Sunday, November 30, 2014

Invisible Hand and Wealth Redistribution

If there were, as Smith supposes, inherent in Economic activity, a tendency towards equilibrium, its scope would be general, not localized, i. e. not merely specific to Supply-Demand contexts.  Rather, it would also correct widespread imbalances, such as disparities in wealth.  Accordingly, the redistribution of wealth could be interpreted as a manifestation of such a general tendency.  Thus, for example, taxation that funds government benefits to the needy could be appreciated as an expression of Smith's Invisible Hand, not as in conflict with it, contrary to the protests of many contemporary Capitalists.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Profit and Pleasure

The modeling of Utilitarianism on Smith's system is based on the correlations of Pleasure with Profit, and Pain with Loss.  Now, the latter of each pair connotes a net quantity, i. e. an increase or decrease with respect to a prior condition.  But, beginning with Locke, a sense-datum, such as Pleasure or Pain, is a presupposition-less event.  Therefore, because Utilitarianism is an Empiricist doctrine, Bentham's and Mill's attempts to apply Empiricism to Smith's system are structurally flawed, at minimum. 

Friday, November 28, 2014

Invisible Hand, Individual, Collective

In the contemporary popular imagination, the Invisible Hand is a principle governed by an Individualistic ethos, insofar as income is conceived as reflecting the worthiness of its recipient.  However, as, as Smith conceives it, its primary role is to achieve equilibrium between Supply and Demand, it is independent of the conflicting self-interests that require resolution in order for an exchange to take place.  In other words, income is an expression of the subordination of the interests of the involved parties to compromise.  Thus, according to Smith, the principle is governed by the well-being of the collective, which requires the smooth interactions that it facilitates, contrary to the presumption of contemporary Capitalists.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Invisible Hand, Self-Interest, Hate

In Smith's Economic system, the Invisible Hand functions as a corrective to self-interested motives.  Hence, it is possible that he conceives it as a substitute for Sympathy, which serves the same role in his earlier work.  But, if, so, he now leaves unmodified other expressions of selfishness, e. g. emotions, such as hate.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Greatest Happiness and Optimal Happiness

The complete satisfaction of each of one's wishes can be called one's 'greatest happiness'.  Likewise, the achievement of the greatest happiness of each party can be called the 'total' greatest happiness.  Thus, the total greatest happiness entails the compossibility of each of the individual greatest happinesses.  However, as the Law of Supply and Demand reflects, that compossibility cannot be presumed to obtain, therefore, requiring compromise, typically via negotiation, the optimal result of which is the point of equilibrium.  So, the best-case scenario under such conditions, for either individual party or collective, can be called the 'optimal' happiness, which is likely what Mill intends by the formulation 'greatest happiness for the greatest number', if the standard application of the Utilitarian Calculus is any indication.  Now, Utilitarianism vacillates between description and prescription, i. e. between a characterization of how people actually conduct themselves, and a formula for determining the best course of action.  But, the problem with the latter is that, as has been previously discussed, there can be a discrepancy between real equilibrium and apparent equilibrium, with the latter the product of expressed terms, rather than of what is privately willed, and, hence, the product of guesswork.  In other words, the utility of the Utilitarian Calculus is itself limited by the unavailability of requisite knowledge, i. e. the real will of others.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Supply, Demand, Conflicting Interests

According to the Egoist Psychology to which Capitalists subscribe, the fundamental elements of the situation to which the 'Law of Supply and Demand' is usually applied are inherently conflicting interests--the seeking of each party to maximize gain and minimize costs, the achievement of which can come only at the expense of the other.  Thus, in a simple sale, the ideal for the buyer is to pay nothing, while that for the seller is to receive an infinitely large amount.  Of course, in practice, each party typically enters into a negotiation with a specific limit in mind--the maximum that the buyer is willing to spend, and the minimum that the seller is willing to receive. Accordingly, the equilibrium point is halfway between those two amounts.  However, in usual actuality, neither side is aware of the limit of the other, so, the terms of the ensuing negotiating may bear little resemblance to the privately willed ones, with the result an equilibrium that likewise bears little resemblance to the potential of the situation.  So, any assumption that the 'Law' is functioning in the service of achievement of optimal results is groundless.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Supply-Side Interests

In any Economic exchange, each party has a supply and a demand, with money often one of each.  Thus, the term 'Supply-Side' does not, in itself, distinguish one party from another.  Likewise, the term 'Supply-Side Economics' is, in itself, trivial.  Rather, what it typically denotes is the interests of the owners of the means of production, as opposed to those of consumers, and to the needs of those too poor to enter into any exchange.  Accordingly, for example, where that system prevails, profitability justifies the production and sale of junk, rather than that of useful or of vital goods.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Demand-Demand Equilibrium

