First we had the transnational firms like the Dutch East India Company and similar ones in England. Not only did they span the world and impose slave or near slave conditions on workers in the colonies, but their corporate policies were backed up by the military power of their home countries.
Moving on in time we had the big rise in the mills and mining industries in the UK in the 19th Century. Once again laws were put into place to insure that workers had no effective economic strength.
Finally, we come to the late 19th Century in the US which he thinks in unique. The term "robber barrons" was invented then, not now. The current period is being called the "second gilded age". The current period is an echo of what happened before. Names like Rockefeller, Frick and Carnegie are still talked about.
As I have said before what changed each time the rise of organized labor. In most cases this was a bloody battle. Some famous incidents in US history (such as the Homestead strike) had national guard shooting at striking workers. In other cases Pinkerton men did enforcement while the police stood by (Ford Motors).
What has happened currently is that the labor movement has been weakened since the 1970's and consequently all the defects of an overly strong commercial sector have re-emerged.
If European workers want to protect themselves from predatory transnationals then they should preserve and enlarge their organized labor movement. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Advocates of the new model capitalism, and the globalization project that goes with it, like to present it as an expression of historical necessity, rooted in classical economics and embodying irrefutable laws. It is progress itself, they say. Those who do not conform to the rules of modern market capitalism, and do not offer the human sacrifices of lost employment and diminished living standards that the market demands, will fall by the wayside of history. This is simply untrue, although most of those who say it undoubtedly believe it. The new American and British market capitalist model, which dictated deregulation of industry and privatization of state enterprises in the 1970s, and globalization of international markets in the 1990s, exists as a result of free political decisions and ideological choices that were anything but inevitable. History may one day describe them as having been perverse and socially destructive.
This is simply untrue, although most of those who say it undoubtedly believe it.
The new American and British market capitalist model, which dictated deregulation of industry and privatization of state enterprises in the 1970s, and globalization of international markets in the 1990s, exists as a result of free political decisions and ideological choices that were anything but inevitable. History may one day describe them as having been perverse and socially destructive.
rdf,
I agree entirely with your criticisms and I think one might add others to yours. That should not diminish the value of the central idea contained in the paragraphs I've cited. The failure to grasp that is, in my view, at the very heart of what Americans are failing now to understand--that includes élite opinion and office-holders as much as it does the average American.
Thus, the excellent reformulation Jérôme highlights in his title is so very apt.
One wonders whether Pfaff has read and simply forgotten the history which you interject. It is in Zinn's A People's History of the United States, and the Hammonds'The Village Labourer, among other places too numerous to list here.
Why, I wonder, should Pfaff limit himself to so timid a hope that, "History may one day describe them as having been perverse and socially destructive. " ?
I should much prefer that "History" not wait for "one day" and instead frankly and forcefully describe as perverse and destructive that which manifestly is so.
In the longer term, for Europeans to embark on this project, instead of conforming to the currently received wisdom concerning the globalized economy, would serve the international interest as well as that of the European Union.
That observation, while not news to Europeans--especially the "political class" among them and many fairly astute and aware average people, is something which the American opinion "leaders" would do well to consider and keep in mind.
Though, why Pfaff, again, timidly, finds it necessary to use the word "might"---
It might even prove a service to the United States, whose future is now jeopardized by economic error and excess, as well as unachievable global political and military ambitions.
(emphasis added/P.)
I cannot understand.
There's more to the development of our present political and economic mess, of course, than can be resumed by Hayek, Ayn Rand and monetarist thinking. For the roots of all of these, as rdf's reply indicates, are far older.
Another element--or two--are the combination of a renewed blind faith in rational reason--odd as that may seem alongside the effort to discredit Darwinian natural history--coupled with much more sophisticated and faster means of mass communication. Thus, error, founded in poorly worked rational thought is far more quickly spread and accepted than was possible in Hayek's or Rand's lifetime.
There is a marvelous and thoughtful book on the pernicious capacities of a blind application of rational reasoning available in both english and french in John Ralston Saul's book, Voltaire's Bastards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul
We are now as much the prisoners of reflexive credentialism and the reign of expert opinion and professionalisation of everything-- so that when our common sense opposes nonsense which is backed by the authority of professionals and experts, we tend to discount our own common sense and favor what is in fact inferior in quality.
[ In asserting that, it's important to distinguish between the blind application of rational reasoning--which Saul describes and opposes--and the use of rational reason in the modest, piecemeal and constantly questioning manner, a manner which brings certain universal moral precepts and plain practical goodness and mercy into the application of reason--something which the practitioners of the Inquisition allowed themselves to forget in their zeal to see God's will done on earth. ]
That, too, is hardly understood among American opinion leaders, who could do with a huge dose of genuine modesty.
