Socialism

[Stan]

What socialist countries have been warmongers?

[joeb]

Stan,

Ever heard of the Nationalist Socialist Party?  It's otherwise known as Nazism.

Socialism has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people.   The millions slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, as well as the marxist warlords and dictators of Africa such as Idi Amin, are far more deaths than caused by war in the 20th century.  Add to that the complete lack of freedom to think, to choose, to live, and you have nothing but horror.

[Stan]

really that is your knowledge of socialism?

Canada is a socialist country, as is Denmark and the rest of the Scandinavians.  Several developed countries are..

 

You might want to try reading a book sometime.

[Stan]

Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were not socialist in the western sense.  Remember it was the Communist who took down the Nazi's and won the war.

[Bravus]

Yes: claimed that the fascist Nazis were socialist demonstrates ignorance of the meaning of the term... or mischief.

"The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or of a foreign race (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and businesses."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

[Gerr]

Since there are several different brands of socialism, so would you be so kind as to define what you mean by "socialism" so as to provide a common discussion starting point?

As for an example of a warmongering socialist state, does not the former USSR qualify?  Western European socialist states are actually a hybrid of socialism and capitalism.  Even the USA which is supposed to be the bastion of capitalism has the gov't's finger into businesses that many capitalists would abhor.

[Gerr]

Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were not socialist in the western sense.  Remember it was the Communist who took down the Nazi's and won the war.

Hmmmm.  A revisionist's version of the war?  While it's true that the crucial turning point of the war was fought in the eastern front, without the war in the western front, the USSR would have collapsed.  Furthermore, the US industrial might provided much of the Soviet war materiel.  

So what brand of socialism are you talking about?

Edited August 2, 2015 by Gerry Cabalo
addition

[Geoarrge]

The problem with these supposedly enlightened Western social democracies is that they still depend on the umbrella of US military protection and willingness to fight for allies, to the point of neglecting to provide for their own defense. This is unlikely to be sustainable, especially if America commits fully to becoming more like the other developed Western nations that haven't been to the moon.

[joeb]

The Nazis put socialist policies in place.  Look them up.  They also used the classic socialist tactic of class warfare.  They blamed the "rich" Jews for impoverishing the German people.  Classic socialist tactic of blaming one section of society for the problems of another.  They just added race to the equation.  That's the only difference.

Let's just ignore all that though.  Even leaving Hitler and the Nazis out of the equation the deaths worldwide, I should say murders, are at 60,000,000.  Funny how you socialists ignore all of this and claim the capitalists are to blame for everything.  Even Marx acknowledged that capitalism was the source of democratic freedoms.  He was so shortsighted, whether deliberately or not I don't know, that he didn't realize that if you took the source of democratic freedoms away the freedoms would disappear too.  I have a quote for that but I'll have to give it later.  The reason being is that I run the testing version of Debian and when I updated my system last time the latest release of the OCR software I have has a bug in it that stops the graphical front end of it from opening.  I've reported the bug and it will most likely be fixed in a few days so when that happens I'll post the quote.

I will point to the classic example of what Hayek says would happen when putting socialist economics in place while trying to maintain a democratic form of government.  That classic example is Greece.  In the decades preceding 1974 Greece was ruled by its military.  During all those decades the government always ran a surplus.  That means Greece had a healthy economy and system of currency.  In 1974 the military gave up control to civilian leadership.  For the next 7 years Greece ran a 3% deficit at most.  That again is a very healthy economy and good for everyone concerned.  In 1981 the socialists took over the government.  By 2010 Greece was in serious economic trouble.  Their debt-to-gdp ratio was more than 100%.  Their debt is now 177% of their gdp.  It took the socialists only 29 years to bankrupt an economically healthy country.   They did something far worse to their own people though.  They taught them that they were not responsible for themselves.  How can I say such a thing?  When the government had to roll back union and socialist policies so they could refinance their huge debt the Greeks rioted.  Why?  They knew there was no more money.  They knew their country was hopelessly over its head in debt.  Yet, they still thought the deserved to be supported by their government.  Where was the money to come from?  They didn't care, they just wanted what they wanted. 

