Hello everyone. I’m a Venezuelan-American (that’s right, Chavez and the whole nine yards) and libertarian college student. I used to be a Marxist-Leninist and frequent RevLeft, and I’ve left that whole scene behind. I think socialism is a great idea on paper, but state planning and the absence of a market mechanism and private property, which I’ve come to accept are natural, render it unworkable in real life, as the fall of the USSR shows. I don’t really know what I am now other than libertarian. I’m flirting with anarcho-capitalism, but I don’t know yet. I’m just here to learn and to hopefully broaden my horizons.
So to start: I’ve heard a lot about the Austrian school’s axioms, can someone explain what those are and what they mean?
Just 1 axiom. That man acts. Theres also the axiom of man prefering leisure to labour all things being equal, but that is deducable from the first through time preference
Welcome! Glad you escaped from that despotic idiot caudillo. Too bad our own wannabe-dictator Obama is taking us down the same miserable path in this country.
I’ve been libertarian for nearly twenty years, but was a leftist until I was 19, so I understand where you’re coming from. And while I’ve been libertarian for a long time, I’ve only recently decided to study Austrian economics seriously, so I know how overwhelming it can be!
Congratulations for shattering the shackles of socialist thought. I wasted at least 10 years after college, stuck in the socialistic quagmire. You can find reading lists on the forum or searching under the Home page.
Do you really think socialism is a great idea on paper? I think it’s a disaster on paper or anywhere else it is imposed.
Try this for starters: A Note on Mathematical Economics
My economics informs my politics so, in my opinion, get a handle on the economics first. Once you grasp the mechanics of wealth creation you’ll be better equipped to make a decision with regards to how comfortable you are with entrusting a group of men with the creation of rules that directly impact your ability to affect your own material well-being.
Isn’t there also an axiom (or some other term used to describe) about preference? I remember reading that a tenet of Austrian theory is that a man always has a preference, that by choosing or taking action he has expressed a preference and they reject the idea of acting with ‘no preference’ as Classical Economists do.
I struggled with that a bit because if one walks into a closet and picks out a blue shirt, he obviously has a preference for ‘blue shirt.’ But if he simply reaches into his ‘shirt’ and blindly selects a shirt, he has only show preference for ‘shirt’ and has no preference for what kind, color, or style it is. So can’t you take action and make choices without having a preference? A niggling thought I kept having.
Welcome!
Austrian economics’ axioms are important in order to understand the fundamentals of economics, Human Action by Mises is the best way to get into Austrian thinking in deep.
A little remark about the "socialism-works-in-theory-but-not-in-practice thing, as a prominent argentinian libertarian theorist said: “… constituye un contrasentido sostener que una teoría puede ser acertada “pero no funciona en la práctica” puesto que la teoría es, precisamente, el explicación de la práctica. Una teoría puede ser acertada o desacertada, la primera debe adoptarse mientras que debe rechazarse la segunda, pero por el principio de no contradicción una teoría no puede ser acertada y desacertada a la vez.”
For those who can’t read English: " It is a contradiction to argue that a theory may be correct “but not work when applied” because the theory is precisely the explanation of the practice. A theory may be right or wrong, the former must be taken while the second be rejected, but by the principle of no-contradiction a theory can not be accurate and wrong at the same time"
Welcome! I agree that socialism on paper seems like a great idea, in that it is nice to think of those who are born smarter, more capable, and luckier of helping out those that are not. However, as we all come to understand, the state does a terrible job of this, and actually makes things far worse for those that are less fortunate.
You might mean any number of things by “great idea on paper”, and enough people have been curious about it that I hope you’ll elaborate. But as a point of comparison, when I was a leftist I thought the state should take action because I wanted to ensure the well-being of the working class – those who are not on top. The problem was that I was naive about the role of the state. It doesn’t exist to keep elites in check, it exists to further elites’ interests at the expense of everyone else. So since the state is such an ideal instrument of oppression, best to do away with it.
