Ask a Red III

[Smellincoffee]

Are there any formal responses to the critiques of planning made by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and The Fatal Conceit?

I've been digging for responses to Hayek over at Revleft, but all I've found are just casual mentions of his or von Mises' name.

 

[innonimatu]

Are there any formal responses to the critiques of planning made by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and The Fatal Conceit?

I've been digging for responses to Hayek over at Revleft, but all I've found are just casual mentions of his or von Mises' name.

But what critique? The problem with addressing anything written by von Mises and later Hayek is that their whole work rests on fantasy. Their aversion for planning was a political position, their economic writings an attempt to prove that there was some superior alternative which involved no planning.

For a critique of them you may as well check what Keynes had to say I think that as an important economist some of his writings are also available at marxists.org. For example, in the General Theory he dismisses them in two paragraphs:

A peculiar theory of the rate of interest has been propounded by Professor von Mises and adopted from him by Professor Hayek and also, I think, by Professor Robbins; namely, that changes in the rate of interest can be identified with changes in the relative price levels of consumption-goods and capital-goods.[9] It is not clear how this conclusion is reached. But the argument seems to run as follows. By a somewhat drastic simplification the marginal efficiency of capital is taken as measured by the ratio of the supply price of new consumers’ goods to the supply price of new producers’ goods.[10] This is then identified with the rate of interest. The fact is called to notice that a fall in the rate of interest is favourable to investment. Ergo, a fall in the ratio of the price of consumers’ goods to the price of producers’ goods is favourable to investment.

By this means a link is established between increased saving by an individual and increased aggregate investment. For it is common ground that increased individual saving will cause a fall in the price of consumers’ goods, and, quite possibly, a greater fall than in the price of producers’ goods, hence, according to the above reasoning, it means a reduction in the rate of interest which will stimulate investment. But, of course, a lowering of the marginal efficiency of particular capital assets, and hence a lowering of the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital in general, has exactly the opposite effect to what the argument assumes. For investment is stimulated either by a raising of the schedule of the marginal efficiency or by a lowering of the rate of interest. As a result of confusing the marginal efficiency of capital with the rate of interest, Professor von Mises and is disciples have got their conclusions exactly the wrong way round.

 

[Mouthwash]

1. Why are so many communists atheists? Are there a larger number of religious communists today than in the past?

2. What are some good communist forums to debate on (with actual educated people, not money-hating hippies)?

 

[Takhisis]

1. They take 'religion is the opiate of the people' to a very literal interpretation. Also, by positive feedbak, some religions denounce Communism, so this goes back and forth. Nowadays you can say that football is an opiate to the masses. Or cheap action flicks. Or whatever else is used to shape people's ideals. But then again, it's people applying something that a German Jew said about mid-nineteenth century England/Northwestern Europe 150 years later…

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

1. Why are so many communists atheists?

Well Marx has some memorable things to say about religion, but it has to be remembered that Marxism arose in the time period that atheism was becoming vogue in intellectual spheres, and at least tolerated by the public. It was cool to be atheist, especially when religion in the 19th century had taken such a sharp turn towards evangelism and conservative revivalism, and so appeared all the more ridiculous to more educated people.

Part of it has to do with Marxism's concern with the aliquot parts of capitalist society. I think we've all seen the "pyramid of capitalism" diagram before. Religion is another way of controlling people, and the ruling class or party throughout history has always sought the approval of religion; even the Soviets tried to use the Russian Orthodox Church and the Muslim authorities (in those parts of Sovnarkom/USSR )toward that end, during the 1920s and before the persecution of religion. Marx said what he did about religion because of the message it sends about tolerating temporal pains so that one can reap the eternal rewards, and thus naturally serves as an impetus against social reaction to oppression.

That is not a purely Marxist observation, either. I can specifically remember similar statements in Nietzsche and Kipling, though I couldn't give you a citation.

Are there a larger number of religious communists today than in the past?