Much of what is correct and worthy in Pfaff's article are precisely the sort of things I hoped to point up in my posts on economic fatalism and on historicism--which run in support through and through the essence of what Pfaff argues. "In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
Though he's to be much commended for observing that
Advocates of the new model capitalism, and the globalization project that goes with it, like to present it as an expression of historical necessity, rooted in classical economics and embodying irrefutable laws. It is progress itself, they say. Those who do not conform to the rules of modern market capitalism, and do not offer the human sacrifices of lost employment and diminished living standards that the market demands, will fall by the wayside of history. This is simply untrue, although most of those who say it undoubtedly believe it.
he confines himself merely to a consideration of some of the how of the (re-)rise of these fatalistic views, and offers nothing on why it amounts to a fundamental mistake to have accepted (consciously or not) what is integrally assumed in Hayek's and Rand's beliefs: namely, that economic liberty and political liberty are in fact or are somehow to be considered as separate and distinct sorts of things. And that, moreover, it is the supposed economic liberties which must, of right, always trump the "political" ones whenever and wherever these "conflict".
Part of--maybe most of--that fault rests, I believe, in the mistaken notion that it is in the main democracy which depends on as its subordinate, a more fundamental liberty which is distinctly economic by nature.
As others have argued, this is mistaken in both respects. Liberties are not subject to such easy dissection into 'political' and 'economic', since all economic views imply some political order or other a priori.
Moreover, this is not only true in a theoretical sense, it is no less true in the most practical everyday living sense. Without the existence of some social order--families at the most basic level--humans do not exist in the first place. Thus, free markets come second, not first, in precedence to social orders--which are at the same time political orders as well. From that, it appears that there is no such thing as a free market in any sense unless there is some sort of just political order to create and protect the supposed free market.
If it is accepted that economic theories are primary in importance and that obedience to them should and must determine whatever social and political arrangements the economic notions require, then eventually not only political freedom shall be sacrificed but, with it, economic freedom since not only does economic freedom depend on political freedom, it is, moreover, simply a variant manifestation of political freedom.
As Ernest Hemingway put it, far more succinctly, "Yes [the rich are different], they have more money." "In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
Without the existence of some social order--families at the most basic level--humans do not exist in the first place.
brunoken linked in a comment here to this review of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Your point above reminded me of this from the review:
from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no children -- it suddenly strikes you -- ever result. The possibility is never entertained.
Further on in the excellent review, there's this:
Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held "heroic" in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the author's economics and the politics that must arise from them. For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact, it is, essentially -- a political book.
...what is integrally assumed in Hayek's and Rand's beliefs: namely, that economic liberty and political liberty are in fact or are somehow to be considered as separate and distinct sorts of things.... ...free markets come second, not first, in precedence to social orders--which are at the same time political orders as well. From that, it appears that there is no such thing as a free market in any sense unless there is some sort of just political order to create and protect the supposed free market.
...free markets come second, not first, in precedence to social orders--which are at the same time political orders as well. From that, it appears that there is no such thing as a free market in any sense unless there is some sort of just political order to create and protect the supposed free market.
My ellipsis above swallows an extended discussion, but I'd like to note that Hayek devoted much of his intellectual labor precisely to the understanding of the relationships among social orders, law, political orders, and economics. He did not regard markets as a primary domain. You do not say otherwise, but could perhaps be read as suggesting it.
For an appreciation of the depth of his inquiry, I recommend The Constitution of Liberty (the title of which illustrates Hayek's talent for overlaying clear insights with an opaque surface -- the book isn't about constitutions in the U.S. sense, but about fundamental structures in a broad sense). It is about societies, not markets.
Hayek's insights could easily be turned against the shallow free-market drivel common today. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
Your critical comment is, I'm afraid, correct and justified--to the point that much later, as I was reading some references to Hayek, I even thought, before I'd read your reply, "that was an unfair impression I left." And it reflects what I'm afraid are my own unfair impressions of Hayek's views on economic liberty as having primacy over other liberties. Maybe that impression comes from what I've read and heard from those--mainly libertarians-- who are such fans of Hayek and who I fault for seeing only individual (read economic) liberties as important and, moreover, as the basis for all other liberties.
I'm pleased to be corrected in that false impression; and I apologize for having left it in my post. I think Hayek's title, if it's he who chose it, is perfectly apt for its purpose. I haven't read The Constitution of Liberty but thanks to your reply, it's now on my list. "In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