To put this debt situation in terms most of us can understand I will relate it to personal finances.  If you have $50,000 of yearly income to match the Greek level of debt you would have $88,500 worth of short-term debt.  In other words, you would owe so much money you could not survive and pay your bills.  Still the Greeks rioted because they thought the rest of the world should support their financial lunacy.  It basically boils down to the idea that the Greeks think everyone else in Europe should pay their bills.  Socialism promises prosperity yet the average Greek worker makes all of 23 euros a day.  That is prosperous?  Being bankrupt and depending on the rest of the world to bail you out is prosperity? 

We have a socialist for president in the US.  He promises the redistribution of wealth and prosperity for the little guy.  Really?  Since 2011, and remember that's 3 years after he took office, income disparity in this country has skyrocketed.  It's his policies that are causing this.  He is, for the first time in US history, monetizing our debt.  What that basically boils down to is printing money that has no basis in an increasing wealth.  He's been printing $80,000,000,000 a month for years now.  It's effect is no different on than having counterfeiters printing all that money, except that the money he is printing goes directly into the hands of the wealthy.  What it does to the little guy is increase the prices of what he must have to live.  It's a form of inflation for the more dollars there are floating around at the same level of wealth means a dollar that is worth less.   It also props up stock market prices for this printed money flows almost directly to the stock market.  There's no where else for it to go for it doesn't arise from increasing production of wealth.  Think of it this way.  It's like going to bank and borrowing money to pay off your debts.  That's about the closest we can come to in personal finances. 

This monetizing of debt is only one of his socialist policies that are hurting the middle class.  Obamacare is creating for the first time ever in the US a society that cannot find full time work.  That pushes many millions of people into poverty, and greatly adds to income disparity.  His attitude towards the coal industry has destroyed 50,000 jobs and done a lot in raising utility prices.  Once again it hurts the little the guy most.  Should we move towards wind and solar power? I think so, but it should be driven by market forces that are created by technological advances, not through the deliberate destruction of one of our main sources of energy.  That would not destroy jobs for it would be a much slower adoption and a better utilization of resources, and it would greatly slow the rise in energy costs. 

[B/W Photodude]

DNC head still can’t explain difference between Democrats, socialists

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/03/dnc-head-still-cant-explain-difference-between-democrats-socialists/

[Bravus]

As I noted earlier, it's clear that we mean different things by the term.

It makes complete sense to me why you would oppose the things you understand by the term 'socialism'. I oppose those things too.

What I'm not seeing is an understanding from you of why I support the things *I* mean by the term 'socialism'.

[joeb]

As I noted earlier, it's clear that we mean different things by the term.

It makes complete sense to me why you would oppose the things you understand by the term 'socialism'. I oppose those things too.

What I'm not seeing is an understanding from you of why I support the things *I* mean by the term 'socialism'.

You keep on saying this, but never saying what you actually support.  However, collectivism in all of its forms suffers from the same issues.  That is what you do not seem to understand.  You also seem to think you can mix to diametrically opposed systems in one government and end up with something that solves social problems that spring from humanity's sinful nature.  You cannot. 

One of the major problems you run into, assuming I'm guessing correctly as to what you think is a workable form of socialism as so far you have refused to say what form of socialism you support, is that you want to keep democratic institutions and use them to administer a collective solution.  That is impossible.  Ever heard of gridlock in Washington?  That right there ought to tell you that no multiple party system can administer something that requires only a very few number of people to make decisions.  To implement a socialist economy the government must react instantaneously to changing economic conditions.  You cannot do that democratically.  It's basically impossible even with just a very few people making decisions, let alone when you have competing ideas within the same administering body.  

Also, to condemn today's US government and economy as the failure of liberty and the free market is to completely miss the point of what has happened in the US since the early 20th century.  We have had administration after administration, congress after congress, and supreme court after supreme court, that have moved us  closer and closer to a centrally planned economy, and a long ways away from liberty government and towards arbitrary government. 

The huge booms and busts, and the increasing disparity in wealth, are caused by the fiscal decisions the government has made that interfere with a free market economy.  We are only a very faint shadow of what our founders set in place.  And yet that is what the left blames.  It not only blames the original ideas we were founded on it wants to move farther towards the problems created by central planning.  It's the epitome of insanity: doing more of the same and expecting different results.

