"Organization is an association based on authority, organism is mutuality. The primitive thinker always sees things as having been organized from outside, never as having grown themselves, organically. He sees the arrow which he has carved, he knows how it came into existence and how it was set in motion. So he asks of everything he sees, who made it and who sets it in motion. He inquires after the creation of every form of life, the authors of every change in nature, and discovers an animistic explanation. Thus the Gods are born. Man sees the organized community with its contrast of rulers and ruled, and accordingly, he tries to understand life as an organization, not an organism."
--Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 1922

Glad to see you are reading Mises, Dan. Interested in Austrian economics at all, or just that book?

I think von Mises should stick to economics.

Thanks for that random unsupported assertion.

What, according to von Mises, differentiates an "organization" from an "organism"? The former is organized "from outside," while the latter is "grows itself." So the formal principle of the former is external, while that of the latter is internal. In a nutshell, this is Aristotle's distinction between atrtifacts and substances.

For Aristotle, though the 'location' of the formal principle differentiates artifacts from substances, both have form in the same sense. Accordingly, Aristotle compares substances to artifacts.

In addition, von Mises conflates generation and growth. Substances no less than artifacts are generated by an external principle (obviously, since the substance to be generated does not exist prior to generation). And for an Aristotelian such as Aquinas, the chain of generations begins in an act of special creation, i.e., the divine lawgiver legislates the eternal law into the natures of all things. For Aquinas, the world is "full of gods," so to speak.

Let me summarize my objection thusly: the thought that von Mises criticizes as primitive is the common opinion that underwrites the entire tradition of natural law. Now I don't know enough about von Mises to know if he's opposed to the idea of natural law, but whatever his position, he is wrong to criticize it as a "primitive" thought.

Your complaint misses the mark, because Mises is not talking about Aristotelian substance theory. He clearly defines what differentiates organization from organism in the quote.

"Organization is an association based on authority, organism is mutuality."

Thus, the state is an example of what Mises calls organization, because it is imposed by authority, through organized violence. Whereas, the market is an example of what Mises' calls an organism, because it comes about naturally through mutually beneficial and voluntary actions between parties.

Read more carefully before you condemn next time.

If anyone needs to take greater care, I believe it is you. The quotation is not primarily concerned with the proper description of states or markets. Mises is criticizing the comparison of biological organisms to regimes. Thus the concluding sentence: "Man sees the organized community with its contrast of rulers and ruled, and accordingly, he tries to understand life as an organization, not an organism."

No doubt he wants to extend this line of reasoning in the way you suggest, i.e., he wants to give an "organic" description of markets and juxtapose them to "organized communities." But since his intial claim is false, the extension cannot be supported by it.

Ralph: "For Aristotle, though the 'location' of the formal principle differentiates artifacts from substances, both have form in the same sense." Not true. Artifacts as such don't have formal causes in the sense that substances do. Substances are what they are in themselves. Artifacts are such accidentally. It is not merely a matter of location of the efficient cause of order, but a matter of what the thing is -- formal cause. Mises' distinction stands.

"the thought that von Mises criticizes as primitive is the common opinion that underwrites the entire tradition of natural law." To say that Mises here rejects the idea at the foundation of the tradition of natural law is to make two egregious mistakes completely at war with the tradition of natural law: First, you are assuming that all things are God's artifacts in the same sense that a car is an artifact of man, and this would means that there are no natural substances -- that is, you are undercutting the distinction between nature and artifact, and therefore undercutting the very notion of "nature" that natural law requires: all motion and order must become external and accidental force in your view. Second, you are presuming that the world could be created as it is without having its moral order and that Natural Law requires God to perform a distinct creative act to give law -- that is, you are saying that the divine Will is prior to the divine Reason in God's relation to the natural law. But this is, as Yves Simon points out, to put lawlessness (arbitrary will) at the heart of law, an absurdity.

