Mises vs. Marx

By -

 Ludwig von Mises attempted to dismiss Marx's class analysis based on the fact that capitalists compete with each other for capital, for workers, and for customers.

All that is true. And yet it does not refute Marx.

Consider: the football players on the Bengals compete with each other for playing minutes.

And yet when they go up against the Rams, they will all unite to help defeat this opponent.

People can compete within some class, and yet unite as a class when faced with a challenge from a different class.

Comments

  1. BZ12:34 AM

    I think another issue that libertarians have whenever they debate Marxists is that the 2 groups have fundamentally different definitions of capitalists. Marxists use the popular definition (a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism) while libertarians seem to use a much broader definition of anyone who participates in a capitalist system and earns their living through market principles. This is why most libertarians don't believe in a class framework as in their minds, both workers and owners of capital are both groups of individuals that compete and sell their services and employment to one another through market principles. I personally dislike both definitions. The first is too specific while the 2nd is too broad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BZ11:34 PM

    Just a quick question. Do you still believe that US states should have the right to secede?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Machine Learning"

By -
 The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more