Well, if you admit that Marxian economics can’t be reconciled with the austrian tradition then the only other major aspects of Marx’s social philosophy is that which was infuensed by Hegel and Marx own vision of communism and historical materialism (both heavily influenced by Marx’s hegelian and messianic predecessors). I shall not go into a long discussion about Hegels philosophy, sufficed to say, if you honestly think that Hegels legacy can be of value to the austrian tradition then I think youre in the wrong forum Donny.
Let me give one example of the Hegelian legacy, which you happened to mention yourself, namenly the concept of “alienation”
Marx notion of alienation can not in any way be reconciled with the austrian tradition. To Marx, “alienation” had nothing to do with the psychological feeling of anxiety or estrangement, if that’s what you think (it’s hard for me to know since your post doesn’t actually give any arguments what so ever to WHY Marx social philosophy would be valuable to the austrian). “Alienation” was rather something more cosmic. Alienation came to be, according to Marx and Hegel, as a result of the institution of money, specialization and the division of labor and these “evils” had to be abolished so to unite the collective organism that is man. In Marx philosophy, mans “alienation” would end only when these “evils” had been eradicated by the proletarian revolution followed by the establishing of a communist society.
And please, don’t assume that I haven’t read anything by Marx. Long before I came in contact with the writings of Mises and Rothbard I read Rawls, Marx, Prodhound and his likes, I was never particularly impressed with anyone of them, if there is anything of value in their writings it is usually much better stated and argued for by the french liberal school of economics such as Bastiat, or by the Austrian school such as Hoppe or Rothbard. I’m not interested in utopian dreams, meaningless observations/categories, I only care about the moral, methodological and economic theory of these traditions and as I stated before, in comparing marxism with austrianism, they are very close to being each others opposites.
I don’t think your interpretation of Marxian alienation is correct. My reading is captured here, here and here.
As for Hegelian philosophy somehow being contrary to Austrian thinking, you’ll have to expand on that. I acknowledge that Hegel’s understanding of history was quite effectively disputed by Mises in Theory and History, but it’s not exactly like Hegel’s only contribution to philosophy was his theory of history. Hegel’s views on the good life, for example, are completely compatible with Austrian thinking, and are totally consistent with Hayek’s and Nozick’s perspectives on the importance of individual planning and the quest to bring one’s material existence into line with one’s own values and worldview. As Marx characterized the idea in “Estranged Labour,” “…man produces himself not only intellectually, in his consciousness, but actively and actually, and he can therefore contemplate himself in a world he himself has created.” That’s a point that can resonate with Austrians as well as Marxians and Hegelians.
Regarding my belonging on this forum, I’m not sure that you’re in much of a position to make that kind of statement, given that I’ve been skulking around this community since '06 (when we were still over at the Austrian Forum), and it looks like you’ve been here for less than a year. Be nice (please).
I thought it was a great position. He questioned your membership on ideology, not veterancy. George Bush is old enough to be your father, but I don’t think he has anything of value to teach you.
I think you are missing the profound influence that Aristotle had on Hegel and Marx. Marx’s critiques, right or wrong, and especially his idea of alienation is related to the way in which a social system conforms to and fulfills the nature of man.
You are missing the forest for the trees in this sense. The Austrian school shares a great deal of its rationalism, through Aristotle with Marx and Hegel.
I have found that many Marxists can appreciate the ideas of the Austrian School, than those who adhere to a dogmatic form of Humean empiricism.
Can Marxism be reconciled with the Austrian school qua Austrian school? No, not really, but can one be influenced by Marx and influenced by the Austrian School, yes. This is seen through people like Theodore Burczak who synthesize the economic critiques of Hayek with a Marxian account of appropriative justice.
I find it amusing that people on this forum are opposed to people who are influenced by Austrians, but do not necessarily drink the koolaid, and accept all facets of their philosophy.
For example, I integrate elements of the communitarian critique of liberalism, in my defense of a form of perfectionist liberalism. I am still a liberal, but this does not mean I must necessarily accept Locke, Rothbard and Hoppe without question.
Agree with you on most points, but regarding perfectionism, have you looked into the works of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl yet? They both defend classical liberalism from the vantage point of perfectionist ethics.
Liberty student, do you think that over the course of the past two years or so, I’ve been out of place here? My point had nothing to do with “seniority” or anything like it; I was pointing out that I’ve been around this community for a while with no problem, and I don’t think he’s in any position to try to call me out as if I were some sort of outsider who didn’t understand how things work around here. I didn’t take much offense to the statement, I’m just saying that he should tone down the rhetoric. No hard feelings, I hope.