The basic unit of Economic activity is the Exchange, and not the mere transfer, e. g. a donation.  Now, while in a simple Exchange, each party has both a Supply and a Demand, the Psychological motors, according to Smith, of the negotiation that precedes it, are the Demands involved, e. g. the seeking by each party of Profit.  Hence, the Equilibrium reached by the negotiation is Demand-Demand. not Supply-Demand, as Smith and his followers commonly conceive it.  Likewise, the distinction usually represented as 'Supply-Side' vs. 'Demand-Side', is actually that between two different Demand-Sides.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Equilibrium, Excess-Deficiency, Supply-Demand

A simple and clear example of an arrival at an Economic Equilibrium is when one person, in possession of some object for which they have no need, and the keeping of which is burdensome, gives it to a person who is lacking it.  Likewise, an exchange in which such balance is achieved involves reciprocal excess-deficiency transfers.  Accordingly, the best evidence of Equilibrium is the absence of both Excess and Deficiency.  In contrast, Smith and his followers conceive 'equilibrium' as the termination of a process of negotiation between a party that can supply an item to someone for whom it is the object of a wish, the immediate evidence of which is merely an actual exchange.  Thus, since, on that basis, 'equilibrium' can be attributed to any transaction, it can be conceived as inhering in all Economic activity, and attributed to a 'Law of Supply and Demand', or to an 'Invisible Hand'.  The discrepancy between the two concepts of Equilibrium is manifest where grotesque excess and deficiency are validated as the products of an immutable Law, or, equivalently, of a sacrosanct Hand.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Utility, Price, Pleasure

Bentham's Utilitarianism is often recognized to be isomorphic to Smith's system, perhaps as a generalization of the latter, perhaps as representing its essential structure.  In either case, according to his doctrine, the Utility of a market exchange is expressed in the price paid.  But, according to Smith, the price paid expresses an equilibrium between Supply and Demand.  Thus, the degrees of pleasures to the participants in an exchange are perhaps tempered in the achievement of equilibrium.  Therefore, the presumed correlation between Utilitarianism and Capitalism exposes a flaw in the former--its Atomistic Hedonism, which entails that the quantification of Pleasure in one person is independent of that in another. 

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Demand, Wish, Need

While a Wish is conscious, and is for an object that may not satisfy an organic lack, a Need is an organic necessity, even if not consciously entertained.  Now, those differences are morally significant to both Aristotle and Mill, i. e. expressed in the former's distinction between apparent and actual Good, and in the latter's between lower and higher pleasures.  In contrast, the standard Economic concept of Demand does not distinguish them, and is usually taken as equivalent to Wish.  Accordingly, any Economic system that takes that concept at face value is, at minimum, amoral, and insofar as a program takes it as sacrosanct, e. g. as a factor in the promotion of Wealth, or in dogmatic laissez-faire Capitalism, it is arguably immoral.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Slavery, Supply, Demand

One of Marx's sharpest insights only touches upon a problem for any Political or Economic system.  According to his analysis, it follows from the principle of Self-Interest that the Capitalist seeks to pay a laborer only enough to ensure a return  to work the next day, which they will do if the labor supply far exceeds its demand.  Thus, since the 'freedom' of a laborer to refuse such work is nominal, the condition is equivalent to Slavery.  However, Marx seems to stop short of a further of examination of that relation, which predates any Political or Economic theory.  Likewise, what Plato misses in his account of social 'necessity', is the need for drudgery tasks, including, notably waste disposal, e. g. mopping, sweeping, etc.  Now, in itself, the demand for such labor is perhaps both high and perpetual, but, the supply, i. e. those willing to perform it, is minimal, at best.  Hence, enter Slavery to generate that supply.  But, since those tasks usually require little special skill, even Marx's formulation of 'to each according to his ability', does not define who in a division of labor subsequent to the socializing of the means of production is to clean the toilets in a factory at the end of the day.  Even the speculation that one day, robots will perform such drudgery, does not address who cleans the toilets in the factory that builds them.  So, rather than a peripheral problem in Political or Economic theory, the conditions to which Slavery, in its various guises, has been the traditional solution, is an essential one.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Competition and Scarcity

