Question for the Lefties -- II

["David Shemano" <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Refocusing my questions:

1.	I understand that Marx defines "economics" as a broad category.  However,
within that general category, Marx analyzes the mechanics of the existing
free market/private property system and comes to certain conclusions, such
as it includes inherent contradictions that will cause it to eventually
collapse.  My question is, is that conclusion necessary to the Marxian
analysis?  In other words, if Marx is simply wrong in his analysis in how a
capitalist economy works and evolves, does that render his general analysis
useless?

	To give a counter-example, if I were to conclude that Milton Friedman's
monetarist theory is wrong, I would not therefore conclude that Milton
Friedman's ideas on government and freedom are wrong.  Presumptively, I
would assume the same about Marx -- just because he might wrong on the
mechanics of capitalism does not make him wrong that the means of production
should be owned democratically.  But there seems to be implication from many
of you that Marx's economic analysis cannot be separated from the rest of
his analysis.  So I ask, what is the big deal if Marx got the mechanics
wrong?  Why do you insist on conflating the "is" with the "ought?"

	To conjecture, I am guessing that if you conclude that capitalism is not
inherently contradictory, but don't like its results, you are basically John
Stuart Mill in his later years or any other social democrat.  What's wrong
with that?  Why the need for revolution?

2.	With respect to "need", "good demand," "bad demand," etc., I hope we are
not speaking past one another.  I take it to be a truism that no economist,
whatever his political position, has any great insight when speaking as an
economist as to what I should "need" or "demand."  That is the role of the
philosopher, the psychologist, the clergyman, the doctor, parents, etc.
Certainly we can agree that every human being has basic needs -- air, food,
water, shelter, etc.  But one doesn't have to know any economics to figure
that out.

	But my question is different than that.  To give an example, lefties hate
cars and love public transportation -- there is no greater symbol of the
philosophical divide between right and left.  What is interesting to me is
that lefties criticize "capitalism" because it somehow preordains that
people will choose/demand cars over public transportation, but such
criticism assumes a moral judgment that public transportation is preferable
to cars, and if people had complete metaphysical freedom, they would choose
public transportation over cars.  In other words, the "criticism" of
capitalism, at least in this example, is dependent on a preexisting moral
judgment which seems to be completely untethered to any economic analysis.
If so, isn't your criticism of capitalism dependent more on debatable
ethical judgments as opposed to empirical economic results (at least in that
example)?

David Shemano