If you think you can use the socialist form of government and a "competitive" socialistic economy, you're once again looking at an impossibility.  I have plenty of evidence to combat either idea. 

I see you've sort of given up on arguing against the fact that the Nazi's were basically socialism on steriods so I'll hold off on posting all that evidence.  

[joeb]

Here is more for you to chew on. This comes from a book titled Collectivist Economic Planning.  The content is written mostly by economists and examines the issues involved in a socialistic economy.  It is available through the Mises Institute as a free download.  https://mises.org/library/collectivist-economic-planning

THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM
By F. A. HAYEK

1.THE UNSEEN PROBLEM.

2. ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.

3. THE DECAY OF ECONOMIC INSIGHT.

4. THE ATTITUDE OF MARXISM.

5. SOCIALISM AND PLANNING.

6. THE TYPES OF SOCIALISM.

7. PLANNING AND CAPITALISM.

8. THE BASIS OF MODERN CRITICISM.

9. THE WAR AND ITS EFFECTS ON CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM.

10. MISES, MAX WEBER AND BRUTZKUS.

11. MORE RECENT CONTINENTAL DISCUSSION.

12. THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT VOLUME.

1.THE UNSEEN PROBLEM
THERE is reason to believe that we are at last entering an era of reasoned
discussion of what has long uncritically been assumed to be a reconstruction of
society on rational lines. For more than half a century, the belief that
deliberate regulation of all social affairs must necessarily be more successful
than the apparent haphazard interplay of independent individuals has
continuously gained ground until today there is hardly a political group
anywhere in the world which does not want central direction of most human
activities in the service of one aim or another. lt seemed so easy to improve
upon the institutions of a free society which had come more and more to be
considered as the result of mere accident, the product of a peculiar historical
growth which might as well have taken a different direction. To bring order to
such a chaos, to apply reason to the organization of society, and to shape it
deliberately in every detail according to human wishes and the common ideas of
justice seemed the only course of action worthy of a reasonable being.

But at the present day it is clear--it would probably be admitted by all
sides--that during the greater part of the growth of this belief, some
of the most serious problems of such a reconstruction have not even been
recognized, much less successfully answered. For many years discussion of
socialism--and for the greater part of the period it was only from socialism
proper that the movement sprang--turned almost exclusively on ethical and
psychological issues. On the one hand there was the general question whether
justice required a reorganization of society on socialist lines and what
principles of the distribution of income were to be regarded as just. 0n the
other hand there was the question whether men in general could be trusted to
have the moral and psychological qualities which were dimly seen to be essential
if a socialist system was to work. But although this latter question does raise
some of the real difficulties, it does not really touch the heart of the
problem. What was questioned was only whether the authorities in the new state
would be in a position to make people carry out their plans properly. Only the
practical possibility of the execution of the plans was called in question, not
whether planning, even in the ideal case where these difficulties were absent,
would achieve the desired end. The problem seemed therefore to be “only” one of
psychology or education, the “only” meaning that after initial difficulties
these obstacles would certainly be overcome.

If this were true, then the economist would have nothing to say on the
feasibility of such proposals, and indeed it is improbable that any scientific
discussion of their merits would be possible. It would be a problem of ethics,
or rather of individual judgments of value, on which different people might
agree or disagree, but on which no reasoned arguments would be possible. Some of
the questions might be left to the psychologist to decide, if he has really any
means of saying what men would be like under entirely different circumstances.
Apart from this no scientist, and least of all the economist, would have
anything to say about the problems of Socialism. And many people believing that
the knowledge of the economist is only applicable to the problems ofa capitalist
society (i.e. to problems arising out of peculiar human institutions which
would be absent in a world organized on different lines), still think this to be
the case.

This was the first section of the book.  I'd really like to see you refute this point by point.  I think you'll most likely just say it isn't the type of socialism that you support.  So far you've denied supporting income redistribution, government control of the economy, the enforcement of socialist morality on the population, etc....  Not much is left of socialism after all you've denied supporting.

[joeb]

Here is the second section of the book.