Difficult to say. Socialism arose as a popular ideology thanks to some Christian sects who were motivated to create idyllic societies. Those socialists, the people Marx and Engels call the Utopians, were either not Marxist or pre-Marxist. Marxist socialism is strictly concerned with giving rise to socialism as a social evolution from capitalism, and the forces that drive such paradigm shifts. Utopians are more what you might call communal, rather than communist. Their interest lies in creating a separate society for themselves, which will function in a way that its members deem to be egalitarian and maximally desirable. I would say that if religious communists were more popular in one of those two groups, it would be the Utopians.

2. What are some good communist forums to debate on (with actual educated people, not money-hating hippies)?

I wouldn't know. I think CFC has some nice debates on the subject, thanks to our excellent staff of Marxists and communists, and people well-versed in the subjects.

 

[Mouthwash]

How do you intend to actually implement communism? The working classes in most developed countries aren't exactly suffering right now, so I'm not really seeing any revolution or social change in the foreseeable future. What exactly do you predict will happen with communism? Traitorfish seemed very assured that it would happen eventually.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How do you intend to actually implement communism?

It's not something that's implemented, it's a state of relations. It's something you reach.

The working classes in most developed countries aren't exactly suffering right now,

I suppose this is an attempt at humor.

so I'm not really seeing any revolution or social change in the foreseeable future.

So said the Tsar in 1916.

What exactly do you predict will happen with communism? Traitorfish seemed very assured that it would happen eventually.

I don't understand the question.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's not something that's implemented, it's a state of relations. It's something you reach.

I suspected that might be your position (you don't seem like the "revolution" type). So I asked you below what you thought would happen with communism in the future and how the world would eventually become communist, but you didn't understand the question, evidently.

I suppose this is an attempt at humor.

Wait, you actually believe most people in developed countries are suffering?

So said the Tsar in 1916.

I'm not good at fallacy trivial, so I can't name precisely which one this is.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I suspected that might be your position (you don't seem like the "revolution" type).

I don't see how that's an anti-revolutionary attitude. What I said was, communism isn't something you implement. You can't just storm into the capital, snap your fingers, give a few orders and read a few declarations, and *bam* now there's communism.

Hell, the point isn't that socialism is something to follow the revolution: the revolution will be brought about by socialism, and will legitimize and secure it. Organization of the working class to act against the system will build 90% of socialism before their actions succeed. The revolution will simply destroy what remains of the old order, and protect the social organization the workers themselves have created. Those forces which brought about the revolution will continue to work, moving more and more power to the people, until one day there happens to be no state and no capitalism anywhere. Then there will be communism.

Wait, you actually believe most people in developed countries are suffering?

Wait, you don't? I can only surmise that you exist very far from any sort of production process.

I'm not good at fallacy trivial, so I can't name precisely which one this is.

Who ever foresees a revolution?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, you don't? I can only surmise that you exist very far from any sort of production process.

I must say that I've never gotten the impression that most people in the West were suffering. I don't know if you had "The West" in mind when you said "Suffering", as I suppose a country like China could also fit the definition of "Developed" yet workers are indeed abused there regularly.

 

[sophie]

I must say that I've never gotten the impression that most people in the West were suffering. I don't know if you had "The West" in mind when you said "Suffering", as I suppose a country like China could also fit the definition of "Developed" yet workers are indeed abused there regularly.

See: Cheezy's point above.

 

[Mouthwash]

Wait, you don't? I can only surmise that you exist very far from any sort of production process.

"Suffering" is relative. Some statistics for the US:

● Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

● Fully 92 percent of poor households have a microwave; two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR.

● Nearly 75 percent have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

● Four out of five poor adults assert they were never hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.

● Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.

● Half have a personal computer; one in seven have two or more computers.

● More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation.

● Just under half — 43 percent — have Internet access.

● A third have a widescreen plasma or LCD TV.

● One in every four has a digital video recorder such as TiVo.

● At a single point in time, only one in 70 poor persons is homeless.

● The vast majority of the houses or apartments of the poor are in good repair; only 6 percent are over-crowded.

● The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.

● Only 10 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers; half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, while 40 percent live in apartments.

● Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home; on average, it’s a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277040/strange-facts-about-america-s-poor-robert-rector

Who ever foresees a revolution?

Sociologists, political scientists, geostrategists, etc.

 

[ace99]

How many of them predicted the Arab Spring?

 

[Hygro]

Mouthwash, it doesn't take much to realize that that list doesn't bolster your argument...

