4 ms·

> Next, she labels Hayek as neoliberal. It is hard to take an article seriously if it cannot distinguish between laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism. Thi

> Next, she labels Hayek as neoliberal. It is hard to take an article seriously if it cannot distinguish between laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism. This is a surprisingly common inaccurate generalization. I cannot help but wonder if the author is sincere. Respectfully, I think you may be out of your depth here. You critique the author for associating a major player in the development of neoliberalism with... neoliberalism? Hayek was a founding member of the Mont Pelerin Society (sometimes considered a symbolic birthplace of the ideology) and his contributions to the field of economics helped lay the foundation for neoliberalism's global ascendance. Neoliberalism's Wikipedia entry is littered with mentions of his name. It's difficult to think of someone more qualified to don the label.

aww_dang 5y ago
https://mises.org/library/against-neoliberals https://mises.org/library/against-neoliberals In practice neoliberalism does not represent the free-market as presented by Hayek. Mises was also a founding member of the MPS, will you have me believe that he was a neoliberal? These are generalizations leveled by socialist critics and third positionists who would use appeals to the market as a fig leaf. The incentives for distortion are clear. >Neoliberalism is distinct from liberalism insofar as it does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy but instead is highly constructivist and advocates a strong state to bring about market-like reforms in every aspect of society. >the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947, whose founding members included Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Karl Popper, George Stigler and Ludwig von Mises. Meeting annually, it would become a "kind of international 'who's who' of the classical liberal and neo-liberal intellectuals. Take the example of neoliberal negotiated "free trade" agreements and contrast that to laissez-faire unilateral free trade. The inability to distinguish between the two paradigms or the deliberate conflation of terms is what I am addressing.
- anemoiac 5y ago
  It sounds to me like you're unaware of (or dismissive toward) the existing discourse around the topic of neoliberalism. Mises.org may view the term as a meaningless epithet leveled against their ideological kin by ignorant or irrelevant onlookers, but one can't simply hand-wave away the existing literature on the topic. Redefining existing terms to suit one's own goals, perhaps through the use of arbitrary purity tests, is unhelpful at best. As you acknowledged, "the incentives for distortion are clear." Moving on, I'll reiterate that Hayek is widely considered a (very significant) neoliberal. This isn't a controversial viewpoint - check out neoliberalism's entry in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/) for the mainstream perspective on his role in its development. The notion that Hayek is not a neoliberal, however, would seem quite controversial to most in this space. > In practice neoliberalism does not represent the free-market as presented by Hayek. Keep in mind that Hayek was a theoretician, so his ideas represent a starting point, not a conclusion, when it comes to enacted policy. What are some good examples of neoliberalism in practice that you find wholly incompatible with Hayek's views? > Take the example of neoliberal negotiated "free trade" agreements and contrast that to laissez-faire unilateral free trade. While I can appreciate the differences between unilateral free trade and "neoliberal negotiated 'free trade' agreements," I'm not sure how the existence of those differences removes Hayek's prominent role in the history of neoliberalism. I'll also point out that the (confusing) catch-all use of the word "neoliberal" to describe American center-left politics from Carter onward shouldn't be conflated with academic use of the term. > Mises was also a founding member of the MPS, will you have me believe that he was a neoliberal? While I probably wouldn't primarily characterize Mises as a neoliberal, he had a huge influence on Hayek and maintained many views that are compatible with neoliberalism. > Neoliberalism is distinct from liberalism insofar as it does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy but instead is highly constructivist and advocates a strong state to bring about market-like reforms in every aspect of society. This is from economic historian/philosopher Philip Mirowski, I believe, and should be viewed in that context. He's describing an existing neoliberal political and economic system in toto, as opposed to the theoretical principles that Hayek or Friedman would have discussed. While one might discuss policies intended to increase economic freedom as if they could be overseen by a small, limited government, and would result in universally-increased freedom, actually implementing them could require a powerful and oppressive dictatorship like Augusto Pinochet's in Chile.