I've already made enough critical remarks about those two reviews, that anything more from me would just look like obsessively giving a few more whacks to a dead horse. But such a comment from the editor of The Freeman means a great deal.<BR/><BR/>And from his remarks relayed here, Block still doesn't get it. He is conflating the issues in Part One (value theory) and Part Two (the history of state monopoly capitalism) of my book. My analysis of state monopoly capitalism in chapters six through eight, for the most part, can stand independently of the treatment of value theory in Part One. Most of it has to do with direct state subsidies and regulatory cartelization, and could be defended on a purely Rothbardian (or Strombergian, if that's a word) basis. <BR/><BR/>Block's comments on those chapters, in turn, have little or nothing to do with the labor theory of value. Most of his specific criticisms of those chapters involve my claims about subsidies and regulation, and are entirely separate from his criticisms of my writing on value theory and employment relations in Part One. And his criticism of my analysis in chapters six through eight could apply just as well to Rothbard's and Stromberg's analysis of state capitalism; he essentially rejects all the areas in which Rothbardian analysis so fruitfully dovetails with the corporate liberal histories of the New Left. In context, it is clear that Block's problem with my analysis of the history of state capitalism has little to do with the labor theory of value, and that most of the points where he differs with me are points where I agree with Rothbard. <BR/><BR/>Once again, it is Block who is incoherent and can't remember from one minute to the next what it is he's supposed to be arguing against.Kevin Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07525803609000364993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1144891914915105722006-04-12T20:31:00.000-05:002006-04-12T20:31:00.000-05:00Walter Block asked me to post this on his behalf a...Walter Block asked me to post this on his behalf as he's not very familiar with blogging:<BR/><BR/>An interesting and well written review of my review of Carson's book by Richman. I was looking in it for four words. I read the piece twice. I couldn't find them. I used word search. No luck.<BR/><BR/>What are the four words? They are "labor theory of value."<BR/><BR/>Carson really believes in this theory, which I see as the economic equivalent to the flat earth or the phlogistan theory.<BR/><BR/>Richman never once mentions these four words. But these four words are<BR/>crucial!<BR/><BR/>I certainly do not defend businessmen who are theives. But, Carson condemns them for theft on the ground that the wages they pay are not consistent with the labor theory of value.<BR/><BR/>In my book Defending the Undefendable, I defend those such as the pimp. I do so on the ground that even though each and every pimp may be guilty of violations of the non aggression act, this is not necessary. We can IMAGINE a pimp who does not initiate violence.<BR/><BR/>Carson's problem is that he cannot even IMAGINE a businessman paying a<BR/>market wage that does not amount to theft. Why not? Because Carson is a<BR/>believer in the labor theory of value.<BR/><BR/>Richman is entirely silent on this point. I urge him to weigh in on this crucial matter, perhaps in a subsequent letter, lest he and I pass each other as ships in the night, exactly the charge he levels at me for missing Carson's point. I didn't miss Carson's point. Richman did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com