Competition entails relative scarcity, which is essential to some contexts, e. g. to games in which there can be only one winner.  But, even if widespread, scarcity is a contingent fact in a society, and, obviously, is a deficiency, i. e. with respect to conditions of abundance.  Now, a Philosophy of Economics must be based on Necessity and Ideality, from which Contingency and Imperfection are methodically derived.  Thus, as important a topic Scarcity is, Competition is not, contrary to some popular opinions, an unconditional virtue of an Economic system.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Supply-Side Economics and Competition

A primary aim of Supply-Side Economics is the creation of Demand where it does not otherwise exist.  Thus, the perhaps most effective means to that creation, i. e. advertising, is a significant factor in such a system.  Accordingly, economic competition is often most visible in advertising, especially when the goods represented are of approximately equal value.  Thus, for example, the promotions during the Super Bowl often draw as much attention as the game itself.  But, the most influential Supply-Side Competition in contemporary American life is probably that between political ads, in which substantial investment goes into swaying an otherwise indifferent public into choosing between two products for neither of which there is an inherent Demand.  That the usual massiveness of such investment has been classified as 'free speech' by the U. S. Supreme Court underscores how deeply ingrained in American life Supply-Side Competition is. 

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Capitalism and Competition

Perhaps inspired by the apparent superiority, in the mid-20th-Century, of the goods in the American market, as opposed to the those in that of the Soviet Union, advocates have sometimes promoted Capitalism with the following argument: 1. The production of superior goods is an indication of a superior Economic system; 2.  Competition improves the quality of goods produced; 3. Competition is an inherent factor in Capitalism; 4. Socialism eliminates Competition; 5. Therefore, Capitalism is inherently superior to Socialism.  However, the perhaps weakest link in the argument is the premise that some seem to take as its strongest--#3.  For, the fundamental motor of Capitalism is Self-Interest, with which Competition can conflict, and, thus, be suppressed, e. g. a monopoly, and to which the improvement of the quality of goods is only contingently related.  So, the status of goods on the shelf of a store may just as likely reflect that of environmental conditions, e. g. climate, richness of natural resources, etc., as the relative values of Capitalism and Socialism. 

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Capitalism and the 13th Amendment

That, as has been previously discussed, "We the people", in the preamble to the U. S. Constitution, rigorously analyzed, refers to only the authors of the document, and not to all the citizenry, is a merely semantic quibble.  However, that it precludes the inhabitants of the territories that are not full 'citizens', i. e. are slaves, is a much more substantive problem.  Now, the ugly history of racism tends to obscure the fact that as an Economic relation, Slavery long precedes both Capitalism and Marxism, both of which have proven susceptible to it.  But, while Marxism, de jure precludes Slavery, i. e. in its concept of the collectivization of property, Capitalism does not.  So, the 13th Amendment of the Constitution implicitly distances it from the latter system, even as de facto neglect of or resistance to that repudiation continues.

Friday, November 14, 2014

We The People and General Welfare

Since the main verbs of the Preamble to the U. S. Constitution are "ordain and establish", their subject, "we", is, more precisely, those constructing the document, rather than "the people", in general.  However, that generality is explicit in one of the stated aims of the passage, "promote the general Welfare", and is implicit in another, "form a more perfect union".  Now, since the term used is 'welfare', rather than 'wealth', it seems likely that the connotation is 'well-being', rather than 'abundance of goods'.  Furthermore, at the time of that construction, Wealth of Nations exists, but relatively obscurely, and Marxism is decades in the future.  So, according to the unequivocally expressed words of the Founding Fathers, contrary to many contemporary interpretations, including those of some of the members of the Supreme Court, their intention entails neither some specific Economic system, nor the promotion of Self-Interest.  Likewise, a rigorous determination of the 'Constitutionality' of some process would include an assessment of the extent to which it promotes the "general Welfare".

Thursday, November 13, 2014

We, Homo Sapiens, Homo Faber

Though he does not systematically develop it as such, Marx's concept of Class Consciousness may be the first substantive Philosophical consideration of the concept of We.  Hitherto, and still usually, the concept of trans-personal Subjectivity is either a mere aggregate of Is, or a universal I.  In contrast, Marx's I is not the subject of cognition, but the agent of production.  Accordingly, it can be conceived as conjoined with other such Is while maintaining its distinctiveness.  In other words, corresponding to the historical emergence of Class Consciousness is the theoretical innovation of the possibility of We, facilitated by the transformation of Homo Sapiens into Homo Faber.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Marxism, I, We