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Thank you for your response. If we are going to play the mainstream reference game, we should allow the caveat that socialists dominate the establishment academic landscape. Hayek himself argued this even in 1949. Please see: "The Intellectuals and Socialism", F.A Hayek. While the domination of mainstream discourse may not be as complete and overwhelming as some socialists would prefer, it is palatable. In spite of the above, even Wikipedia describes Hayek as a classical liberal. >Hayek was also a major social theorist and political philosopher of the 20th century and as the co-founder of Mont Pelerin Society he contributed to the revival of classical liberalism in the post-war era >The most interesting among the courageous dissenters of the 1980s were the classical liberals, disciples of F.A. Hayek, from whom they had learned about the crucial importance of economic freedom and about the often-ignored conceptual difference between liberalism and democracy Where Wikipedia is able to directly describe Hayek as a neoliberal, it is in the words of a georgist. I'll allow that Hayek's classical liberalism influenced neoliberalism, but the distinction is there. I'll go one step further and claim that the classical liberal influence wasn't strong enough. Going back to the earlier Mises link, you can see how there were disputes within the MPS. Attributing the end product of neoliberalism to Hayek or Mises is an inaccurate generalization. >At the London School of Economics, Popper was close to the neoliberal theorist Friedrich Hayek. Hayek, Mises and the classical liberal tradition are better represented today by the Austrians, which is widely held to be heterodox. It comes as no surprise. Neither were friends to the socialist cause. Socialist dominated institutions would naturally have that incentive. Furthermore, if you'll allow the digression, individualists by definition would need less approval and validation from the collective. The distinction between having an influence on and being a proponent of something is wide. The chasm grows when the influence was insufficient. At the top of the page on your provided Princeton link, sentence one: >Though not all scholars agree on the meaning of the term, “neoliberalism”... Neoliberalism as it is used in general parlance, especially by critics of the market, has come to mean half-hearted market based solutions which both the socialists and the classical liberals would regard as failures. Take the highly regulated 'private' healthcare system in the US as an example. Market advocates might claim, "at least it isn't socialism" at best. The size of the political economy eclipses the possibility of genuine free-market solutions here. Yet, the socialists would increase the size and scope of the state while blaming the market for failing. Neoliberalism is a pejorative in the mouths of socialists. It is wielded indiscriminately. Classical liberals would attribute the failures of neoliberalism to the size and scope of government interference, a lack of genuine free-market reform. >While one might discuss policies intended to increase economic freedom as if they could be overseen by a small, limited government, and would result in universally-increased freedom, actually implementing them could require a powerful and oppressive dictatorship like Augusto Pinochet's in Chile. Yes, the old, "You can't have a small government without a big government" argument. I've most often seen this deployed against minarchists, so it is interesting to see it here. Maybe you can rephrase that one? >What are some good examples of neoliberalism in practice that you find wholly incompatible with Hayek's views? I'll let you take your pick, but google has some real gems here. https://www.google.com/search?q=neoliberalism+pinochet https://www.google.com/search?q=neoliberalism+pinochet https://mises.org/wire/no-hayek-didnt-support-pinochet-regime https://mises.org/wire/no-hayek-didnt-support-pinochet-regim... >Hayek: "I have certainly never contended that generally authoritarian governments are more likely to secure individual liberty than democratic ones, but rather the contrary." In more general terms, I think you'd find it difficult to square the CIA, military industrial complex backed Pinochet regime with the classical liberalism Hayek is known for. Similarly, the national-socialist influences and fugitives from justice at Colonia Dignidad are out of bounds. Maybe the third-positionists can claim these elements, but you can't stretch that onto classical liberals. The distinction matters and from my side the generalization reads as dishonest. However having this discussion has shed some light on the topic and I'm not convinced that all those who would distort this issue do so with malice.

