You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Demonstrated Preference, Socialism, and Steemit
I don't understand how creating demand for money in an attempt to abolish money isn't a performative contradiction.
I don't understand how creating demand for money in an attempt to abolish money isn't a performative contradiction.
It's not necessarily any kind of contradiction since it's possible that a course of action an individual takes may both increase demand for money in the short term, and make its abolition more likely in the long term.
How would creating demand for money over any term make abolition of money more likely in the long term?
In other words, given that money arises naturally in a market economy as a way to more easily come by and satisfy the double coincidence of wants, how could using money for its intended purpose lead to the abolition of money? Doesn't demonstrating its utility only reaffirm said utility, thereby guaranteeing its continued use?
That demonstration of utility doesn't guarantee money's continued use. The money abolitionist realises he lives in a system where use of money is necessary in order to effectively propagandise his anti-money message. It's possible that he uses money in propagandising and is ultimately successful in hastening the 'end of money'. You and I think he's making a mistake, but he's not necessarily contradicting himself.
How would that be possible, though? That's my question.
(Love your videos, by the way. Enjoying the chat!)
I don't know what that propaganda would look like. But I think the important thing in this context is that I see no logical barrier to it existing. We can't say apodictically that such propaganda would fail, whether it's successful or not is an empirical question. And even if that propaganda did fail, that wouldn't mean that the money abolitionist has contradicted himself.
Bear with me, I don't know if this next analogy completely works! I'm also thinking of a WW2 resistance fighter. Imagine they managed to infiltrate the German military ranks and pass themselves off as a high ranking official for several weeks, all the while gathering information to help the resistance. While under cover, he facilitated, in some small ways the German military project - but his belief was that this was worth it because of the much greater degree to which he would undermine that project later on. The infiltrator too hasn't contradicted himself - he knowingly facilitated a lesser evil (in his view) in the belief that he did so in the service of preventing a greater evil. I think the money abolitionist is in the same boat.
Thanks! And likewise.
Are you saying that it would necessarily be achieved through propaganda?
I'm not asking specifically about the propaganda unless the propaganda is the only way to bring it about. I'm talking about the actual transitional method through which abolition would be implemented. Wouldn't the maintenance of abolition of money require an amount of resources which could only be procured in an environment where market prices exist? How would the economic planning necessary to amass these resources occur absent money?
I don't think this would nullify the concept of demonstrated preference, nor do I think it would be a performative contradiction. I'm not sure this analogy really works given that the use of money isn't the same as joining the army or being conscripted. The use of money doesn't create victims as where military action does, including victims of taxation.
@jaredhowe
I don't think they could - this seems unlikely with regard to the models in my head about how the world works. But it's possible I'm mistaken about that.
Or I'm right, and the money abolitionist is mistaken. But holding a mistaken belief is not necessarily the same thing as committing a performative contradiction. The money abolitionist's mistaken beliefs and actions are qualitatively different (I claim) than someone saying "I never speak" - an actual performative contradiction, and a statement we know apodictically to be false.
To be clear, I do agree that the concept of demonstrated preference is a useful one.
Here are the way I think the two situations are analogous:
In both, the agent has an aim in mind and takes action that seems to undermine that goal in the short term. In the belief that this will ultimately bring the world closer to that goal in the long term. Whether their belief is true or not is an empirical question in both cases (even though bodies of theory might predict the belief to be false at least in the case of the money abolitionist).