My take on what von Mises is saying is that what is called "capitalism" is not really an organized "system," as its system-obsessed opponents believe, but a method of exchange that naturally, organically grew. It was not devised by a bunch of Eugenes sitting in a coffeeshop, but just came about. In other words, because men devised Communism and then applied it to the real world, those same men believe that someone, or some people, devised the free market and then unleashed it upon the world. It didn't happen that way. It grew.

Uberfrau,

“Artifacts as such don't have formal causes in the sense that substances do. Substances are what they are in themselves. Artifacts are such accidentally. It is not merely a matter of location of the efficient cause of order, but a matter of what the thing is — formal cause. Mises’ distinction stands.”

Let me simplify. In answer to the question ‘Whence the form,’ the answer in generation and production is the same, viz., ‘From something else that already has it.’ Obviously, there is a sense in which an organism arranges itself “from within” (development, growth, etc.) But the instructions, so to speak, by which it arranges itself originate from outside. Otherwise, the whole process would be spontaneous.

Though Aristotle held that the series of generations did not have a beginning, he also held that the ends (and therefore, the forms) of all substances are caused (finally, and perhaps efficiently) by the divine nature. Aquinas, of course, held that the series of generations did have a beginning in an act of special creation, i.e., God authored the forms of substances. Thus, contra Mises, Aquinas (that primitive thinker that he was) held that nature is “based on authority.”

“First, you are assuming that all things are God's artifacts in the same sense that a car is an artifact of man, and this would means that there are no natural substances — that is, you are undercutting the distinction between nature and artifact, and therefore undercutting the very notion of ‘nature’ that natural law requires: all motion and order must become external and accidental force in your view.”

If God is the efficient cause of the universe, then of course all motion and order in the universe must ultimately be external. Accidental? That depends on the sense of “accidental.” That there are rational moral agents is not an accident of creation, but is essential to it. Nevertheless, creation is not essential to God. It is not a natural end of the divine nature. Creation was not generated but produced. This fact does not undercut the natural law for man.

“Second, you are presuming that the world could be created as it is without having its moral order, and that Natural Law requires God to perform a distinct creative act to give law — that is, you are saying that the divine Will is prior to the divine Reason in God's relation to the natural law. But this is, as Yves Simon points out, to put lawlessness (arbitrary will) at the heart of law, an absurdity.”

I do no such thing. The creating (the making, the producing) is the legislating.

"If anyone needs to take greater care, I believe it is you. The quotation is not primarily concerned with the proper description of states or markets. Mises is criticizing the comparison of biological organisms to regimes. Thus the concluding sentence: "Man sees the organized community with its contrast of rulers and ruled, and accordingly, he tries to understand life as an organization, not an organism."

No doubt he wants to extend this line of reasoning in the way you suggest, i.e., he wants to give an "organic" description of markets and juxtapose them to "organized communities." But since his intial claim is false, the extension cannot be supported by it." -Ralph

"The quotation is not primarily concerned with the proper description of states or markets. Mises is criticizing the comparison of biological organisms to regimes."

This statement from the above quotation is a contradiction. Please restate. Was it or was it not primarily concerned with the proper description of states or markets?

If Mises is criticizing the comparison of biological organisms to regimes, than it was.

Secondly, the claim that Mises was criticizing comparison of biological organisms to regimes is also false. He is drawing a parallel between inherently authoritarian organization, in which there is a clear actor and acted upon, and mutualist organism, which is drawn out of multiple actors all acting independently of one another.

Dan,

"It was not devised by a bunch of Eugenes sitting in a coffeeshop, but just came about."

It seems to me that these alternatives are not exhausitve. Granted, 'capitalism' was not devised by a few in the way that communism was. Nevertheless, it was devised in some sense. It didn't just come about. For example, it's not the case that two people were just minding their own business, happened to bump into each other, and Darwin be praised, an exchange of goods and services happened to come about. Deliberation was involved, and deliberation is not "organic" in the way Mises intends. It seems to me that Mises is enamored with evolutionary explanations because these are (supposed to be) independent of planning (in some sinister sense). I would almost characterize it as an argument for liberty from irrationality, i.e., no intellect gave rise to this, therefore, no intellect can presume to govern it. I'm straying away from my comfort zone here, and I'm sure Uberfrau will point out the errors of my ways, but there is something in this sort of libertarianism that I strongly dislike.

