Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Can some more prominent blogger than me get this into the news cycle, please?
Andrew Sullivan talks about the "Rockwell strategy" with the Ron Paul newsletter thing, but informed opinion (I'm thinking Gene and Bob, and presumably others - not GMU critics trying to take a shot at the Mises Institute), seems to agree that it's really the "Rothbard strategy", not the Rockwell strategy. I'm still not sure Rockwell is the sort of guy I could get along with. He considers Keynesianism the "economics of state power", which to me says he's either not well informed, not a nice guy, or both. I have a hard time warming to people that think I and people like me are statists. But I trust the people who seem to think this is Rothbardian in its origins. That should be common knowledge, and I say this as much for Austrians' benefit as anything else. Gene Callahan calls Rothbard a Leninist-turned-inside-out, and I dare say he's not the only one that fits that description. Twentieth century Marxists got a chance to intellectually redeem themselves by recognizing Leninism and Stalinism for what it was and rejecting it. The Austrian School's Lenins are of a different scale and substance, to be sure - but I still think there's value in calling them out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You don't like when you get called a statist.
ReplyDeleteYet it's acceptable for you to call people Leninists?
"Twentieth century Marxists got a chance to intellectually redeem themselves by recognizing Leninism and Stalinism for what it was and rejecting it."
ReplyDeleteLenin is still defended by many Marxists (or they try to take a "good with the bad" line). As is Mao. Stalin not so much.
I don't know really the first thing about Austrianism (right word?), but trying to analogize - even with caveats - between Marxism and Austrianism is just weird and unfair. I'd find a better analogy.
The very little bit I know about Rothbard tells me he was sort of a self-important jackass who never got the following that he thought he deserved. He was apparently exceedingly jealous of Ayn Rand (a whole different can of worms) for example, and that was mostly due to her following.
So, now that we are all exorcising the ghosts of ideologies past, is it fair to talk about those in the closets of liberals? You hear liberals talk about - just to give an example - how unions were just a major force in desegregating the workforce here in the good old USA - a statement which is hard to defend.
Gene provides more context, but you're right - I should here too.
ReplyDeleteBy "Leninist" Gene was simply meaning a dedicated revolutionary that was much more concerned with being an effective vanguard than a lot of his more intellectually preoccupied predecessors. That, I think is fair - and that's the sense in which I mean it.
Ultimately, these accusations either stick or they don't. It's not a question of whether they sound nice or not. "Statist" could just mean "thinks a state should exist", which would fit me. But that's a dumb definition, it's not the implication of the Rockwell article I linked, and it's not the definition that is often used against people like me. So - whether it's nice or not nice, it's wrong.
"Anti-semitic" isn't very nice either. But it's a true description of Keynes, and I was quite willing to apply it to him in that last post.
What matters is whether it's true or not, not that people are calling other people things that sound mean. In the way that Gene was using it, it seems like it fits Rothbard. If you disagree, explain why.
And PLEASE stop commenting anonymously. It's not hard at all. You're lucky I don't delete more of your posts for that.
ReplyDeleteThat 12:28 post was to Anonymous, not Lord Vader. I don't really have thoughts on Lord Vader's comment.
ReplyDeleteThat's because I used my Sithy powers to erase those thoughts.
ReplyDelete'I and people like me are statists.'
ReplyDelete'Statist' was initially a term used by anarchists to describe people who advocated any state whatsoever. I find it amusing that libertarians use it as a derogatory term when they advocate the state to defend private ownership of the means of production, something that reinforces power and hierarchical structures far more than any social democratic institution.
'Twentieth century Marxists got a chance to intellectually redeem themselves by recognizing Leninism and Stalinism for what it was and rejecting it.'
Erm, not sure about lumping Leninism in with Stalinism.
No offence Daniel, but discussion of Marx by most economists is pitiful. It rarely extends to more than 'the LTV is false', 'Marxism is Utopian', etc.
I must admit something; when you wrote Rockwell I thought you meant 1980s musical artist. Then I realized, no, he means Lew Rockwell. That whole Auburn crowd, they kind of, I dunno, make me uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteThe implication of the Rockwell article is that "statism" is the belief that macroeconomic management should be a legitimate function of the state.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly believe this, so you are a statist in that sense.
Ultimately, these accusations either stick or they don't. It's not a question of whether they sound nice or not.
unlearningecon,
ReplyDeleteLenin had a high enough body count that it is easy to do.
"...something that reinforces power and hierarchical structures far more than any social democratic institution."
Not much of an advocate of democracy, social or not. Democracy is opposed to diversity in human relationships, which is much of the reason why social democracy seems to only work tolerably in very homogeneous countries.
I have a hard time warming to people that think I and people like me are statists.
ReplyDeleteOnly now, at the end, do you understand. [shoots another round of lightning into Luke] Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side! You have paid the price for your lack of vision! [continues shooting lightning at Luke]
IB
Emperor, you skills at your hiding your presence from me are truly powerful. *bows* In fact, I still see you as merely "Anonymous." Astounding!
ReplyDelete"'Statist' was initially a term used by anarchists to describe people who advocated any state whatsoever. I find it amusing that libertarians use it as a derogatory term when they advocate the state to defend private ownership..."
ReplyDeleteDifferences between schools of anarchism withstanding, libertarians of the Rothbardian variety (Rockwell included) are using the word in the same general context...
unlearningecon: "'Statist' was initially a term used by anarchists to describe people who advocated any state whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteYou can do history by guessing! You have to do research:
"the expression ‘statism’ first emerged as such in France around 1880 to describe political doctrines that called for an expansion of the role and responsibili- ties of the state in all areas of the economy and civil society. The word was also used in Swit- zerland in the 1890s in the struggle to resist a proposed expansion of federal powers at the expense of the cantons, especially in the economic and financial domains."