 

[Mouthwash]

How many of them predicted the Arab Spring?

I think that revolutions would be pretty common in multiethnic, artificial, dirt poor, despotic, militarized states where Islamic fundamentalism is rampant.

 

[ace99]

It's interesting how almost none those words are accurate descriptions of any of the Arab Spring states. The answer is virtually no one predicted it, and that it would spread.

Let alone the fact its from the National Review with the guy who wrote it from the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Mouthwash]

Mouthwash, it doesn't take much to realize that that list doesn't bolster your argument...

Why not?

 

[Takhisis]

Eeek! I spent a lot of time replying to Cheezy and everyone posted a lot.

Well Marx has some memorable things to say about religion, but it has to be remembered that Marxism arose in the time period that atheism was becoming vogue in intellectual spheres, and at least tolerated by the public. It was cool to be atheist, especially when religion in the 19th century had taken such a sharp turn towards evangelism and conservative revivalism, and so appeared all the more ridiculous to more educated people.

Part of it has to do with Marxism's concern with the aliquot parts of capitalist society. I think we've all seen the "pyramid of capitalism" diagram before. Religion is another way of controlling people, and the ruling class or party throughout history has always sought the approval of religion; even the Soviets tried to use the Russian Orthodox Church and the Muslim authorities (in those parts of Sovnarkom/USSR )toward that end, during the 1920s and before the persecution of religion. Marx said what he did about religion because of the message it sends about tolerating temporal pains so that one can reap the eternal rewards, and thus naturally serves as an impetus against social reaction to oppression.

That is not a purely Marxist observation, either. I can specifically remember similar statements in Nietzsche and Kipling, though I couldn't give you a citation.

Have you ever had a religion, Cheez? Your vision of them sounds… skewed. There's as many shades of belief as there are believers, and only the official interpretation(s) tend(ed) to prevent change. You can interpret the bible/Quran/text of your choice in a very communistic way or any other way if you are deft enough.

I don't see how that's an anti-revolutionary attitude. What I said was, communism isn't something you implement. You can't just storm into the capital, snap your fingers, give a few orders and read a few declarations, and *bam* now there's communism.

Yet curiously enough, that's what self-appointed Communists around the world like the Kim clan, Chávez in Venezuela, etc. etc. have done, creating a wrong impression in the minds of people who haven't ever read Marx. Or Engels, or many others.

Hell, the point isn't that socialism is something to follow the revolution: the revolution will be brought about by socialism, and will legitimize and secure it. Organization of the working class to act against the system will build 90% of socialism before their actions succeed. The revolution will simply destroy what remains of the old order, and protect the social organization the workers themselves have created. Those forces which brought about the revolution will continue to work, moving more and more power to the people, until one day there happens to be no state and no capitalism anywhere. Then there will be communism.

The revolution needn't be violent.

Wait, you don't? I can only surmise that you exist very far from any sort of production process.

That's the entire point of improving conditions at the workplace, keep the workers happy so that they don't revolt. The most egregious example is the über-capitalist machine, Google.

Who ever foresees a revolution?

'Nothing important happened today'.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sociologists, political scientists, geostrategists, etc.

Examples?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Have you ever had a religion, Cheez? Your vision of them sounds… skewed. There's as many shades of belief as there are believers, and only the official interpretation(s) tend(ed) to prevent change. You can interpret the bible/Quran/text of your choice in a very communistic way or any other way if you are deft enough.

I was baptized Episcopal and raised Baptist. If you read this thread, you will discover that I came to the communist morality by way of Christianity. It was only later (but not much later) that I discovered Marx.

Yet curiously enough, that's what self-appointed Communists around the world like the Kim clan, Chávez in Venezuela, etc. etc. have done, creating a wrong impression in the minds of people who haven't ever read Marx. Or Engels, or many others.

Yes.

The revolution needn't be violent.

I disagree. Violence, on some level, will be forced.

That's the entire point of improving conditions at the workplace, keep the workers happy so that they don't revolt. The most egregious example is the über-capitalist machine, Google.

I don't understand; are you saying this to me, or as a supplemental to my statement? Because I should think you would know or realize how I feel about this.