Philip Pilkington: The Ideology to End Ideologies – A Response to Corey Robin on Nietzsche, Hayek, Mises, and Marginalism

The political philosopher Corey Robin recently published an interesting essay on what he thinks to be the connection between the late German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the economic theory of marginalism which Robin associates with the Austrian school (but which, of course, is also a mainstay of mainstream neoclassical economics). I should start by saying that I respect Robin’s work a great deal; I respect it to the extent that I did an interview with him for this very site when his last book appeared. However, his latest piece is grossly misguided and reflective of the fact that, when it comes to theoretical economics, academic critics on the left simply do not know their enemy at all.

The reason for this, I think, is because Robin does not quite grasp the essence of either modern neoclassical or Austrian economics or, consequently, how these twin doctrines establish an absurd and abstruse metaphysical system of morals that poisons the minds of everyone from academics to laymen and lawmakers. It would also appear that, lying in the background somewhere, Robin assumes that the only antidote to the scourge of marginalism is the dusty old labour theory of value – as problematic and discredited as it is. This is something of a guess on my part but if I’m correct it is but another indication that the left are fighting battles that have long since been thoroughly and completely lost. In actual fact, the questions and the answers lie elsewhere – and they lie precisely in the work of the very philosopher that Robin equates with degenerate marginalism.

It is Nietzsche’s critique of all theories of value and, by implication, all systems of morality that lay the ground for the most effective critique of the marginalist toxin – a critique that I have laid out in detail on this site before. These may seem like dusty academic issues – the realm of the literary critic than of the practical minded person – but this is not so. Because the left do not know their academic enemy he escapes with impunity and lives on, zombie-like, day after day – in our classrooms and, more importantly, in our everyday moral and political discourse.

Naked Capitalism
Philip Pilkington: The Ideology to End Ideologies – A Response to Corey Robin on Nietzsche, Hayek, Mises, and Marginalism

This is an important debate for framing contemporary economics and policy. It begins with philosophy, or contending ideologies,  and it also has to get the history and economics right. To frame MMT effectively, one needs to know the opposition, see it's advantages and disadvantages, and frame the debate in terms of trade-offs, showing how one position is morally superior, as well as more effective at meeting objectives efficiently.

The take away: "However, the goal is always the same; namely, to trick the student into thinking they are learning something objective when really they are being taught how to organise their minds in a very particular way."

See also some Libertarian and conservative responses to Corey Robin

 Bleeding Heart Libertarian
On Robin’s Tenuous Connection between Nietzsche and Hayek
Kevin Vallier

Reason

Hayek and Nietzsche: Perhaps Not Partners in a Cross-Century Anti-Equality Plot
Brian Doherty

The American Conservative

Corey Robin’s Dubious Nietzsche-Hayek Connection

Jordan Bloom

I would come back to the basic distinction between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism holds that all persons are equal. Conservatism holds that some are better than others. (Hat tip to George Orwell in Animal Farm.) 

Certainly, Neitzsche takes the conservative position, which was imitated, poorly one could argue, but Ayn Rand, who was a Nietzsche wannabe. See Corey Robin's Garbage and Gravitas.

The question, then, is are neoclassical and Austrian economics inherently conservative in this sense, which is to say, is laissez-faire capitalism based on market fundamentalism inherently conservative in this sense? I think it is difficult to argue that it is not, given that the hero is the successful entrepreneur as modern version of the victorious warrior, the feudal lord, or a Hegelian world historical figure. In contemporary capitalism the entrepreneur shares the stage increasingly with top management as large corporations dominate.

According to conservatism this inequality of person results in meritocracy based on some standard of excellence such as the might of the warrior, the blood of the aristocrat, or the "hard work," discipline, thrift, and morality of the Protestant ethic to which Weber attributed the spirit of capitalism. In turn, this result in unequal distribution of wealth and power that underlies "trickle down."