That was supposed to read: "You can't do history by guessing!"
ReplyDeleteGene,
ReplyDeleteThanks there. Then again, outside of philology what the word's origin is not that important.
"I have a hard time warming to people that think I and people like me are statists"
ReplyDeleteJust curious as you've said this a few times - if you believe in the state as a potential agent for good, why is the term "statist" seen as insulting to you ? Has it got a derogatory meaning that I'm not aware of?
For people who don't believe in methodological individualism there's an awful lot of discussion of human action around here.
ReplyDeleteThe very methodologically individualist paper I'm working on seems refreshingly aggregated and anonymous by comparison.
rob -
ReplyDeletere: "Just curious as you've said this a few times - if you believe in the state as a potential agent for good, why is the term "statist" seen as insulting to you ? Has it got a derogatory meaning that I'm not aware of?"
I believe that "sex" is good as both an activity and as a meaningful and fulfilling identity system based on reproductive organs. Does that mean if I just attach "-ist" to the end of it, I should be OK with being called a sexist??
Be serious. If what was meant was "he thinks a state can exist and do some good" obviously I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Paul has a history of bad-mouthing people. He's not a particularly nice guy in that sense. If Obama did that sort of thing you all would be raising hell.
Current -
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure we're using "methodological individualism" in the same way...
"Has it got a derogatory meaning that I'm not aware of?"
ReplyDeleteI've heard it used somewhere as a slight aimed at those who were making attempting to make the state into a kind of god (like Mussolini).
Personally I've never felt very hurt when I'm called a Statist, but that's more because Libertarianism is quirky and labeling everybody who disagrees with you a term to signal to friendlies that they are *very evil people* you shouldn't listen to under any circumstances is something a lot of ideologies do. I've heard valid points dismissed with ramblings about the source of the point too many times to count.
"If Obama did that sort of thing you all would be raising hell."
ReplyDeleteObama is constantly bad mouthing people; his supporters just see it as "legitimate criticism." We all saw what sort of a carbon copy politician/jackass he was when asked about marijuana legalization very early on in his Presidency. It has gone in that way the whole of his Presidency. No one with an ounce of grey matter buys into this whole Obama is a Vulcan, or Obama is a wimpy compromiser meme. He lays the insults on as thick as he can get away with.
"I'm not entirely sure we're using 'methodological individualism' in the same way"
ReplyDeleteOf course we're not. But there again nobody ever uses methodological individualism to mean the same thing as anyone else, so I'm just keeping up the tradition.
"economics of state power"
ReplyDeleteIf you egg them on, most Progressives will defend outright Communism (i.e. Cuban healthcare, fed ownership of GM) but they know that they look crazy to the majority when they advocate for that level of state control. But the various heads of the Keynesian hydra allow for diverse academic tenure and an unbelievable amount of looting. Definitely a boon to the nomenklatura.
But it's not as if he's calling you a pinhead, so you should get over it.
But it's not as if he's calling you a pinhead, so you should get over it.
ReplyDeleteEspecially when he's throwing out terms like Leninist! Daniel will not extend the same respect to others that he demands they treat him with.
LV -
ReplyDeletere: "Obama is constantly bad mouthing people; his supporters just see it as "legitimate criticism." We all saw what sort of a carbon copy politician/jackass he was when asked about marijuana legalization very early on in his Presidency"
The marijuana thing was badmouthing people. Definitely. Do you have any more examples? I just don't see the sort of suspicion and talking down to people on a regular basis that you get from Paul. Lots of people who disagree with Paul are:
- warmongers
- don't care about the Constitution
- don't care about liberty
- tyrannical
- authoritarian
Obama disagrees with a lot of people too, but I haven't seen nearly this level of suspicion from him - but I could be looking through rose colored glasses. So please - elaborate for me.
Take this as an example - lots of people have disagreed with Obama on the Constitution in the last several years. Can you think of one instance where Obama has interpreted that as them abandoning the Constitution?
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI don't need to provide any more examples ...
...your challenge was that Obama doesn't badmouth people like Paul does. Well, he does do that and you now have a clear and blatant example of that. Honestly, it ought to be enough to trigger some sort of doubt in your head about this Obama guy without you demanding I do more research on the subject.
And lots of people who disagree with Obama don't care about:
-the working class
-America
-the state of American infrastructure
-the environment
-etc.
Obama repeats the same talking points about those opposite, etc. of him the same as other Democrats do. His talking points are familiar in American political talk, whereas Paul's are a little less so - they both engage in lots of trash talking though.
11:01 was supposed to be Lord Vader.
ReplyDeleteThis blog makes me think about Keynes too much; it is interfering with my Sithy powers of mental clarity.
Sorry for the confusion with the real Lord Keynes.
> Sorry for the confusion with the real Lord Keynes.
ReplyDeleteOr for that matter with the occasional commentator around here who calls himself Lord Keynes.
Don't confuse them except in confusing circumstances.
"Especially when he's throwing out terms like Leninist"
ReplyDeleteWell when you bandy about your websites writing that your opponents suffer from bad material incentives and some form of false consciousness its a label that will come up pretty frequently.
If it makes you so mad he could use Bakuninite to get at what he means with the word and avoid anyone thinking there were implications of genocidal intent. Your quarrel, however, is with Rothbard (who wrote memos outlining a Marxist strategy for Ancapism) not Daniel.