"Though Aristotle held that the series of generations did not have a beginning, he also held that the ends (and therefore, the forms) of all substances are caused (finally, and perhaps efficiently) by the divine nature. Aquinas, of course, held that the series of generations did have a beginning in an act of special creation, i.e., God authored the forms of substances. Thus, contra Mises, Aquinas (that primitive thinker that he was) held that nature is “based on authority.”" - Ralph

This is, I believe, the central aspect of your argument. It is also irrelevant to the debate at hand. Clearly you are simply offended that Mises characterized belief in God as primitive. So is any right thinking person.

This is outside of and separate from Mises' comparison between authoritarian organization of things and mutualist organism.

Indeed natural law is mutualist. A man living alone in a desert absent any contact with any other humans would find himself incapable of engaging in a moral or immoral action, because morality is an inherently social notion.

If natural law is natural, than it must be mutualist. It must arise naturally from the independent actions of separate actors, regardless of whether it is a creation of God. Even though natural law is laid down by God, men can choose to either follow it or not to follow it or not.

Taking your view that natural law is organizational, you would have to believe that only the constant presence of the state can keep people from behaving morally, and outside of its constant oversight, they will return to an barbaric state.

I will wait for you to elaborate on whether you believe this before going on.

"This statement from the above quotation is a contradiction. Please restate. Was it or was it not primarily concerned with the proper description of states or markets?"

You misunderstand. Let me clarify. This quotation is not primarly about states or markets, it is about the proper description of living organisms. Its concern with states is secondary and negative: organisms are not like states. In the quotation, Mises makes a distinction -- viz, between organizations and organisms -- that he will use in other contexts (i.e., outside of this quotation) to argue that markets are not organizations but (metaphorically) organisms.

"Secondly, the claim that Mises was criticizing comparison of biological organisms to regimes is also false."

Actually, it is quite obvious that he is here concerned with biological organisms, and not with "organic" unities like markets (though, as I've said, he intends to apply what he says about biological organisms to markets). The fifth sentence reads "He inquires after the creation of every form of life...." A created form of life would be a plant or an animal, not a market.

"Indeed natural law is mutualist. A man living alone in a desert absent any contact with any other humans would find himself incapable of engaging in a moral or immoral action, because morality is an inherently social notion."

This is doubly mistaken. Of course a man living alone can engage in immoral action. You're confusing morality with justice. In addition, an ethical maxim governing the social interactions of a community can nevertheless be the product of authority. What do you suppose the federal government is doing when they enact and enforce laws?

"If natural law is natural, than it must be mutualist. It must arise naturally from the independent actions of separate actors, regardless of whether it is a creation of God. Even though natural law is laid down by God, men can choose to either follow it or not to follow it or not."

The natural law does not arise from actions. It is a consequence of man's nature, of what he is. If man is what he is because of the authority of God (i.e. if God is the author of man's nature), then the natural law is based on authority. Whether men disobey the natural law or not is irrelevant.

"Taking your view that natural law is organizational, you would have to believe that only the constant presence of the state can keep people from behaving [im]morally, and outside of its constant oversight, they will return to an barbaric state."

I have said nothing about this topic, and it is not directly relevant to this discussion. Certainly I believe that some men can act morally without the instruction of law. But most cannot.

"You misunderstand. Let me clarify. This quotation is not primarly about states or markets, it is about the proper description of living organisms. Its concern with states is secondary and negative: organisms are not like states. In the quotation, this, for all intents and purposes, Mises makes a distinction -- viz, between organizations and organisms -- that he will use in other contexts (i.e., outside of this quotation) to argue that markets are not organizations but (metaphorically) organisms." - Ralph

You said, and I quote:

"The quotation is not primarily concerned with the proper description of states or markets. Mises is criticizing the comparison of biological organisms to regimes."

That is a contradiction.Either the quote is NOT primarily concerned with the proper description of states or markets, OR Mises is criticizing the comparison of biological organisms to regimes.

