I view everything that Popper has written as highly suspect due to his role as a founding father of neoliberalism. My views of neoliberalism have morphed over time. While I still abhor it, I no longer view it as a repudiation of classical liberalism and finally accept it for what Popper, Hayek, Friedman and Mises described it to be: the intellectual and moral successor to classical liberalism merely stripped of its communist fiction. That is, neoliberalism is everything classical liberalism was designed to be without the alleged "flaw" of collectivism that gave rise to socialism, communism and fascism.
Neoliberalism, known in the US as "libertarianism," is not anti-State. Indeed, Popper, Hayek, Friedman and Mises were all Statists, only their perfect state does not serve the collective, it only keeps the collective in check. The purpose of the neoliberal State is to control the collective from which it draws its power so as to benefit the true elite. The collective serves the neoliberal State, not the other way around.Capitalism Isn't a Failure, It's a Lie
Tao Jonesing
Good post, with which I generally agree. But I disagree with the modern interpretation of Plato about the guardians. Plato was talking about rule by the truly wise, not an elite that acquires status by power, wealth, or privilege.
But this post explains the whining of the elite about how disadvantaged they are becoming, based on their belief that their privileged status is deserved.
23 comments:
I dont understand this part Tom: "Neoliberalism, known in the US as "libertarianism," is not anti-State."
Seems to me that libertarians are often anti-state... rsp,
Matt, they say that they are anti-state, but they want the state to protect security and property with a strong security force and legal system dedicated to that end. Their "anti-statism" is anti-social programs that result in what they see as "redistribution." The chief purpose of a strong state albeit a "small government" is to protect the interest of the propertied class, which becomes a privileged elite that controls the state in a "meritocracy."
The chief purpose of a strong state albeit a "small government" is to protect the interest of the propertied class, which becomes a privileged elite that controls the state in a "meritocracy."
What a load of crap. Libertarians constantly demand protection of the property and person of the most powerless people on the planet. Constantly and always. The essence of the Rothbardian vision is that there are to be no exceptions to those protections where the exceptions are invariably based upon some phony emergency for the benefit of the elite.
This lie would be funny if it weren't so pathetic:
Neoliberalism was founded by Hayek, Mises, Friedman and others as a multi-generational strategy to effectively eliminate public control of democratic governments in order to ensure governments would not interfere with the banks' creation and manipulation of boom bust cycles to their advantage.
http://taojonesing.blogspot.com/2010/09/neoliberalisms-one-two-punch.html
Lies and dissembling are the sole bases of MMT.
Not arguing with that point, Bob. My contention is that the logic of wealth is that it grows in a capitalistic environment in which private property is a chief norm, and that growth of wealth by the acquisitive class ultimately results in a plutocratic elite that controls the state on the justification that the the successful deserve to rule in a meritocracy. The other options historically have been control by the warrior class based on power, and control by a specialist class, often religiously based, that is based on special knowledge or at the claim to it. Since the advent of surplus societies historically there has been no rule by "the people," that is, the majority of the population who are workers. There is always a ruling elite and it has been either dominated by warriors, "technocrats," or the acquisitors. The workers fair more or less well in different periods but they are never in charge of their own affairs as a class or the affairs of state. Sometimes there are sub-classes of workers who are relatively independent, such as the medieval masons who traveled around building from place to place without being under the control of a lord. Workers do rise up and effect regime change when conditions deteriorate, but rule is soon wrested from them by one means or another — power, specialized knowledge or wealth accumulation. It's cyclical historically. See the works of Ravi Batra on economic history, for example.
This is the best one yet:
The fact is, though, that the founders of the neoliberal schools of economics (Chicago and Austrian) knew that their mathematical models were bogus. Otherwise, they would not have set up think tanks and similar institutions to bombard the public with neoliberal propaganda that shapes people's understanding of reality and, thus, shapes people's expectations. They knew that economic decisions are not based solely on purely selfish interest but are influenced deeply by societal institutions. At the end of the day, Mises, Friedman and Hayek were really institutionalist economists who hid behind false mathematical models to mask their neofeudal ideology as the new liberalism.
http://taojonesing.blogspot.com/2010/10/and-now-for-something-completely.html
Those evil Austrians and their mathematical models. Is this Jones dude a member of Monty Python?
