Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!

From: Ron Allen (rallen2_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/02/04 

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:18:17 -0400

Ron Allen wrote:
> A machine, like muscle, increases production.
> We do not say that a person's muscle produces;
> rather, we say that a person produces. So also,
> we do not say that a machine produces; rather,
> we say that the person, using the machine,
> produces.

Courageous wrote:
> I should imagine that you'll be rather bent out
> of shape when it's the machine entirely, doing
> the producing.

Albert wrote:
> Not until they are able to design, produce and
> maintain themselves.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Even if and when machines do all the producing,
> it will still be an anthropomorphism to say that
> the machines are producing.

jmh wrote:
> Does it stop being an anthropomorphism if they
> start producing for themselves rather than
> people?

Ron Allen wrote:
> You're entering into the realm of science fiction.

jmh wrote:
> If not then you are clearly defining productive
> as if it were only a human trait, i.e., an
> anthopomorphic claim, . . .

Ron Allen wrote:
> Yes, I believe I have made it very clear that I
> believe production is a distinguishing human
> attribute. To claim that a uniquely human
> attribute is a unique human trait is not an
> anthropomorphism.

jmh wrote:
> It becomes that when the concept is not uniquely
> or even inherently a human phenomenon. You just
> take the effort one step farther and inorder to
> then turn around and say calling anything but
> humans productive is anthropomorphic.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To say that only human beings produce is not an
> anthropomorphism.

jmh wrote:
> You are the one attempting to imbue the term
> productive with human forma and cahracteristic
> when it's not unique to humans.

Ron Allen wrote:
> I am saying that human beings are very uniquely
> productive, and that is not an anthropomorphism.
> When we say that the common honeybee (Apis
> mellifera) produces honey and beeswax, this
> attribution of productivity to honeybees is an
> anthropomorphism.

Michael Price wrote:
> No it's an expression of the clear facts of the
> matter. Bees make honey, that is clear from
> reliable reports from the apiary industry,
> science and common folklaw. If you are saying
> that these people are lying then let's see the
> evidence.

Ron Allen answers:
Honey bees do "make" honey. But, even the word
"make", used in this context, is obviously an
anthropomorphism, attributing a uniquely human
behavior to bees. As I said in an earlier post,
I do not criticize anthropomorphisms; rather,
I critique the usage. The language we use is
replete with anthropomorphisms and metaphors of
all kinds. Even in the science of political-
economy, the word "producer" is very often used
to designate the class of proprietors who employ
their intellectual powers in the advancing of
material capital, and in the hiring of manual
labor, for the purpose of profit production.
And so, the mental aspect of production is made
explicit. The word "produce" has always been a
word signifying the two human facets of production
as a human activity: the mental and the manual,
the intellectual and the material. Unlike bees,
trees and animals, human beings "produce", human
beings "create", human beings "make", because we
use our brains as well as our bodies when we make
goods of value. We propose, we project, we plan,
and we produce. We produce with an intention and
with an objective. The honey bees have no intent,
and the apple trees have no object. Without both
the mental and the manual combined, the activity
of "production" is not what production itself
means. If we call an activity "production", when
their is no mind coupled with matter, then the
activity is production only in a metaphorical
sense.

Ron Allen wrote:
> This is not a criticism of the usage; but it is
> a critique of the usage.

Michael Price wrote:
> That seems a kinda stupid sentence, was it a
> typo?

Ron Allen answers:
It may seem stupid, but it's what I mean to say.
It's not a typographical error.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To produce is not only a physical effort; it is
> also a mental effort, and therefore, a uniquely
> human effort.

Michael Price wrote:
> So in other words you have redefined the word
> "produce" to mean "produce by a combination of
> physical and mental effort. Even given this
> definition you haven't supported your collolary,
> sheepdogs produce services by mental effort and
> they are (with the exception of tame werewolves)
> not human.

Ron Allen answers:
It is a simpleminded fantasy to believe that a
canine brain can embody or engender some "mental
effort".

Ron Allen wrote:
> The word "produce" is very much like the word
> "create". Human beings are creative, and human
> beings are productive. When we say that a
> machine produces wealth, or that a machine
> creates wealth, we are employing an
> anthropomorphism.

Michael Price wrote:
> The machine results in more wealth being
> produced.

Ron Allen answers:
Yes; but the machine does not produce wealth, and
a machine is not productive, unless we are using
"produce" and "productive" in a figurative or
ironic sense, but not in a literal sense.

For example, we often say that a machine "works";
but this is an anthropomorphic use of the word.
Human beings work; human beings labor. Machines
do not work or labor in the literal or categorical
sense of these words. In a prosaic sense, human
beings produce; but, only in a poetic sense do we
say that machines produce.