 

2. ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

Whether this widespread belief is based on a clear conviction that there would
be no economic problems in a socialist world, or whether it simply proves that
the people who hold it do not know what economic problems are, is not always
evident. Probably usually the latter. This is not at all surprising. The big
economic problems which the economist sees and which he contends will also have
to be solved in a collectivist society, are not problems which at present are
solved deliberately by anybody in the sense in which the economic problems of a
household reach solution. In a purely competitive society nobody bothers about
any but his own economic problems. There is therefore no reason why the exis-
tence of economic problems, in the sense in which the economist uses the term,
should be known to others. But the distribution of available resources between
different uses which is the economic problem is no less a problem for society
than for the individual, and although the decision is not consciously made by
anybody, the competitive mechanism does bring about some sort of solution.

No doubt if it were put in this general way everybody would be ready to admit
that such a problem exists. But few realize that it is fundamentally different
not only in difficulty but also in character from the problems of engineering.
The increasing preoccupation of the modern world with problems of an
engineering character tends to blind people to the totally different character
of the economic problem, and is probably the main cause why the nature of the
latter was less and less understood. At the same time everyday terminology used
in discussing either sort of problem has greatly enhanced the confusion. The
familiar phrase of “trying to get the greatest results from the given means”
covers both problems. The metallurgist who seeks for a method which will enable
him to extract a maximum amount of metal from a given quantity of ore, the
military engineer who tries to build a bridge with a given number of men in the
shortest possible time, or the optician who endeavours to construct a telescope
which will enable the astronomer to penetrate to still more distant stars, all
are concerned solely with technological problems. The common character of these
problems is determined by the singleness of their purpose in every case, the
absolutely determined nature of the ends to which the available means are to be
devoted. Nor does it alter the fundamental character of the problem if the
means available for a definite purpose is a fixed amount of money to be spent on
factors of production with given prices. From this point of view the
industrial engineer who decides on the best method of production of a given
commodity on the basis of given prices is concerned only with technological
problems although he may speak of his trying to find the most economical method.
But the only element which makes his decision in its effects an economic one is
not any part of his calculations but only the fact that he uses, as a basis for
these calculations, prices as he finds them on the market.

The problems which the director ofall economic activities ofa community would
have to face would only be similar to those solved by an engineer if the order
of importance of the different needs of the community were fixed in such a
definite and absolute way that provision for one could always be made
irrespective of cost. If it were possible for him first to decide on the best
way to produce the necessary supply of, say, food as the most important need, as
if it were the only need, and would think about the supply, say of clothing,
only if and when some means were left over after the demand for food had been
fully satisfied, then there would be no economic problem. For in such a case
nothing would be left over except what could not possibly be used for the first
purpose, either because it could not be turned into food or because there was
no further demand for food. The criterion would simply be whether the possible
maximum of foodstuffs had been produced or whether the application of different
methods might not lead to a greater output. But the task would cease to be
merely technological in character and would assume an entirely different nature
if it were further postulated that as many resources as possible should be left
over for other purposes. Then the question arises what is a greater quantity of
resources. If one engineer proposed a method which would leave a great deal of
land but only little labour for other purposes, while another would leave much
labour and little land, how in the absence of any standard of value could it be
decided which was the greater quantity? lfthere were only one factor of
production this could be decided unequivocally on merely technical grounds, for
then the main problem in every line of production would again be reduced to one
of getting the maximum quantity of product out of any given amount of the same
resources. The remaining economic problem of how much to produce in every line
of production would in this case be of a very simple and almost negligible
nature. As soon as there are two or more factors, however, this possibility is
not present.

The economic problem arises therefore as soon as different purposes compete for
the available resources. And the criterion of its presence is that costs have to
be taken into account. Cost here, as anywhere, means nothing but the advantages
to be derived from the use of given resources in other directions. whether this
is simply the use of part of the possible working day for recreation, or the use
of material resources in an alternative line of production, makes little
difference. It is clear that decisions of this sort will have to be made in any
conceivable kind of economic system, wherever one has to choose between
alternative employments of given resources. But the decisions between two
possible alternative uses cannot be made in the absolute way which was possible
in our earlier example. Even if the director of the economic system were quite
clear in his mind that the food of one person is always more important than the
clothing ofanother, that would by no means necessarily imply that it is also
more important than the clothing of two or ten others. How critical the question
is becomes clearer if we look at the less elementary wants. It may well be that
although the need for one additional doctor is greater than the need for one
additional school teacher, yet under conditions where it costs three times as
much to train an additional doctor as it costs to train an additional school
teacher, three additional school teachers may appear preferable to one doctor.