Contrary to common reputation, Marxism is not based on the premise of a prehistorical property-less Eden.  Instead, whether or not Marx recognizes it as such, it is 'Each is entitled to the fruits of their labor', that he implicitly treats as an a-historical principle, though one with actual exemplifications, e. g. the nomadic craftsperson who directly barters self-produced wares to acquire other goods.  But, what is historical about the principle is that, according to the doctrine, it catalyzes, under conditions of Capitalist industrial mass production, the unprecedented emergence of Class Consciousness.  The historical novelty of the latter is that it consists in a 'We', the awareness of which is impossible in any preceding social organization, e. g. Capitalism can never be conceived as more than an aggregate of 'I's.  So, perhaps the fundamental Moral significance of Marxism is its promotion of the development from I to We.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Sowing and Reaping

The Biblical correlation between Sowing and Reaping is usually interpreted as it is likely intended--as the Moral principle that one will bear the consequences of one's actions.  But, in Economic terms, the correspondence can also help distinguish Marxism from Capitalism.  For, Marx's concept of the fruits of one's labor can be formulated as 'The one who reaps should be the one who sows'.  In contrast, 'What one sows is the minimum that a landowner can pay one' represents the relation in a Capitalist system.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Ability, Need, Distributive Justice

The formula, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', adopted, not coined, by Marx, can be classified as a principle of Distributive Justice.  Now, since Capitalists rarely engage Marxism on an intellectual level, their objections to that principle can only be a topic of speculation.  One might be that what one receives should be determined by the work that one does, not by what one needs.  However, that argument ignores the first clause of the formula, and, furthermore, is clearly arbitrarily directed, since no Capitalist seems to apply it to the alienation of the fruits of one's labor that is inherent in their own system.  Another objection might be that what one receives should be determined by the Invisible Hand of the Market, a counter the effectiveness of which is plainly dependent on the essentially indemonstrable existence of such an entity.  Indeed, that that version of a Capitalist principle of Distributive Justice is equivalent to a prohibition of third-party interference in commercial exchanges, highlights what is distinctive about its Marxist counterpart--that Distributive Justice is an artefactual process.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Capitalism and the Dehumanized Exploiter

It follows from Marxist analysis, that in a Capitalist system, the condition of the exploiter is just as much one of deprivation and dehumanization as is that of the exploited, but for different reasons.  For, the exploiter is essentially idle, and, hence, as non-productive, is deprived of the enjoyment of the fruits of one's labor.  Furthermore, because implicit in Marxism is the definition of 'human' as 'homo faber', non-productiveness is equivalent to non-humanness. 

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Capitalism, Exploitation, Behaviorism

One flaw in the 'Cave' scenario in the Republic is Plato's inattention to the status of the puppet-masters, who are neither chained to their desires nor liberated by Reason, according to the logic of the image.  A similar indeterminacy in the Marxist model of a Capitalist society is the status of the exploiter.  Now, the Psychological theory underpinning Smith's system suggests a resolution to both uncertainties.  For, that theory is essentially what has come to be called 'Behavioristic', according to which Self-Interest is mechanistic, as becomes salient in its Greed mode.  Accordingly, the exploiter is as psychologically unfree as is the exploited cog in the profit-producing machinery, from which it follows that Plato's puppet-masters are as enslaved as are the members of their captive audience.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Socialism and Vitalism

Kant's characterization, in the 3rd Critique, of an Organism as a body each of the parts of which are both Means and Ends, is also a social model, i .e. it applies to his Kingdom of Ends.  Now, according to Marx, as a mere commodity, a worker is a mere cog in the means of production of profit to the owner of that means.  Accordingly, on that concept, a worker that is also the owner of the means of production is both a Means and an End.  Thus, Marx has at his disposal a Kantian argument that a Socialist collective is an Organism, whereas a Capitalist aggregate is, as has been previously discussed, no more than a mechanistic association, i. e. he has at his disposal a Vitalistic defense of Socialism.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Mechanization, Capitalism, Socialism

The charge that Capitalism is inherently exploitative, and, hence, is essentially unjust, constitutes one facet of Marx's Moral justification of Socialism.  Another is that, by classifying workers as commodities, Capitalism dehumanizes them.  Now, while that judgment can be associated with Kant's prohibition of treating others as mere means, it originates in Marx's most fundamental Philosophical orientation.  For, while Dialectical Materialism is often recognized as a counter to Hegelian Dialectical Idealism, it is also an alternative to Mechanistic Materialism, which, in turn, presupposes Atomism, the target of his earliest project, concerning Democritus.  In other words, his most fundamental Philosophical objection to Capitalism is that it is a species of Mechanistic Materialism, a system that is perhaps best exemplified by its treatment of a worker as a piece of machinery.  But, the mechanization of society is pervasive, since the system also entails a general Mechanistic Psychology, in which even the exploiters of the Proletariat are conceived as mere machines.  So, one defense of Socialism is that it is more vital than is Capitalism, entailing that the beneficiaries of the latter would, as much as their victims, benefit from a transition to the former.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Socialism, Education, Revolution