aww_dang 5y ago

https://mises.org/library/against-neoliberals https://mises.org/library/against-neoliberals In practice neoliberalism does not represent the free-market as presented by Hayek. Mises was also a founding member of the MPS, will you have me believe that he was a neoliberal? These are generalizations leveled by socialist critics and third positionists who would use appeals to the market as a fig leaf. The incentives for distortion are clear. >Neoliberalism is distinct from liberalism insofar as it does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy but instead is highly constructivist and advocates a strong state to bring about market-like reforms in every aspect of society. >the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947, whose founding members included Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Karl Popper, George Stigler and Ludwig von Mises. Meeting annually, it would become a "kind of international 'who's who' of the classical liberal and neo-liberal intellectuals. Take the example of neoliberal negotiated "free trade" agreements and contrast that to laissez-faire unilateral free trade. The inability to distinguish between the two paradigms or the deliberate conflation of terms is what I am addressing.

anemoiac 5y ago
It sounds to me like you're unaware of (or dismissive toward) the existing discourse around the topic of neoliberalism. Mises.org may view the term as a meaningless epithet leveled against their ideological kin by ignorant or irrelevant onlookers, but one can't simply hand-wave away the existing literature on the topic. Redefining existing terms to suit one's own goals, perhaps through the use of arbitrary purity tests, is unhelpful at best. As you acknowledged, "the incentives for distortion are clear." Moving on, I'll reiterate that Hayek is widely considered a (very significant) neoliberal. This isn't a controversial viewpoint - check out neoliberalism's entry in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/) for the mainstream perspective on his role in its development. The notion that Hayek is not a neoliberal, however, would seem quite controversial to most in this space. > In practice neoliberalism does not represent the free-market as presented by Hayek. Keep in mind that Hayek was a theoretician, so his ideas represent a starting point, not a conclusion, when it comes to enacted policy. What are some good examples of neoliberalism in practice that you find wholly incompatible with Hayek's views? > Take the example of neoliberal negotiated "free trade" agreements and contrast that to laissez-faire unilateral free trade. While I can appreciate the differences between unilateral free trade and "neoliberal negotiated 'free trade' agreements," I'm not sure how the existence of those differences removes Hayek's prominent role in the history of neoliberalism. I'll also point out that the (confusing) catch-all use of the word "neoliberal" to describe American center-left politics from Carter onward shouldn't be conflated with academic use of the term. > Mises was also a founding member of the MPS, will you have me believe that he was a neoliberal? While I probably wouldn't primarily characterize Mises as a neoliberal, he had a huge influence on Hayek and maintained many views that are compatible with neoliberalism. > Neoliberalism is distinct from liberalism insofar as it does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy but instead is highly constructivist and advocates a strong state to bring about market-like reforms in every aspect of society. This is from economic historian/philosopher Philip Mirowski, I believe, and should be viewed in that context. He's describing an existing neoliberal political and economic system in toto, as opposed to the theoretical principles that Hayek or Friedman would have discussed. While one might discuss policies intended to increase economic freedom as if they could be overseen by a small, limited government, and would result in universally-increased freedom, actually implementing them could require a powerful and oppressive dictatorship like Augusto Pinochet's in Chile.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Thank you for your response. If we are going to play the mainstream reference game, we should allow the caveat that socialists dominate the establishment academic landscape. Hayek himself argued this even in 1949. Please see: "The Intellectuals and Socialism", F.A Hayek. While the domination of mainstream discourse may not be as complete and overwhelming as some socialists would prefer, it is palatable. In spite of the above, even Wikipedia describes Hayek as a classical liberal. >Hayek was also a major social theorist and political philosopher of the 20th century and as the co-founder of Mont Pelerin Society he contributed to the revival of classical liberalism in the post-war era >The most interesting among the courageous dissenters of the 1980s were the classical liberals, disciples of F.A. Hayek, from whom they had learned about the crucial importance of economic freedom and about the often-ignored conceptual difference between liberalism and democracy Where Wikipedia is able to directly describe Hayek as a neoliberal, it is in the words of a georgist. I'll allow that Hayek's classical liberalism influenced neoliberalism, but the distinction is there. I'll go one step further and claim that the classical liberal influence wasn't strong enough. Going back to the earlier Mises link, you can see how there were disputes within the MPS. Attributing the end product of neoliberalism to Hayek or Mises is an inaccurate generalization. >At the London School of Economics, Popper was close to the neoliberal theorist Friedrich Hayek. Hayek, Mises and the classical liberal tradition are better represented today by the Austrians, which is widely held to be heterodox. It comes as no surprise. Neither were friends to the socialist cause. Socialist dominated institutions would naturally have that incentive. Furthermore, if you'll allow the digression, individualists by definition would need less approval and validation from the collective. The distinction between having an influence on and being a proponent of something is wide. The chasm grows when the influence was insufficient. At the top of the page on your provided Princeton link, sentence one: >Though not all scholars agree on the meaning of the term, “neoliberalism”... Neoliberalism as it is used in general parlance, especially by critics of the market, has come to mean half-hearted market based solutions which both the socialists and the classical liberals would regard as failures. Take the highly regulated 'private' healthcare system in the US as an example. Market advocates might claim, "at least it isn't socialism" at best. The size of the political economy eclipses the possibility of genuine free-market solutions here. Yet, the socialists would increase the size and scope of the state while blaming the market for failing. Neoliberalism is a pejorative in the mouths of socialists. It is wielded indiscriminately. Classical liberals would attribute the failures of neoliberalism to the size and scope of government interference, a lack of genuine free-market reform. >While one might discuss policies intended to increase economic freedom as if they could be overseen by a small, limited government, and would result in universally-increased freedom, actually implementing them could require a powerful and oppressive dictatorship like Augusto Pinochet's in Chile. Yes, the old, "You can't have a small government without a big government" argument. I've most often seen this deployed against minarchists, so it is interesting to see it here. Maybe you can rephrase that one? >What are some good examples of neoliberalism in practice that you find wholly incompatible with Hayek's views? I'll let you take your pick, but google has some real gems here. https://www.google.com/search?q=neoliberalism+pinochet https://www.google.com/search?q=neoliberalism+pinochet https://mises.org/wire/no-hayek-didnt-support-pinochet-regime https://mises.org/wire/no-hayek-didnt-support-pinochet-regim... >Hayek: "I have certainly never contended that generally authoritarian governments are more likely to secure individual liberty than democratic ones, but rather the contrary." In more general terms, I think you'd find it difficult to square the CIA, military industrial complex backed Pinochet regime with the classical liberalism Hayek is known for. Similarly, the national-socialist influences and fugitives from justice at Colonia Dignidad are out of bounds. Maybe the third-positionists can claim these elements, but you can't stretch that onto classical liberals. The distinction matters and from my side the generalization reads as dishonest. However having this discussion has shed some light on the topic and I'm not convinced that all those who would distort this issue do so with malice.