As has been said before, the fact that in the present order of things such
economic problems are not solved by the conscious decision of anybody has the
effect that most people are not conscious of their existence. Decisions whether
and how much to produce a thing are economic decisions in this sense. But the
making of such a decision by a single individual is only part of the solution of
the economic problem involved. The person making such a decision makes it on the
basis of given prices. The fact that by this decision he influences these prices
to a certain, probably very small, extent will not influence his choice. The
other part of the problem is solved by the functioning of the price system. But
it is solved in a way which only a systematic study of the working of this
system reveals. it has been already suggested that it is not necessary for
the working of this system, that anybody should understand it. But people are
not likely to let it work if they do not understand it.

The real situation in this respect is very well reflected in the popular
estimate of the relative merits of the economists and the engineer. it is
probably no exaggeration to say that to most people the engineer is the person
who actually does things and the economist the odious individual who sits back
in his armchair and explains why the well-meaning efforts of the former are
frustrated. in a sense this is not untrue. But the implication that the forces
which the economist studies and the engineer is likely to disregard are
unimportant and ought to be disregarded is absurd. It needs the special
training of the economist to see that the spontaneous forces which limit the
ambitions of the engineer themselves provide a way of solving a problem which
otherwise would have to be solved deliberately.

 

 

[joeb]

Here is the next installment of Hayek's paper.  He is exactly correct for the vast majority of socialists have no real understanding of what they believe.  They cannot see the costs, the problems, etc... for they are so sure they are right they never look at the criticisms and take them seriously.  They filter everything they read through the lens of their ideology first, and thus dimiss anything negative about socialism because it doesn't fit what they want to believe....

3. THE DECAY OF ECONOMIC INSIGHT

There are, however, other reasons besides the increasing conspicuousness of the
elaborate modern technique of production which are responsible for our
contemporary failure to see the existence of economic problems. It was not
always so. For a comparatively short period in the middle of last century, the
degree to which the economic problems were seen and understood by the general
public was undoubtedly much higher than it is at present. But the classical
system of political economy whose extraordinary influence facilitated this
understanding had been based on insecure and in parts definitely faulty
foundations, and its popularity had been achieved at the price of a degree of
over-simplification which proved to be its undoing. It was only much later,
after its teaching had lost influence, that the gradual reconstruction of
economic theory showed that what defects there were in its basic concepts had
invalidated its explanation of the working of the economic system to a much
smaller degree than had at first seemed probable. But in the interval
irreparable harm had been done. The downfall of the classical system tended to
discredit the very idea of theoretical analysis, and it was attempted to
substitute for an understanding of the why of economic phenomena a mere
description of their occurrence. in consequence, the comprehension of the nature
of the economic problem, the achievement of generations of teaching, was lost.
The economists who were still interested in general analysis were far too much
concerned with the reconstructing of the purely abstract foundations of economic
science to exert a noticeable influence on opinion regarding policy.

It was largely owing to this temporary eclipse of analytical economics that the
real problems connected with the suggestions of a planned economy have received
so surprisingly little careful examination. But this eclipse itself was by no
means only due to the inherent weaknesses and the consequent need for
reconstruction of the old economics. Nor would it have had the same effect if it
had not coincided with the rise of another movement definitely hostile to
rational methods in economics. The common cause which at the same time
undermined the position of economic theory and furthered the growth of a school
of socialism, which positively discouraged any speculation of the actual working
of the society of the future, was the rise of the so-called historical school
in economics.1 For it was the essence of the standpoint of this school, that
the laws of economics could only be established by the application to the
material of history of the methods of the natural sciences. And the nature of
this material is such that any such attempt is bound to degenerate into mere
record and description and a total scepticism concerning the existence of any
laws at all.