I don’t care who people draw on as long as it is rational and consistent. I do sometimes wonder about gleaning 10% of Marx, when the other 90% is so badly misguided. But hey, anything is possible right?
I recently began a project of sorts, critiquing Molyneux’s “Introduction to Philosophy.” I should be able to go about one video a day, I put my first one up tonight.
Any commentary or corrections would be appreciated.
You made an argument about how long you have been around, not an argument against his issue with your position. Someone could show up here tomorrow and be more insightful and knowledgeable than all of us. Defend the merit of your position, not the lack of criticism or oversight.
I’m more concerned with what you think than how you express it. Lately, I’ve been concerned by some of your positions. Regardless, you won’t get a pass (and shouldn’t) from anyone based upon how long you have been promoting ideas if the ideas themselves are up for challenge.
I have Liberty and Nature, and I read the first third of the book a couple years ago, when I was much more philosophically illiterate,so I did not gather much from it, but I do plan to read through it over this summer, but am far too busy with school at the moment.
My broad acceptance of perfectionist ethics comes from the fact I do not think that the right can be distinguished from the good, without presupposing a conception of the good. It makes no sense to speak of “rights” without appealing to a concept of the good life. Without this conception of the good life, appeals to rights can be reduced to appeals to fairness or equality in some way, which are substantive values that need justification.
SIGH, I’m sure you can digg up plenty of more details in Hegels and Marx writings that could, possibly, be logically consistent with austrian theory, but I’m interested in the BIG picture, not some anecdote about the “good life”. The bottom line is, all the main traits in Marx philosophy; historical materialism, the dialectical process, the labour theory of value, the class struggle, his theory of capitalism and it’s inevitable demise and communism are directly opposed, in one way or another, to the austrian philosophy. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what is necessary for two philosophys to be in agreement with one another.
In my initial post I wrote that it’s really up to you to prove why Marx is of value to the austrian school, NOT the otherway around, I don’t feel like I have to prove anything, if this bothers you then don’t reply. So if you want this discussion to go any further you can start with the basics: how is it that praxeology can be in harmony with Marx’s historical materialism and the dialectical process? You will find even the most basic task like this to be impossible, there is probably no place in Marx system where he is fuzzier or shakier then at it’s base: the concept of historical materialism, the key to the inevitable dialectic of history. Then compare that with Mises writings on praxeology and methodology, are you honestly gonna tell me these philosphys don’t contradict?
I just don’t feel like wasting anymore time on this discussion unless you start showing me how the Marxian philosphy is of value to the austrians and by philosophy I don’t mean just some little quote you have dugg up from an old forum post, prove to me logically why it is the case, argue!
So what you’re suggesting is that this forum should be hesitant to tolerate the presence of people who don’t take positions that you’re comfortable with? Actually, I don’t care. This conversation should be over.
Aesthetic bend, could you clarify what sort of perfectionism you have in mind? I was under the impression that rights don’t really play a substantive role in perfectionist theories, but that could be totally wrong…
Morty, from the beginning of your recording, it just sounds like Stefan was advancing logical positivism…
The idea of rights as a rhetorical device that justifies the ability of the individual to act a certain way unencumbered by coercion is not done away with by perfectionism, but the rights certainly cannot be viewed in a Kantian sense.
Rights are not foundational, but rather they are expressions of what is necessary for the good life. So, a right to liberty in this framework is making a very different claim from a right in an anti-perfectionist theory. Though, what is defended by the claim of a right to liberty by a perfectionist and an anti-perfectionist are the same.
Well the original point was that in light of my position, I might not belong on this forum. I objected, saying that I’ve been around here a long time. You objected to my objection, saying that my long standing presence here proves nothing. From the fact that you took the original poster’s side, and dismissed my counterargument, I inferred that you might be suggesting that the original poster was justified in saying that I might not belong here. You seemed to reinforce this interpretation by pointing out that you were “uncomfortable” with some of the things I’ve said lately. But I phrased my reply as a question, as I was fully aware that I may have misinterpreted your point. In any case, this is a really unpleasant conversation, and I’d prefer if it were over.
Aestheticbend, in what way does the perfectionism you describe differ from utilitarianism? Or is it a Socratic sort of utilitarianism, in that it focuses on what would actually be good for people, as opposed to what they in fact desire or what might make them feel happiest?
You wanna know what I think is unpleasant? The fact that two of the most misguided, evil thinkers in human history, Hegel and Marx, are according to you a great source of inspiration when you call yourself a libertarian.
It would probably be best described as a form of socratic utilitarianism. I distinguish between volitional well being and critical well being. But, I do think that certain values are incommensurable so when i say the good, I am not referring to it in the same sense as a singular concept like utility. The good consists in achieving a whole host of incommensurable secondary goods.