XPost: alt.anarchism, alt.politics, alt.politics.socialism   
   XPost: alt.politics.liberalism   
   From: jamesd@echeque.com   
      
   James A. Donald:   
   > > "Determinate relations" are actions. A causes B, is   
   > > A doing B. If you say the capitalist class does X,   
   > > it is pretty obvious that X is a crime.  If you say   
   > > Joe does x, it pretty silly to suggest that x is   
   > > crime.   
      
   Haines Brown   
   > No. The phrase "determinate relations" simply means   
   > that in a system, the nature or behavior of one part   
   > is in some way determined by another. All this says is   
   > that they stand in a causal relation, which is implied   
   > by the word "system".   
      
   But you are not talking about an inanimate system, but   
   people doing things to people.  And the words that you   
   use for these "causal relations" imply crimes, gigantic   
   crimes, requiring gigantic punishments.   
      
   >This determination may be unequivocal   
   > ("mechanical"), but today we much prefer to speak of   
   > it as being in principal a probabilistic causality, in   
   > which the probability distribution of the possible   
   > outcomes of a process is constrained by another part   
   > (all "parts" are processes) of the system. Unequivocal   
   > dterminism is now seen as a marginal case (true of a   
   > theoretically isolated system). This is a simple and   
   > rather conventional scientific view.   
      
   But this "science" is not so bloodless, every phrase it   
   uses is morally loaded.   
      
   > It does not necessarily have anything to do with human   
   > activity,   
      
   Capitalism is surely human activity.  We are discussing   
   how to describe the actions and relationships of humans.   
      
   James A. Donald:   
   > > For example "The market" dictates what pay we shall   
   > > receive, and what price we shall pay.  So obviously   
   > > "the market" must be oppressing us, and must be met   
   > > by violence.   
      
   Haines Brown   
   > Generally, the market, in itself, is seen as a   
   > zero-sum game in which equal values are exchanged, for   
   > otherwise we would not enter the market.   
      
   No the market is a positive sum game.  I exchange what I   
   value less, for what I value more.   Everyone comes out   
   ahead. Treating it as zero sum, is preparation for   
   treating it as a crime.  If it is zero sum, then   
   anything one person gains, another must lose.  Apply   
   some standard of absolute value, whether Marxist based   
   on labor, or fascist based on resources, or   
   environmentalist based on natural resources, or whatever.   
   Then some people are winning, and some losing, the   
   winnings of the winners coming from the losings of the   
   losers.  So obviously the winner must be punished, the   
   winner being a capitalist or a Jew or a polluter.   
      
   > Of course, there is the possibility of outside   
   > economic or political constraints on the market, but   
   > these are understood as distorting what would   
   > otherwise be an equitable exchange of values and is   
   > foreign to basic system dynamics. That the market   
   > determines prices has no obvious connection with   
   > "oppression" and certainly not to violence.   
      
   If you conceptualize the market as determining things,   
   rather than an arena where real persons interact, then   
   you conceptualize it as if it were an actor, a person,   
   and this person is doing things to people,and some of   
   those things hurt.  So this person must be punished,   
   which in practice means that "speculators" and "hoarders"   
   must be punished.   
      
   > You throw out points that don't obviously have any   
   > relation to the material to which you respond, or at   
   > least the relevance remains implicit and obscure. I   
   > fear you either do not understand what I said or don't   
   > care, and instead choose to attack a windmill.   
      
   I am arguing that the form or reasoning you employ leads   
   to terror and mass murder, irrespective of whether you   
   personally intend terror and mass murder.   
      
   You need to consider my argument carefully, rather than   
   treating it as mere personal attack, because in the past   
   the reasoning that you employ *has* led to terror and   
   mass murder.   
      
   > More specifically, I was not speaking of socialist   
   > societies, but how the working class needs to conceive   
   > of the capitalist system if it expects to change it.   
      
   And I am arguing that whosoever conceives of the   
   capitalist system in this fashion is apt to wind up   
   murdering large numbers of people, most of them workers,   
   and apt to wind up establishing a dictatorship because   
   that is the form of government that can most efficiently   
   murder large numbers of people.   
      
   > > But you have rejected both atomism - that we   
   > > understand wholes by understanding the parts and   
   > > reasoning about the way parts interact, and also   
   > > empiricism - that we check our reasoning by seeing   
   > > what works and who gets results.   
      
   > You are correct in that I reject atomism. Atomism is a   
   > quaint view that arose a long ago among a small number   
   > of people in a small place. I don't know that anyone   
   > takes it seriously today. That is, when I rejected it,   
   > I was being very conventional (in terms of science).   
   > Atomism in the Anglo-American tradition died in the   
   > decade after World War II. I also rejected empiricism,   
   > but your definition of it is obviously incorrect. What   
   > you describe is actually called operationalism. Not   
   > too long ago operationalism was a popular view in   
   > Western science, but today is often considered   
   > problematic. If you want some citations of standard   
   > works on the philosophy of science that lend support   
   > to my generalizations, I'd be glad to offer them.   
   > Otherwise, if you choose to disagree with conventional   
   > views, you are required to offer a justification for   
   > doing so.   
      
   Atomism and empiricism have more than one meaning.  My   
   views are conventional.  Your views are not conventional   
   - they are Marxist, and Marxism was never in the   
   mainstream of science or economics.   
      
   In this context, the context of economics, "atomism" is   
   the point of view that individuals rather than social   
   institutions and values are the proper subject of   
   analysis since all properties of institutions and values   
   merely accumulate from the striving of the individual -   
   which point of view is the absolutely standard bedrock   
   of conventional economics.   
      
   > Perhaps you don't wish to enter into any discourse   
   > that is scientific and rational. That's your   
   > privilege, but then why did you do it?   
      
   Your insults are childish, but perhaps understandable   
   since I have implied that you entertain your odd ideas   
   in order to rationalize totalitarianism and mass murder.   
      
   --   
     ----------------------   
   We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because   
   of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this   
   right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.   
      
   http://www.jim.com/      James A. Donald   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)