It is not difficult to see why this should happen. In all sciences except those
which deal with social phenomena all that experience shows us is the result of
processes which we cannot directly observe and which it is our task to
reconstruct. All our conclusions concerning the nature of these processes are of
necessity hypothetical, and the only test of the validity of these hypotheses is
that they prove equally applicable to the explanation of other phenomena. And
what enables us to arrive by this process of induction at the formulation of
general laws or hypotheses regarding the process of causation is the fact that the possibility of
experimenting, of observing the repetition of the same phenomena under
identical conditions, shows the existence of definite regularities in the
observed phenomena.

in the social sciences, however, the situation is the exact reverse. 0n the one
hand, experiment is impossible, and we have therefore no 

3. THE DECAY OF ECONOMIC INSIGHT

There are, however, other reasons besides the increasing conspicuousness of the
elaborate modern technique of production which are responsible for our
contemporary failure to see the existence of economic problems. It was not
always so. For a comparatively short period in the middle of last century, the
degree to which the economic problems were seen and understood by the general
public was undoubtedly much higher than it is at present. But the classical
system of political economy whose extraordinary influence facilitated this
understanding had been based on insecure and in parts definitely faulty
foundations, and its popularity had been achieved at the price of a degree of
over-simplification which proved to be its undoing. It was only much later,
after its teaching had lost influence, that the gradual reconstruction of
economic theory showed that what defects there were in its basic concepts had
invalidated its explanation of the working of the economic system to a much
smaller degree than had at first seemed probable. But in the interval
irreparable harm had been done. The downfall of the classical system tended to
discredit the very idea of theoretical analysis, and it was attempted to
substitute for an understanding of the why of economic phenomena a mere
description of their occurrence. in consequence, the comprehension of the nature
of the economic problem, the achievement of generations of teaching, was lost.
The economists who were still interested in general analysis were far too much
concerned with the reconstructing of the purely abstract foundations of economic
science to exert a noticeable influence on opinion regarding policy.

It was largely owing to this temporary eclipse of analytical economics that the
real problems connected with the suggestions of a planned economy have received
so surprisingly little careful examination. But this eclipse itself was by no
means only due to the inherent weaknesses and the consequent need for
reconstruction of the old economics. Nor would it have had the same effect if it
had not coincided with the rise of another movement definitely hostile to
rational methods in economics. The common cause which at the same time
undermined the position of economic theory and furthered the growth of a school
of socialism, which positively discouraged any speculation of the actual working
of the society of the future, was the rise of the so-called historical school
in economics.1 For it was the essence of the standpoint of this school, that
the laws of economics could only be established by the application to the
material of history of the methods of the natural sciences. And the nature of
this material is such that any such attempt is bound to degenerate into mere
record and description and a total scepticism concerning the existence of any
laws at all.

It is not difficult to see why this should happen. In all sciences except those
which deal with social phenomena all that experience shows us is the result of
processes which we cannot directly observe and which it is our task to
reconstruct. All our conclusions concerning the nature of these processes are of
necessity hypothetical, and the only test of the validity of these hypotheses is
that they prove equally applicable to the explanation of other phenomena. And
what enables us to arrive by this process of induction at the formulation of
general laws or hypotheses
regarding the process of causation is the fact that the possibility of
experimenting, of observing the repetition of the same phenomena under
identical conditions, shows the existence of definite regularities in the
observed phenomena.