Michael Price wrote:
> If this is not producing wealth then it is so
> close to it as to be indistinguishable.

Ron Allen answers:
Metaphors are always based upon some similitude,
some parallelism, some sameness. But, we must
always keep the differences in mind, in order not
to turn what is a metaphor into a literalism.

Anthropomorphisms are how we go about humanizing
reality. We even humanize our machines.

jmh wrote:
> That no different than poets making
> anthropomorphic verse about a doe's eyes or a
> comfortable old chair. The deer's eyes do not
> show any human emotion and the furnature doesn't
> actually give any huuman warmth or compassion;
> likewise productive does not produce value but
> merely things that humans then value.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To produce things that human beings value is to
> produce value, to produce goods. And, only
> human beings produce value.

Michael Price wrote:
> So bees don't produce honey?

Ron Allen answers:
Honey bees do produce honey. But when I say this,
I do not mean to say that honey bees literally
produce honey. It may be that we have never
formulated English words for what bees, trees and
machines "do" when they have the semblance of
producing, or when they give the impression of
making.

Ron Allen wrote:
Only human beings produce goods. Apple trees
fructify. Honey bees convert floral nectar into
honey. When apple trees fructify, bear fruit,
this is an organic process, not a conscious
activity. Production is a conscious activity.
When honey bees make honey, this is an instinctive
activity, not an undertaking, not a project, not a
pursuit. Production is always both a mental and a
manual exercise, a deliberate enterprise. Only
human beings can deliberate, and consciously and
collectively engage in a mental and manual
activity of production.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Production does produce what human beings value.
> This is very true.

jmh wrote:
> That was not what I siad. Production most
> definitely produces what people value, it does
> not produce value.

Ron Allen wrote:
> When human beings produce what people value,
> then we can also say that human beings produce
> value.

Michael Price wrote:
> Only if the value created is greater than the
> value consumed.

Ron Allen answers:
I suppose that you mean the value consumed in the
process of value production.

I'm not sure if I can agree with you here. I
don't know enough to know if I do or don't know.

Ron Allen wrote:
> And if you claim that machines can produce for
> themselves, produce with a purpose and objective
> in "mind", then you are obviously making an
> anthropomorphic claim about machines.

jmh wrote:
> Don't be rediculous. I was claiming that the
> machines became self-aware and started to
> practice independant thought, developed machine
> interestes and wants then set about fulfilling
> those wants and interests. Nothing human about
> their actions or their thoughts. They would
> likely be quite alient to the human mind and to
> assume they would be like a human's would be to
> anthopomorphize the machine.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Human beings are productive beings; and to claim
> that machines are productive, like human beings
> are productive, is an anthropomorphic
> ascription, attributing a uniquely human quality
> to machines.

jmh wrote:
> Not at all. Machines are likewise productive,
> just a nature is productive. The merely fact
> that a person cannot move a certain weight
> without the aide of a machine indicates that the
> machine is productive as only through it's use
> can weights greater than X be moved. The human
> alone cannot move. The requirement that is be
> joint production between man and machine does
> not imply both are unproductive.

Ron Allen wrote:
> We disagree on this. In my opinion, only human
> beings can be said to produce; and to say that a
> machine produces is to attribute a special human
> quality to a machine. We anthropomorphize very
> often in our language. It's OK. But, when we
> are engaged in philosophical debate, when the
> anthropic conceptions of nature, of life, of
> reality, of existence, and of work are being
> discussed, then we do need to use language in a
> more critical mode or mold, in order to avoid as
> much confusion as possible.

Michael Price wrote:
> Pot, kettle, black.

Ron Allen answers:
In your opinion, of course.

Ron Allen wrote:
> Production is itself a singularly and
> distinctively anthropogenic process.

> This is what I think. This is how I use the
> words "produce" and "productive". It may be
> that you do not agree with my usage, or my
> definition, but at least you know my opinion.

Michael Price wrote:
> Yes we do, however even given your strange
> definitions it doesn't support your conclusions.
> If you don't want to call machines "productive"
> then I'll call them "useful", now some of the
> value of the final product comes from this
> "usefulness" and thus not all comes from the
> direct labour. Therefore the labourer doesn't
> deserve the full value of production.