"This is doubly mistaken. Of course a man living alone can engage in immoral action. You're confusing morality with justice. In addition, an ethical maxim governing the social interactions of a community can nevertheless be the product of authority. What do you suppose the federal government is doing when they enact and enforce laws?" - Ralph

Provide an example of one, then, and show how it is immoral.

A thing is immoral because of the negative effects that it has on others. An action cannot be immoral in and of itself.

Secondly, the government passing a law to enforce a moral standard is not an example of organization, because in this relationship the government is inherently reactive. The moral norm comes to exist, organically, and only later does the government come to enforce it. The government is not inventing moral norms out of thin air.

"The natural law does not arise from actions. It is a consequence of man's nature, of what he is. If man is what he is because of the authority of God (i.e. if God is the author of man's nature), then the natural law is based on authority. Whether men disobey the natural law or not is irrelevant." - Ralph

If natural law is a part of man's nature, than it is an example of organism. Whether God created man is irrelevant, unless you want to assert that no thought on the issue of natural law can be useful unless it explicitly identifies the divine origin of it. If that is your choice, I wonder why you do not go further and reject Mises' notion that organisms exist at all. God created wolves, for example, so by your logic a wolf is an example of an organization, not an organism.

The existence or non-existence of God can bear no relevance on the question of whether natural law is an example of organization or organism. If the former, than the title "natural" is a misnomer. Again, unless you want to reject Mises' notion of organism altogether and argue that everything that ever has been, is, or will be, is an example of organization because God created it. This would be true, but essentially irrelevant.Natural law is a framework for judging the justice or injustice of relations BETWEEN men, who are in and of themselves independent actors in relation to each other. Its existence is for this reason an example of mutualism and organism.

"I have said nothing about this topic, and it is not directly relevant to this discussion. Certainly I believe that some men can act morally without the instruction of law. But most cannot." -Ralph

It is directly relevant. If natural law is not an example of mutualism than that means it is something other than a framework for judging relations between independently acting humans. And that would necessitate a view of natural law so different from the present one as to be, I think, nearly unrecognizable. It is possible we would simply have to return to the old pagan superstitions where certain actions are pleasing or displeasing to the irrational spirits which govern various elements. This is alien from the Judeo-Christian notion of a rational and non-capricious God who recognizes things are either just or injust because of the way they effect our fellow man.

It's not a contradiction. You're ignoring the the word "primarily."

Consider the related notion of sin and ask yourself whether it is possible to sin on deserted island.

All the laws that the federal government enacts already exist as norms in society?

My whole point is that Mises' distinction between "organization" and "organism" is misconceived. Apparently you've missed it.

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

Ah, my mistake on the contradiction issue. I misunderstood you.

If the federal government is enforcing a moral norm, then by definition that norm would have to already exist. Unless you believe the federal government is just pulling morality out of its head, which would contradict your argument about God.

Mises' distinction is not misconceived. The existence or non-existence of God is not relevant for this question. Natural law is either something which exists simply as part of man's nature, whether his nature arises through abiogenesis or divine origin (in which case it is an example of organism) or it is entirely an invention of some men, imposed on others through the force of the state (which would be ironic), in which case it is organization. Whether man's nature arises from God or abiogenesis is not relevant. Mises defined organism as mutual laws governing independent actors who act in relation to each other and which are naturally arising. Such a market, or natural law, against what he defined as organization, authority based relationships in which there is a clear actor and acted upon. Natural law would exist, even if the laws of the state did not, and the laws of the state could contradict natural law. This itself is sufficient proof that natural law is an example of organism, not organization. Regardless of how man's nature came to be. Whether or not God is A.) The inventor of natural law, and B.) The authority over mankind, natural law still exists independent of and separate from that authority, which is why so many atheists believe in it. Precisely because it is bound up in man's nature.

Regarding the issue of sinning on an island, I can think of three possible sins: blasphemy, masturbation, and suicide. The first is a sin, granted not because it is a crime against our fellow men, but because it is a crime directly against God. It still fits inside the framework of morality through harm to others.