in the social sciences, however, the situation is the exact reverse. 0n the one
hand, experiment is impossible, and we have therefore no
knowledge of definite regularities in the complex phenomena in the same sense as
we have in the natural sciences. But on the other hand the
position of man, midway between natural and social phenomenaiof the one of which
he is an effect and of the other a causesibrings it about
that the essential basic facts which we need for the explanation of social
phenomena are part of common experience, part of the stuff of our
thinking. in the social sciences it is the elements of the complex phenomena
which are known beyond the possibility of dispute. in the natural
sciences they can only be at best surmised. The existence of these elements is
so much more certain than any regularities in the complex phe-
nomena to which they give rise, that it is they which constitute the truly
empirical factor in the social sciences. There can be little doubt that it
is this different position of the empirical factor in the process of reasoning
in the two groups of disciplines which is at the root of much of the
confusion with regard to their logical character. There can be no doubt, the
social as well as natural sciences have to employ deductive reason-
ing. The essential difference is that in the natural sciences the process of
deduction has to start from some hypothesis which is the result of in-
ductive generalizations, while in the social sciences it starts directly from
known empirical elements and uses them to find the regularities in
the complex phenomena which direct observations cannot establish. They are, so
to speak, empirically deductive sciences, proceeding from the
known elements to the regularities in the complex phenomena which cannot be
directly established. But this is not the place to discuss ques-
tions of methodology for their own sake. Our concern is only to show how it came
that in the era of the great triumphs of empiricism in the
natural sciences the attempt to force the same empirical methods on the social
sciences was bound to lead to disaster. To start here at the
wrong end, to seek for regularities of complex phenomena which could never be
observed twice under identical conditions, could not but lead
to the conclusion that there were no general laws, no inherent necessities
determined by the permanent nature of the constituting elements,
and that the only task of economic science in particular was a description of
historical change. it was only with this abandonment of the appro-
priate methods of procedure, well established in the classical period, that it
began to be thought that there were no other laws of social life
than those made by men, that all observed phenomena were all only the product of
social or legal institutions, merely “historical categories”
and not in any way arising out of the basic economic problems which humanity has
to face.

knowledge of definite regularities in the complex phenomena in the same sense as
we have in the natural sciences. But on the other hand the
position of man, midway between natural and social phenomenaiof the one of which
he is an effect and of the other a causesibrings it about
that the essential basic facts which we need for the explanation of social
phenomena are part of common experience, part of the stuff of our
thinking. in the social sciences it is the elements of the complex phenomena
which are known beyond the possibility of dispute. in the natural
sciences they can only be at best surmised. The existence of these elements is
so much more certain than any regularities in the complex phe-
nomena to which they give rise, that it is they which constitute the truly
empirical factor in the social sciences. There can be little doubt that it
is this different position of the empirical factor in the process of reasoning
in the two groups of disciplines which is at the root of much of the
confusion with regard to their logical character. There can be no doubt, the
social as well as natural sciences have to employ deductive reason-
ing. The essential difference is that in the natural sciences the process of
deduction has to start from some hypothesis which is the result of in-
ductive generalizations, while in the social sciences it starts directly from
known empirical elements and uses them to find the regularities in
the complex phenomena which direct observations cannot establish. They are, so
to speak, empirically deductive sciences, proceeding from the
known elements to the regularities in the complex phenomena which cannot be
directly established. But this is not the place to discuss ques-
tions of methodology for their own sake. Our concern is only to show how it came
that in the era of the great triumphs of empiricism in the
natural sciences the attempt to force the same empirical methods on the social
sciences was bound to lead to disaster. To start here at the
wrong end, to seek for regularities of complex phenomena which could never be
observed twice under identical conditions, could not but lead
to the conclusion that there were no general laws, no inherent necessities
determined by the permanent nature of the constituting elements,
and that the only task of economic science in particular was a description of
historical change. it was only with this abandonment of the appro-
priate methods of procedure, well established in the classical period, that it
began to be thought that there were no other laws of social life
than those made by men, that all observed phenomena were all only the product of
social or legal institutions, merely “historical categories”
and not in any way arising out of the basic economic problems which humanity has
to face.

 

The next installment will be The Attitude of Marxism.  It should be a very good read for the socialists around here.

Edited September 17, 2015 by joeb

[joeb]

Here is The Attitude of Marxism.  It's short and sweet.

4. THE ATTITUDE 0F MARXISM

In many respects the most powerful school of socialism the world has so far seen is essentially a product of this kind of “Historismus”. Al-
though in some points Karl Marx adopted the tools of the classical economists, he made little use of their main permanent contribution, their
analysis of competition. But he did wholeheartedly accept the central contention of the historical school that most of the phenomena of eco-
nomic life were not the result of permanent causes but only the product of a special historical development. it is no accident that the country
where the historical school had had the greatest vogue, Germany, was also the country where Marxism was most readily accepted.