My contention is that the logic of wealth is that it grows in a capitalistic environment in which private property is a chief norm, and that growth of wealth by the acquisitive class ultimately results in a plutocratic elite that controls the state on the justification that the the successful deserve to rule in a meritocracy.
Except that such problem only happens by the use of the initiation of force. It does not happen if the initiation of force is effectively prohibited. Gabriel Kolko demonstrated that the "robber barons" could not gain monopoly control without the protections of "progressive" legislation.
Touched a nerve, I see.
BTW, to set the record straight, Tao Jonesing has nothing to do with MMT to the best of my knowledge. Don't know whether he or she even knows about it.
Except that such problem only happens by the use of the initiation of force. It does not happen if the initiation of force is effectively prohibited.
What force enforces the prohibition if a strong group initiates force? Who controls that "police" force?
Who controls the force that protects against invasion, i.e., the warriors, who have typically dominated in the course of history as the rule of the stronger.
What's to prevent technocrats from controlling in a technological age that is technology dependent?
Why has your ideal have no historical expression?
Quote from Slavery Bob Roddis: "What a load of crap. Libertarians constantly demand protection of the property and person of the most powerless people on the planet. Constantly and always. The essence of the Rothbardian vision is that there are to be no exceptions to those protections where the exceptions are invariably based upon some phony emergency for the benefit of the elite."
I suppose that is why Rothbard supported the Khmer Rouge cause he was for the protection of "property."
Rothbard also loved the weak and powerless so much that he denied the holocaust.
Bob Roddis can't respond rationally because he incapable of seeing past the liberal framing of the issue into "consent-versus-coercion" and "property" rights.
I've linked to http://www.blog.ellerman.org/ which is David Ellerman's blog because it is the best summary of why liberalism is built on shifting sand which has no real substance.
Bob's refusal to read and understand anyone who disagrees with his framing shows that he just isn't a an adult with a sovereign mind capable of self rule which why he mindlessly repeats the slogans of those who rule over him.
Bob Roddis is a slave. Totally enthralled with the rhetoric and sophisms of Western imperialism. I feel sorry for him because he literally can't see the chains of his own ideology.
Gabriel Kolko:
"While describing himself as a Leftist and anti-capitalist (and considered by some a "quasi-Marxist"), Kolko is withering in his criticism of the undemocratic, authoritarian strands of Socialism espoused by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko
Wait, what?
"The “national progressivism” that Kolko attacks was, in his own words, “the defense of business against the democratic ferment that was nascent in the states.”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/left-turn-ahead/
Democracy. Bob's favourite word.
What force enforces the prohibition if a strong group initiates force? Who controls that "police" force?
What a way to avoid and change the subject. The first issue is to determine what is right and what is wrong. The initiation of force is wrong. That needs to become the societal norm.
Why has your ideal have no historical expression?
1. It does have historical expression in the English Common law. Protection for private property and bodies is enshrined in the law. There are just too many exceptions usually based upon some phony hysterical panic created by the looting elite (such as war panic, the alleged “lack of aggregate demand” or the alleged need for monopoly fiat funny money.).
2. The history of mankind is one of horrors and slaughter. Thousands of people lined up to have their hearts chopped out by the Aztecs is almost normal in human history.
3. It is telling that MMT, based as it is upon the initiation of violence against Africans (the Warren “Hut Tax” Mosler British tax on native huts), and the initiation of violence against the entire society in order to enforce the fiat funny money monopoly, would chafe at the PROPOSAL of a prohibition on the INITIATION of violence.
Gabriel Kolko:
"While describing himself as a Leftist and anti-capitalist (and considered by some a "quasi-Marxist"), Kolko is withering in his criticism of the undemocratic, authoritarian strands of Socialism espoused by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong."
Whatever problems I might have with Kolko's solutions, this does not change the historical record he discloses that demonstrates that the free market did not lead to monopolies by the "robber barons". They required "progressive" legislation to accomplish that. The latter involves the initiation of force. The former does not. The entire excuse for the giant assaultive "progressive" legislative scheme is based upon the FALSE narrative that laissez faire results in corporate control of the nation when, in fact, Kolko demonstrated that corporate control results from the regulatory regime itself.
