More on Anarchism and selling out: Hayek on the role of libertarian anarchism:
Whilst constructing my previous entry I was reminded of a quote from Hayek. Hayek's point, I think, was that libertarianism (he, and Friedman, said liberalism), in order to become successful they should learn from the socialists. Socialism has been all too successful (don't believe me, look at Marx's 10 "short term goals" in the Communist Manifesto, scroll down, and see how many are in place, or check out the appendix in Friedman's Free to Choose where he shows how much a 1930's platform for the Communist Party is already in place by 1980). Hayek suggests that a reason for this is that whilst, via the Fabians and the like, socialists have accepted pragmatic and gradual reform, socialists have also been able to hold up a vision of utopia, a reason to get excited about the project, a future socialist-communist society. Inspired by this, Hayek wrote
It could be the case that anarcho-capitalism serves this purpose.
We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible… Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our livliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.(Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, p194)
It could be the case that anarcho-capitalism serves this purpose.
posted by Richard at 9:59 PM
2 Comments:
"anarcho-capitalism"? Does anyone take that oxymoron seriously outside a small number of American right-wing circles?
Oh, and the reason why Friedman and Hayek called their ideology "liberalism" was because the American right-wing had not stolen the term "libertarian" from its true location on the left, i.e., from genuine anarchists.
I doubt that "libertarian" will be stolen in the UK as it appears to have been in America -- there are just too many real anarchists and libertarians about to let that happen.
"anarcho-capitalism"? Does anyone take that oxymoron seriously outside a small number of American right-wing circles?
Better than the oxymoron "anarchist-communism" underwhich communism will be forced on everybody, workers will be robbed of their products as they are collectivised, and everybody forced to produce to the "communal plan".
But then, I suppose that at the end of the 1860s anarchists could have said "'anarchist communism'? Does anybody take that oxymoron seriously outside of the Jura?" After all, prior to then anarchists, Proudhon and Bakunin, had opposed communism.
Oh, and the reason why Friedman and Hayek called their ideology "liberalism" was because the American right-wing had not stolen the term "libertarian" from its true location on the left, i.e., from genuine anarchists.
"Libertarian" was used by those in the League for Peace and Freedom in nineteenth century Europe. That organisation claimed both Bakunin and JS Mill as members. Late nineteenth century, early twentieth century socialists, estpacially in the socialist league, called themselves libertarian socialists. I recall such people co-operated with the likes of Auberon Herbert in the Anti-Jingoist Association.
Post a Comment
<< Home