The fact that this most influential school of socialism was so closely related to the general antitheoretical tendencies in the social sciences of
the time had a most profound effect on all further discussion of the real problems of socialism. Not only did the whole outlook create a peculiar
inability to see any of the permanent economic problems which are independent of the historical framework, but Marx and the Marxians also
proceeded, quite consistently, positively to discourage any inquiry into the actual organization and working of the socialist society of the future.
if the change was to be brought about by the inexorable logic of history, if it was the inevitable result of evolution, there was little need for
knowing in detail what exactly the new society would be like. And if nearly all the factors which determined economic activity in the present
society would be absent, if there would be no problems in the new society except those determined by the new institutions which the process
of historical change would have created, then there was indeed little possibility of solving any of its problems beforehand. Marx himself had on-
ly scorn and ridicule for any such attempt deliberately to construct a working plan of such an “utopia”. Only occasionally, and then in this nega-
tive form, do we find in his works statements about what the new society would not be like. One may search his writings in vain for any defi-
nite statement of the general principles on which the economic activity in the socialist community would be directed.1

Marx’s attitude on this point had a lasting effect on the socialist of his school. To speculate about the actual organization of the socialist soci-
ety immediately stigmatized the unfortunate writer as being “unscientific” the most dreaded condemnation to which a member of the “scien-
tific” school of socialism could expose himself. But even outside the Marxian camp the common descent of all modern branches of socialism
from some essentially historical or “institutional” view of economic phenomena had the effect of successfully smothering all attempts to study
the problems any constructive socialist policy would have to solve. As we shall see later, it was only in reply to criticism from the outside that
this task was ultimately undertaken.

 

[Bravus]

If I wanted to read Hayek I'd read it on paper.

I don't particularly, but I will if you'll read Piketty.

[joeb]

If I wanted to read Hayek I'd read it on paper.

I don't particularly, but I will if you'll read Piketty.

I knew you hadn't read much of anything I've posted.  However, much of what I've posted here is only available in digital format.  The Road to Serfdom is the only book of Hayek's that I know of that is currently published.  The rest of it is mainly position papers he wrote and analysis of positions taken by economists who subscribe to the same school of thought Piketty does.   I think it would be pretty difficult to get paper copies of his writings now. 

I have to laugh at Piketty's basic idea.  He is looking at the only period in the history of the world that the common poor man has ever been able to improve his position in the world economically, and have liberty of conscience and thought.  He ignores all the previous history of the world when centralized government was THE way to govern and the little guy had zero chance to improve his lot in life or live according to his conscience.  And then he concludes that this economic and moral liberty is a terrible thing, and that we need government to set the moral agenda.   Do you not see he is going right back the tyrannical ways of doing things?  Economic and moral liberty are very closely associated with each other.  Take away one and you take away the other. 

What you are basically advocating is arbitrary government, and arbitrary government is totalitarianism.  There is no way around it.  And, your basic belief is that people are not capable of making good moral decisions about what to do with the wealth they have earned.  Many wealthy, and many even not so wealthy, help a lot of their fellow men who are down on their luck.  What you advocate is taking their money away from them at the point of the government's gun, giving it to the most inefficient organization known to man(government bureaucracy) who will give it to whoever they please even if what they do violates the beliefs and consciences of who they take the money away from.  Do you not see the spirit of totalitarianism in this? 

The individual will help those who he knows: his friends, neighbors, and relatives.  He will use his money carefully, making sure that it is used efficiently.  He will not help those who will not help themselves, and that is his right.  It's very Biblical.  It is also very moral not to enable those who are hurting themselves or others(their kids) like government aid does. He will provide groceries to those who are hungry but would spend any money they were given on self-destruction.  Those who will work he will help find a job, or hire them himself if he can.  This I know from experience.  What you advocate is taking that money, and thus ability to help others with it, away from the individual and spending it against his will.  It's totalitarianism....  I think you know this, but your ideology governs you and you will not admit the true character of what you want to do.   You want to punish those who produce, and the more they produce the more you want to punish them.  And you want to use the government to enforce that. 

Now, is this world very moral?  Of course not.  No one is saying it is.  But, and it is a big BUT, what you want to do is worse, far worse, than what exists now.  Your ideas, when implemented, stamp out individual morality and replace it with a morality enforced by government.  Once again, there is no liberty in that.  It is totalitarianism.   It is the antithesis of liberty of conscience.