Education as part or all of a means to a Socialist collective has two main obstacles.  One is that the Proletariat must overcome deeply ingrained indoctrination, i. e. institutional obfuscation of the truth of their condition, e. g. via Religion, to become aware of being victims of exploitation.  The other, probably more challenging, is that the beneficiaries of that exploitation have to be be convinced to relinquish those benefits.  To that end, the appeal to Justice has been partly successful over the decades, but, as is especially the case in the U. S., recalcitrance has ossified to the degree that has led Lovestone, as has been previously discussed, to declare American society an 'exception' to Marxist analysis.  At the heart of that recalcitrance is a problem that is as old as Plato and Aristotle--the chasm between believing what is best, and knowing what is best, even for oneself--which makes any effort to convince an exploiter that a Socialist collective is in their best interests, too, futile.  But, if education is thus doomed to failure, then the advocacy of Revolution as a means to a correction of Injustice may be justified.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Socialism, Capitalism, Invisible Hand

As an a priori proposition, 'Revolution is the only means to Socialism' is meaningless, since the concept of 'means' is inapplicable to a process that is either inevitable or seamless.  As an empirical proposition, it is false, since alternative means are conceivable.  One is a voluntary transition, which could include a process of education.  Now, that 'Revolution is a better means to Socialism than is non-violent education' is a true empirical proposition is questionable, given the failures of the Soviet Union, as well as the peaceful adaptation of some Socialist measures in places like Scandinavia.  Another voluntary transition is one, suggested by recent events, that seems to defy theories both favorable and unfavorable to Socialism.  For, the ongoing acquisition of American property by China, and the indebtedness of the U. S. to the latter, constitutes a triumph of a Socialist country over a Capitalist one, on Capitalist terms.  Accordingly, another possible means to Socialism is via the Invisible Hand of the Market, a transition that cannot be easily subsumed under either Marxist or Capitalist dogma.

Monday, November 3, 2014

Justification and Best Means

The substantive question to a Marxist regarding the Justification of Means is: Is revolution the best means to a Socialist state?  Implicit in that formulation is the possibility of alternative means.  Hence, the question is inapplicable when Revolution is conceived as a transition in a Necessary process.  Likewise remaining implicit in the Marxist answer is that one alternative--a universally voluntary collectivization of the Means of Production--may be extremely unlikely.  But, even if so, it is not logically impossible, which is why a Philosophical examination of Marxism requires that that alternative, and any others, be explicitly addressed, before being dismissed. 

Sunday, November 2, 2014

End, Justification, Socialism

The concept of an 'unjustified end', the possibility of which is alluded to by both Marx and Trotsky, as has been previously discussed, is problematic, since an End can be only self-justifying.  Now, available to a Marxist is the following justification of Socialism:  'Justice is self-justifying.  Socialism is a Just condition.  Therefore, Socialism is a justified End.'  But, while that argument is apparently no more than implicit in Marxist writings, it is sometimes rivaled by the more explicit:  'Socialism is the End of History.  Therefore it needs no further justification.'  However, this argument is unsound, since it confuses 'end', meaning 'stopping point', with 'end', meaning 'deliberate goal'.  So, the Marxist concept of History is unhelpful to a defense of its Socialist aims.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Ends, Means, Justification

The familiar accusation that Marxists subscribe to the proposition 'The ends justify the means' is inaccurate, perhaps disingenuous, and, ultimately, specious.  The charge is inaccurate insofar as it is difficult to reconcile with either of two quotes:  "An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end", (Marx, 'On the Freedom of the Press'), and, "A means can be justified only by its end.  But the end in its turn needs to be justified", (Trotsky, unpublished).  It is disingenuous insofar as its speaker does not advocate Marxists ends.  Now, the actual origin of the expression is uncertain, e. g. while it is sometimes associated with Machiavelli, it does not appear as such in his writings.  In any case, finally, the accusation is specious, because the proposition is tautological.  For, by definition, a 'Means' is subordinated to an 'End', a relation that can be interpreted as 'is justified by', independent of any of its instances.