The intellectual and political climate today is toxic. As rare as it is to see dialogue between those who disagree with each other, rarer to see are attempts to understand the views of an intellectual or political opponent. Far too many professors are more interested in using their positions to pursue their political agendas than developing and sharing knowledge in their respective fields. While one can observe around the edges of public discourse calls for constructive dialogue (by, among others, Dave Rubin, Stefan Molyneaux, and Bishop Robert Barron), social media is drowning in political correctness, demonization, and guilt by association.

Therefore, when I came across a genuine dialogue among intellectuals who disagree with each other, I found myself refreshed by the manner in which their ideas were discussed.

A civilized response to a civilized argument

While beginning work on my largest project for this blog to date, I read Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk in a book published in 1949. The book also included two essays written in response to it. Specifically, the volume included “Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx” by Rudolf Hilderling and “On the Correction of Marx’s Fundamental Theoretical Construction in the Third Volume of Capital” by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz. The volume was edited by Paul M. Sweezy, who was a Marxian economist and founding editor of the socialist Monthly Review magazine.

Sweezy created the volume to address the criticisms Böhm-Bawerk raised against Marx’s economic theory developed in his three-volume work Capital.[i] He did so because Böhm-Bawerk was considered by supporters and opponents of Marx alike as an authority among opponents of Marxist economics:

So far as the United States is concerned, all the serious criticisms of Marxian economics with which I am acquainted recognize the authority, if not the primacy, of Böhm-Bawerk in this field; while the similarity of the anti-Marxian arguments in the average textbook to those of Böhm-Bawerk is too striking to be easily accounted a coincidence.

From the Marxian camp the testimony to Böhm-Bawerk’s pre-eminence as an opponent is at least as striking. Louis B. Boudin, in the economic chapters of his important survey of the Marxian system and its critics, pays most attention to Böhm-Bawerk’s arguments: “First because Böhm-Bawerk is so far superior to his comrades in arms and his authority is acknowledged by them to such an extent, that it can hardly be claimed to be unfair to these critics, to pick Böhm-Bawerk as an example of them all. Second, because there seems to be quite a good deal of unanimity among these critics on this particular point [value theory], and the arguments advanced by the others are either directly borrowed from Böhm-Bawerk, very often with an acknowledgment of receipt, or are variations on the same tune deserving no particular attention.” The situation did not change greatly in this respect in the following decades. William Blake, writing in 1939, could say: “Böhm-Bawerk anticipated nearly all the attacks on Marxism from the viewpoint of those who hold political economy to center on a subjective theory of value. On the whole, little has been added to his case by other critics; their important contributions are outside the theories he chose to contest.” (Introduction, ix-x)

Sweezy clearly did not agree with Böhm-Bawerk’s analysis of Marx. However, he accurately articulated those criticisms and the approach from which Böhm-Bawerk wrote. Sweezy was familiar with the history of economic thought in general, and the Austrian school in particular. While Sweezy was critical of the approach used by the Austrian school, he focused on the substance of Austrian arguments, and did not use pejoratives. He was also sufficiently honest to identify mistakes Marx himself made in his work.

Sweezy also appreciated the manner in which Böhm-Bawerk dealt with his intellectual opponents, including Marx. In a footnote, he observed:

Franz Weiss says, with justice, that “Böhm-Bawerk’s criticism of Marx contrasts favorably with much that has since been written, both for and against Marx, by its dispassionate tone. Standing in complete opposition to Marx’s teachings, Böhm-Bawerk was extremely careful to be fair to him as a person. (Introduction, xiv, footnote 1)

Models for this toxic age

It is a credit to both Böhm-Bawerk and Sweezy that both writers sought to tackle challenging issues with the civility both demonstrated. They focused on developing and answering arguments. They did not let their, or any one else’s, personalities get in the way of addressing ideas that require serious attention.

Their conduct serves as examples for improved public discourse so that ideas are addressed in the manner they deserve.

[i] Marx died before the second-volume of Capital was published. Frederick Engels completed and published the second and third volumes based on Marx’s notes.

The post Restoring the art of argument appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Restoring the art of argument

In a result CNN.com is describing as “the most shocking upset of a rollicking political season”, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley in New York’s 14^th congressional district on Tuesday.

There are two significant aspects of this election result. First, not only did a newcomer defeat an incumbent, but Crowley is currently a senior member of the House Democratic leadership. Before his defeat, he had been considered a possible candidate for speaker if Democrats won a majority in the fall. Second, Ocasio-Cortez openly presented herself as a socialist. Like Bernie Sanders, when he ran for the Democratic nomination for president in the 2016 election, Ocasio-Cortez won the primary for a party for which she is not a member; she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

While Crowley outraised Ocasio-Cortez by a 10-to-1 margin and spent heavily on television advertising, she prevailed through a grass-roots campaign and support from national progressive groups such as Black Lives Caucus and Moveon.org.

Ocasio-Cortez has been running a hard left campaign. Her platform calls for, among other things, universal health care, a federal jobs guarantee, and the abolition of ICE.

While the particular result of this election may be surprising, it certainly fits within the prevailing trend of socialism becoming increasing popular among the rank-and-file of the Democratic party. The trend began when self-described Marxist Kshama Sawant convinced the Seattle city council (of which she is a member) to establish a $15-an-hour minimum wage in 2014, and continued with the Sander presidential campaign.

This trend has taken place notwithstanding not only the overwhelmingly clear arguments that socialism can never work, but the implementation of socialism during the twentieth century has led to nothing but economic and environmental destruction and the deaths of over 100 million people. In other words, there is no rational basis to believe, under any circumstances, that socialism will work. The fact that socialist policies continue to be attractive to a far-too-significant portion of the American electorate raises serious questions about the quality of education provided through government schools.

Regardless of whether Ocasio-Cortez wins the general election, her primary victory is yet another indication that socialism continues to be far-too-attractive to far-too-many voters.

The post Socialist defeats incumbent Democrat in New York Congressional primary appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Socialist defeats incumbent Democrat in New York Congressional primary