While both suicide and masturbation do have ill effects on others in many ways, if you'd like to make the case that they are wrong in and of themselves, these would be the only sins I can think of which would not fit inside of a naturally occurring framework.

So if you like I could give you that masturbation and suicide are wrong because of organization. Natural law however, is clearly an example of organism, precisely because it is bound up in our nature.

"But the instructions, so to speak, by which it arranges itself originate from outside. Otherwise, the whole process would be spontaneous." -Ralph

You are equivocating on "outside" here. As i pointed out, the issue here is not location, but formal cause or essence. The substance has its essence per se, the artifact does not. According to your view, a baby is an artifact of the parents because the human soul that forms the body is at least initially spatially external to the material cause that becomes the body. Once again, the issue is not location.

Your discussion of the accidential/essential chartacter of creation is too obscure to think about. I'll make myself dumber, I think. The issue is that creation by God cannot be like creation of an artifact, or the nature/artifact distinction cannot hold. You are playing into Sartre's hands, I think (I am not a papercutter...). This in turn undercuts the sense of nature in natural law. Furthermore, if we don't have this sense of "nature" then our nature cannot be the ground of the moral order and this leads naturally to a divine legal positivism (voluntarism). Like this: you can't read the fuinction of an artifact off of the manifest (non-relational) properties of it: if man is not a natural being but an artifact (in the same sense as a paper cutter is) then we can't read his function/norm off of his intrinsic qualities either.

Ralph: regarding the issue of whether capitalism is the result of deliberation, you must distinguish between micro and macro levels, and between intended end and result. Capitalism is a name for the macro result of many acts of deliberation. It is not the intended end of any of those particular acts. Contrast communism, which is an attempt to systematize that unplanned macro "organic" result with an "organization," a system which is the intended end of certain people's deliberation.

Let's focus on Mises' "organization-organism" distinction. You write,

"Mises defined organism as mutual laws governing independent actors who act in relation to each other and which are naturally arising. Such a market, or natural law, against what he defined as organization, authority based relationships in which there is a clear actor and acted upon."

The concept organism is, first and foremost, a biological concept. Mises is extending the biological use of the term to communities. To judge this extension, we must understand the unextended concept. We cannot start with the extended concept; that is, we cannot start by defining organism in terms of "mutual laws governing independent actors." We must start by defining organism in biological terms.

Mises appears to offer a biological definition of organism: whereas organization comes from the "outside," organisms "grow themselves." Let's use the word "order" as a neutral term indicating arrangement or structure. Both organizations and organisms are ordered. Mises is asserting (it seems to me) that organization is order imposed from the outside, and organism is order imposed from the inside.

Following Aristotle, I think there is a sense in which Mises is right, and a sense in which he is wrong. In other words, his distinction is simplistic, and its simplicity undermines his extension of the concept to markets, etc.

It is obviously the case that plants and animals order themselves in a way that a house does not. In Aristotle's words, plants and animals have an inborn principle of change, and artifacts do not. This is the sense in which Mises is right.

Where does the order that plants and animals impose on their matter come from? It must come from something that already has it, i.e., from outside. This is inconsistent with Mises' definition of organism.

Put simply, everything gets its principle of order "from outside" (with the exception of God, but let's leave him out of this for the moment).

"According to your view, a baby is an artifact of the parents because the human soul that forms the body is at least initially spatially external to the material cause that becomes the body."

This is not according to my view. There is a difference between substances and artifacts. The difference has nothing to do with the form being "initially spatially external to the material cause that becomes" the substance or artifact. In both generation and production the source of the form is external to the effect. Thus, in this respect there is no difference between substances and artifacts. Nevertheless, they are different because the forms of substances are inborn efficient causes of change, whereas the forms of artifacts are not.

"If man is not a natural being but an artifact (in the same sense as a paper cutter is) then we can't read his function/norm off of his intrinsic qualities either."

Fair point, given that God does not generate anything. Nevetheless, all I need you to grant is that the order present in the universe and its parts is derivative.