Ron Allen answers:
So, are you saying capital deserves whatever part
capital produces? If so, then what right does the
capitalist have to the measure of value capital
produces? Do the capitalists own capital in the
very same way that the laborers own labor? If
yes, then by what right does the capitalist own
capital? By right of labor? By right of having
produced the capital? If we can say that capital
produces, then how does the proprietor of capital
come to have a right to the product of capital?

jmh wrote:
> Like I said you are attempting to imbue the
> concept "productive" and "produce" with some
> human characteristic by attempting to make them
> uniquely human. It's a very subtle form of
> anthropomorphizing but it's that's what it is
> nontheless.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To attribute some property to humans is not what
> anthropomorphism means, even if one is
> attributing some non-human endowment, or some
> sub-human ability to human beings.
> Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human
> properties and qualities to a non-human being;
> it is not the attribution of non-human
> properties or qualities to human beings.

jmh wrote:
> . . . and if you agree then you are defining
> productive as "self will" or "independant
> action", which is not what productive has ever
> meant.

Ron Allen wrote:
> To produce is to have a purpose, an objective.
> To produce with an intention, with a design,
> with a plan, is to possess a volition and an
> intellect. I do not attribute such human
> qualities as volition, intention, intellect,
> etc. to machines.

jmh wrote:
> So you claim that an apple tree has the
> objective of producing the apple?

Ron Allen wrote:
> No. When we say that apple trees produce
> apples, we are employing an anthropomorphism.
> There is nothing wrong with anthropomorphisms,
> until we get into a more precise language in
> order to get to a more concise knowledge.

jmh wrote:
> No, we're not claiming the apple tree has human
> characteristic. Saying an apple tree is
> productive is describing a characteristic to the
> apple tree: it's ability to bear fruit.

Ron Allen wrote:
> In my opinion, to say that an apple tree
> produces apples is to employ an anthropomorphism
> in order to describe the fruit-bearing property
> of an apple tree.

Michael Price wrote:
> Apple trees produce apples Ron, it's a known
> fact. That's why we call them apple trees.

Ron Allen answers:
When we talk about apple trees producing apples,
we are using an anthropomorphism, because we do
not yet have a more scientific, more literal, or
more unpoetical way of expressing what apple trees
actually do when they generate apples.

Ron Allen wrote:
> It is also, in my opinion, a descriptive
> anthropomorphism to talk about an apple tree as
> if it were "able" to produce apples. I know
> what you mean when you say such a thing; but
> it's not a very empirical, scientific, or
> disciplined use of language.

jmh wrote:
> Or do you claim that the tree does not produce,
> or is not productive in producing, the apple?

Ron Allen wrote:
> An apple tree can be said to produce apples; but
> always with an awareness that to say such a
> thing is to use metaphorical language. To
> produce is to intend to produce. An apple tree
> tends to generate apples, but does not intend to
> produce apples.

jmh wrote:
> And no where is intent a requirement for the
> verb to produce. You continue to make this
> erronious linkage between the ability to produce
> and the ability to increase production with the
> intent or purpose.

> No one dispute that people are purposeful but
> that is not a necessay condition, and certainly
> not a sufficient one, for a person or thing to
> be productive. Productive is a technical
> concept: does the inclusion of something have an
> effect on the output? If yes then that something
> is productive in producing whatever the output
> is.

Ron Allen wrote:
> I agree with you that a machine is productive,
> but only in a metaphorical sense of produce,
> only in an anthropomorphic sense of the verb
> "produce".

Michael Price wrote:
> No in the ordinary sense that people use.

Ron Allen answers:
The ordinary sense is an anthropomorphic sense,
when the word "produce" is used to describe what
a machine does when human labor is applied to a
machine in the human activity of production.

Michael Price wrote:
> You use it to mean "to produce with intent".

Ron Allen answers:
The "pro-" in "produce" implies intent.

Ron Allen wrote:
> I disagree with you, that a machine is
> productive, when you say that machines literally
> produce, when you take a metaphorical sense as
> if it were a more meticulous sense.

<><><><><><><><><><>

"Metaphor is the language of poetry."
-- Raphael Kraus

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... >> A machine, like muscle, increases production. ... > jmh wrote: ... >> Does it stop being an anthropomorphism if they ... we're not claiming the apple tree has human ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... > A machine, like muscle, increases production. ... jmh wrote: ... > Does it stop being an anthropomorphism if they ... we're not claiming the apple tree has human ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... > can something be a factor of production and not ... > activities Labor itself is unproductive by Ron ... productive agent to be a kind of anthropomorphism, ... Institutions are created by human beings, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Just how small *are* British children?
    ... >Shopping in iLld yesterday, choosing between two jars of honey, one ... >described as being of EU production and the other as South/Central American ... >warning that honey was not to be given to children under the age of 12. ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: Just how small *are* British children?
    ... >> Shopping in iLld yesterday, choosing between two jars of honey, one ... >> described as being of EU production and the other as South/Central ... Ise had another look. ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)