Another failed attempt to change the subject.
What a way to avoid and change the subject. The first issue is to determine what is right and what is wrong. The initiation of force is wrong. That needs to become the societal norm.
What is the criterion for deciding what is "right" and what is "wrong." Is the criterion absolute? On the basis of what criterion is that proven, or is it "turtles all the way down"? Or is are all criteria relative, e.g., cultural?
Even if where it is claimed that that there is an absolute criterion, then the standard typically claimed historically is "God," and God is both the judge and enforcer, with punishment administered in either this life by divine intervention or in an after life, or in successive lives, eg., karma.
I am curious about this, Bob, because this is an going debate in moral philosophy/ethics that is unresolved in that there are many explanations, none of which are universally compelling. How do you propose to resolve it definitively?
I am curious about this, Bob, because this is an going debate in moral philosophy/ethics that is unresolved in that there are many explanations, none of which are universally compelling. How do you propose to resolve it definitively?
Is it really necessary for me to "prove" that murder, assault, theft, pillage, rape, chopping out of hearts and genocide are wrong? I'm satisfied simply to have you guys claim in public that those issues are up for debate.
Bob, don't get me wrong here. As a libertarian of the left, agree with you on this in principle , but I think you are being naive in thinking that this can be done the way you seem to be suggesting, that is, by institutional means.
I am suggesting that institutions can always be corrupted or captured, and therefore, what is required is a shift in the level of collective consciousness instead. The institutional way is top down, the change in consciousness way is bottom up.
If we look at human history, as the introduction of agriculture and the advent of surplus economies that could support class structures that differentiated workers from warriors needed to protect the surplus and supported by it, and specialist whose knowledge created and expanding the surplus through innovation and who were also supported from the surplus, and people of commerce who profited from the surplus without actually producing it, the so-called primitive age, which as characterized by liberalism, ended and liberalism went into decline for a long while.
As long as there is wealth to be accumulated and power to be gained, fame to be won, and pleasures to be enjoyed, people of low consciousness will vie for them, and unless the level of collective consciousness is high enough to prevent corruption and capture, they will succeed in taking over the polity. This is brutal historical fact, not speculative theory.
Only recently has history regained a liberal bias as the level of collective consciousness began to develop in the direction of greater universality. Humanity has a way to go, however, before liberalism is the natural state, for liberalism is grounded not in individualism in a social species but in reason and, more importantly, love. This has been the teaching of the wise for millennia.
Is it really necessary for me to "prove" that murder, assault, theft, pillage, rape, chopping out of hearts and genocide are wrong? I'm satisfied simply to have you guys claim in public that those issues are up for debate.
It pains me to say it, Bob, but that have been human SOP for millennia. Very rarely have any elites ever held accountable for it unless they are conquered in war. In fact, Romney is being advised to "play the torture card" as a bold political strategy to win the presidency. Really.
Look at the US today. There is no outcry against terrorism by counter-terrorism, and probably a majority of Americans support the use of torture even though it is against national and international law.
While it would be nice if everyone agreed with us about this being wrong, they don't, and being in violation of positive law doesn't bother them. Religious people don't seem to be much bothered by the moral implications either, or institutional religious teaching about this.
Institutions and laws are already in place and being ignored on a widespread basis, i.e., with majority support in a democracy, which suggests to me that institutional change is meaningless without a change of heart.
Again, it may seem that I am against "private property." I am not as long as it is based on need and use. My point is that like most everything there is a constructive use of private property and uses that are not only not constructive but also damaging socially, politically, economically and also what I consider to be morally. This is reflective to me of species immaturity that only further development can correct.
Forward looking humans need to be looking at how to increase the rate of development, species-wide in a global age in which it is becoming clear that everyone and everything influences everyone and everything else, ie., we inhabit a system in which reflexivity, reciprocity and interdependence rule.
Bob, I'll have a good read of your anti-capitalist quasi-Marxist literature when I have a bit more time.
