An argument that refutes itself. The notion that "changing the world" can proceed uninformed by theory is itself a theory.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > Such pseudo-theories can't be refuted theoretically -- the refutation is > ignored and no one but those who refute it know they have. It's clear > enough that establishment intellectuals in any field but particularly in > economics will believe anything that justifies what is. > > They can only be refuted in practice by the action of workers. If > _that_ refutation is stong enough, economists will (belatedly and with > lots of juggling) more or less rationalize the new actuality. During > periods of working-class weakness (or, more accurately, capitalist > strength) the myth develops that theory can dictate practice. This is > wholly false. One does not change minds in order to change the world. > One changes the world in order to change minds. That is what happened > both in the 1930s and the 1960s. It _may_ be happening again. > > Carrol > > On 5/9/2011 9:36 PM, Sandwichman wrote: > > One difficulty of "debunking" is that people are predisposed to certain > > kinds of "supply and demand" "cost/benefit" arguments that are themselves > > highly ideological. The scientific pretension of these preconceptions was > > discredited in the mid-19th century but they've been recuperated through > > carefully coded "simplifying assumptions." > > > > To make a long story short, you're dealing here with the zombie > wages-fund > > doctrine. That doctrine held -- as a matter of scientific principle, no > less > > -- that it was impossible to raise wages through combinations of workers > or > > government legislation. The amount of the wages fund was fixed in the > short > > run and there was no way to increase the wages of one group of workers > > without decreasing the wages of another group or, worse, bankrupting > > employers and throwing masses of people out of work. > > > > The basic assumptions of the doctrine were severely criticized by Marx, > but > > also by William Thornton, whose critique led to John Stuart Mill's > recanting > > of the doctrine and, eventually, to the development of neo-classical > > economics. > > > > But then a funny thing happened. The exact OPPOSITE arguments were used > by > > anti-union propagandists to argue to the exact SAME conclusions as > before. > > Whereas before a legislated or collectively-bargained wage increase would > be > > bad for workers because the amount of the wages-fund was fixed, now a > > legislated or collectively bargained wage increase would be bad for > workers > > because the amount of the wages-fund WASN'T fixed. > > > > One element is absolutely essential to carrying off this rhetorical bait > and > > switch: isolating the question of wages from the question of hours of > work. > > As long as employers can keep people believing they "can't make ends > meet" > > if they work fewer hours they've got a situation where reducing the wages > > can increase the labor supply. This is a condition that violates the > "laws" > > of supply and demand. Actually, though, it demonstrates how ill-defined > and > > misleading those laws are -- as Thornton pointed out in the 1860s. > > > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Louis Proyect<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On 5/9/11 6:34 PM, Paul Bartlett wrote: > >> > >>> This study needs a thorough public critique. It would be faster and > >>> most credible if we assemble a group of economists to do so. I am > >>> overloaded with other projects, but could help and do my part. > >>> > >>> > >>> Living Wage Would Kill Jobs, Cost Billions, Bloomberg Report Claims > >>> > >>> > >>> By Chris Bragg > >>> > >>> > >> Speaking of debunking, are there any articles that take up the rightwing > >> claim that the top 3 percent of American taxpayers are responsible for > >> 46 percent of all the tax revenue? Not exactly sure of the figures but > >> this about right. Is there a way to put this into context? > >> _______________________________________________ > >> pen-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