That’s no longer the only reason I oppose the state, but it’s the one most relevant here, probably, since at that time I too might have said that it’s a great idea on paper.
By “great idea on paper,” I mean it certainly has noble intentions, however misguided and impractical they are. The idea that all of humanity can just cooperate, work hard for the benefit of all, and share everything freely so that no one is ever left wanting is one of the oldest and most tempting ones. Problem is, when you do that you curb individual freedom and breed laziness and dependence on the system, economic issues aside.
I think that still is a noble idea. I think the problem is that socialist means for those ends are illogical and those ends will not be met due to the way (means) they go about it. The free market offers incentive for cooperation; and if interventialism (the act towards socialism) wasn’t present, then everything would be shared freely, meaning, in liberty/voluntarily without the interventialism attached which isn’t voluntary action. It is violent action due to “socialist means for those ends are illogical…” [run full circle back to the reason why]
The system where everyone cooperates for mutual gain is capitalism.
I once wrote up in bullet-point what socialism/communism is. At the top of the list is installing a dictatorship, stealing all private property and shooting all dissenters. Then a number of the other steps down the list also include shooting any dissenters.
It does not look good on paper. It looks like a nightmare on paper.
"Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself-should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.”
If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory.The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith.
To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal." - Murray N. Rothbard, Egalitarianism is a Revolt Against Nature
…
"For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on its side; the Conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the “impracticality” of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory,” but that it cannot “work” in practical life. What the Conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the “ideal” to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat. For if one side is granted ethics and the “ideal” from the start, then that side will be able to effect gradual but sure changes in its own direction; and as these changes accumulate, the stigma of “impracticality” becomes less and less directly relevant. The Conservative opposition, having staked its all on the seemingly firm ground of the “practical” (that is, the status quo) is doomed to lose as the status quo moves further in the left direction. The fact that the unreconstructed Stalinists are universally considered to be the “Conservatives” in the Soviet Union is a happy logical joke upon conservatism; for in Russia the unrepentant statists are indeed the repositories of at least a superficial “practicality” and of a clinging to the existing status quo.
Never has the virus of “practicality” been more widespread than in the United States, for Americans consider themselves a “practical” people, and hence, the opposition to the Left, while originally stronger than elsewhere, has been perhaps the least firm at its foundation. It is now the advocates of the free market and the free society who have to meet the common charge of “impracticality.”
In no area has the Left been granted justice and morality as extensively and almost universally as in its espousal of massive equality. It is rare indeed in the United States to find anyone, especially any intellectual, challenging the beauty and goodness of the egalitarian ideal. So committed is everyone to this ideal that “impracticality” - that is, the weakening of economic incentives - has been virtually the only criticism against even the most bizarre egalitarian programs. The inexorable march of egalitarianism is indication enough of the impossibility of avoiding ethical commitments; the fiercely “practical” Americans, in attempting to avoid ethical doctrines, cannot help setting forth such doctrines, but they can now only do so in unconscious, ad hoc, and unsystematic fashion. Keynes’s famous insight that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist” - is true all the more of ethical judgments and ethical theory." - MNR
Any system which, at its very core, aims to eliminate all private property through violent revolution is entirely untenable, both from a moral perspective and from a practical one. Furthermore, the fact that socialism yields laziness and dependence is a small problem when compared to the fact that it must also inevitably lead to mass famine, brutality, and the complete destruction of civilization. The idea that humanity should cooperate in order to maximize social welfare is not a socialist ideal; it is the ideal shared by all philosophies. The difference is not in the desired end of such philosophies, but in the means employed towards this universally desired condition.
“I think socialism is a great idea on paper, but state planning and the absence of a market mechanism and private property, which I’ve come to accept are natural, render it unworkable in real life, as the fall of the USSR shows.”
How does the USSR, a state planned economy and a totalitarian dictatorship, reflect at all on socialist thought?
“Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources”
To what extent was the USSR, by this definition, socialist? How does the USSR then at all reflect on worker democracy, worker cooperatives, direct democracy, syndicalism, mutualism, etc?