"The issue is that creation by God cannot be like creation of an artifact, or the nature/artifact distinction cannot hold."

I disagree. Accept for the moment that man is an artifact. What is to prevent reading his function off of his intrinsic qualities?

"Capitalism is a name for the macro result of many acts of deliberation. It is not the intended end of any of those particular acts."

Isn't it more than this? Don't the laws which formalize the relationships between the 'exchangers' constitute agreement that was not there before? That is, the laws don't simply make explicit what was there implicitly (as if a fully-formed order was there beneath the surface, and only needed to be unearthed). They add something, don't they? What they add, among other things, is uniformity, precision, efficienty, etc. Aren't these the characteristics of a system?

Uberfrau,

The last two quotes of yours should be switched. That is, the comment under each goes with the other quotation.

"In both generation and production the source of the form is external to the effect." The sense in which this IS true is not relevant to the question. "The source of the form"??? There is no generation of substantial form for A, I think. In the generation of a substance, the form is no "external" to the substance. In generation of a substance such as a living thing, the form is identical to the quiddity of the "effect" -- it therefore belongs to it per se and primarily, and not "externally." Perhaps this will help. Please remember that forms are not particulars. I think this is getting you screwed up. You think that the formal cause is a copy of the instructions in the father and that they are responsible for organizing the child, and then they copy themselves and are "in" the child (RNA/DNA). This is not Aristotle. "Nevertheless, they are different because the forms of substances are inborn efficient causes of change, whereas the forms of artifacts are not." More confusion from you. The word "inborn" accomplishes nothing here except handwaving: what you mean by it is "location", and that is reductivistic nonsense. The issue here is not location and it is not efficient causality. It is essence and whether the essence is dependent/per se or not. In substances it is per se, in artifacts it is accidental/dependent.

Is the order "Derivative"? The word here is being used badly. (1) The world has a certain order intrinsically, according to the essence of the natures of beings that are in it. (2) The world and everything good in it derives from God's creation ex nihilo. I don't think these statements are inconsistent. Your rendering of the second renders the first null.

According to the concept of an artifact, the ideas of the artisan (and the community of users) are constitutive of the thing's essence and function. The ideas about a thing do not change the thing in any real (spatio-temporal properties) way. Therefore, merely from knowledge of real characteristics one cannot infer the essence or purpose of the thing.

The laws of private property and exchange: the well-developed market needs this, indeed, though the market (free exchange) can also exist without it to some degree. Why in the world should we view this as anything like the designing done by communist scribblers? The macro order is still not the intended end of organizers, but the macro-result of many individual actions unthought of by the laws or law makers.

"...uniformity, precision, efficienty, etc. Aren't these the characteristics of a system?" WTF? They are also characteristics of much else, and often not characteristic of a system. And the word "system" here is way too broad to be helpful. The question is whether the macro result needs to be intended by organizers. And the answer is clearly "no."

"Mises appears to offer a biological definition of organism: whereas organization comes from the "outside," organisms "grow themselves." Let's use the word "order" as a neutral term indicating arrangement or structure. Both organizations and organisms are ordered. Mises is asserting (it seems to me) that organization is order imposed from the outside, and organism is order imposed from the inside.

Following Aristotle, I think there is a sense in which Mises is right, and a sense in which he is wrong. In other words, his distinction is simplistic, and its simplicity undermines his extension of the concept to markets, etc.

It is obviously the case that plants and animals order themselves in a way that a house does not. In Aristotle's words, plants and animals have an inborn principle of change, and artifacts do not. This is the sense in which Mises is right.

Where does the order that plants and animals impose on their matter come from? It must come from something that already has it, i.e., from outside. This is inconsistent with Mises' definition of organism.

Put simply, everything gets its principle of order "from outside" (with the exception of God, but let's leave him out of this for the moment)." - Ralph

In this context Ralph, saying everything gets its order from outside is as good as saying that nothing does. I think we've made clear why. Mises is drawing distinctions betweens things that come about naturally (regardless of the origin of nature, because for the purposes of this question, nature is as far back as we are going) and things that occur artificially.