I've had my copy since 1973 (the book was published in 1963). It's cheap too, $4.41 for a used copy.
http://tinyurl.com/8hkco7d
I've read a good bit of Popper and related work, and it doesn't seem to me that there's a particularly close relationship between his philosophy and neo-liberalism. This:
"Popper's discussion of Plato has forced me to question my assumption that-- like Friedman, Hayek and Mises-- Popper was a despicable man. He may have had genuinely good intentions and not realized what he was creating in neoliberalism."
doesn't make sense to me, and I'd like to see some quotes documenting it. Popper attacks classical socialism alright because he believed society wasn't a mechanism; but he also believed in what he called piecemeal social engineering as embodied in things like the UK's National Health Service, far from libertarianism as I see it. Tao also says:
"That being said, I note that Hayek did to "liberty" what Plato did to "justice," and yet I am unaware of Popper criticizing him for it."
It's true Popper never explicitly criticized Hayek. People who know about Popper's life attribute that to a sense of obligation rather than agreement with Hayek's views. Popper wrote OSE and The Poverty of Historicism during WW II when he was in New Zealand. His "friend" Carnap wouldn't support him in getting these published and Popper submitted OSE to many publishers without success. Finally, Hayek saw the mss and he backed both books. The Poverty was published in two installments in Economica where Hayek was editor, and Hayek got OSE accepted at Routledge if I recall. The publication of the two works allowed Popper to get out of NZ and to get an appointment at the London School of Economics (LSE) where he eventually got his Chair.
So Popper felt that he owed Hayek. His students say that he never criticized him in class even when his own views were very much opposed to Hayek's. But, also he rarely refers to or praises Hayek in his writings. When Hayek invited Popper to join the Mount Pelerin Society as a founding member, Popper agreed. But he was never very active there and never supported its political agenda. Popper did not affiliate with parties in the UK. But he was known to prefer Labor to the Conservatives as a rule.
Among Popper's students and collaborators, many were identified as conservatives or libertarians. But there are many liberals/progressives too. For example, George Soros, and many of his collaborators are Popperians but they reject neo-liberalism as it is manifested today. I'm also an example of someone who prefers Popper to most any other philosopher including Lakatos, Feyerabend, and contemporary constructivists. But I am not a libertarian and I see no conflict between Popper's philosophy, MMT, and a much more active role for the government in the economy than we see today.
My view is that the debate of the time was over fascism, liberalism, and socialism as categories. These are broad categories with many nuances across the spectrum that were often submerged in the debates to the stark contrast in the world at the time.
My view is that is long past time to move past this stage of the historical debate since the context has changed markedly.
Personally, I have trouble with "liberalism" as a category. Like "capitalism" it implies that one factor is pre-eminent. Capitalism asumes the preeminent role of capital goods (basis of industry) over land (basis of agriculture) and land. Liberalism assumes preeminence of liberty over egality and community. Both of these are serious mistakes that lie that the basis of most of the problems we face today.
This is a chief contention of the libertarianism of the left known as anarcho-communitarianism, which is based on voluntary association and cooperation of self-sufficient individuals for mutual benefit based on consensus, natural leadership based on task, and absence of privilege. The challenge is scaling up resilient communities based on this kind of fluid structure that emphasizes coordinated agility and open networking.
@Tom, I don't disagree with what you say; but only with the characterization of Popper and his philosophy as neo-liberal in Tao's piece. Popper didn't have the required neo-liberal religious fealty to the market. Nor is his critical rationalism in any way dogmatic about either the market or government interventions in it. So, the distance between his thinking and that of Austrian Economics is very considerable from my point of view.
I know that many Austrians think they're Popperians; but if that were true they would long since have accepted their economic theories as falsified.
I know that many Austrians think they're Popperians; but if that were true they would long since have accepted their economic theories as falsified.
Yes, Mises never accepted falsification, while Hayek did. Those that follow Mises rather than Hayek reject falsification, as has become obvious in previous "debates" over the issue here.
Interestingly, Abba Lerner was initially a socialist, but he "converted" to liberalism when he studied at LSE under — Hayek.
I don't think it is possible to pigeonhole most thinkers other than those representative of a particular position. Popper is perhaps most closely associated with falsification in the popular mind, which is a liberal position epistemologically. This position is contradicted by the market fundamentalism (dogmatism) of neoliberalism, as evidenced by the refusal of neoliberals to accept the disconfirmation of their dogmatic posture by recent events.
Post a Comment