As Samizdata regulars might recall, I am not exactly a great fan of Naomi Klein, author of the Shock Doctrine, a book that tries to argue, rather absurdly, that various dastardly free market governments (which ones? Ed) exploited, in a sort of underhand way, the inexplicable failures of socialism (the horror!) to impose those terrible ideas of people such as Milton Friedman. Yet there was nothing underhand or deceitful about what say, Sir Keith Joseph – one of Mrs Thatcher’s close political allies – argued when he said that the stagflation of the 1970s had undermined the Keynesian settlement and proved that big government was harmful. Far from being some sort of sly attempt to exploit a shock, the governments of Reagan/Thatcher or even some of the social democratic governments in the 80s such as Spain, implemented some forms of free market reform because it made sense, given the situation. Anyway, you can read some of my views on this here, and there is a demolition of the book here.
Robert Higgs, a libertarian writer, has pointed out that in fact, it is frequently the case that disasters of various kinds frequently are used by political leaders to expand, not roll back, the state. It may be that the partial halt, if not reverse, to the growth of the state that occured under the Reagan/Thatcher episode was an aberration, although I obviously hope it was not.
Of course, in the ultra-long run, the numerous failures of endlessly repeated regulation, tax and yet more regulation and taxes, may yet produce such a disaster that this “shock” may once again encourage the “doctrine” of free markets, limited government, honest money and free trade. So I guess we must hope that in a perverse kind of way, Ms Klein is vindicated, if not quite in the way she imagines or wants.
Why give a damn what this person says? Well, she sells a lot of books. A lot. JK Galbraith, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and others do the same. And there are articles by the Richard Murphys, George Monbiots and countless other characters that feed the collectivist narrative that what the world needs even more of is more government, more rules and more powers for the likes of them. Therefore, I share the view of the US libertarian and author, Tom G. Palmer, that we need to be better at knocking their theories down and responding vigorously. And that is why I salute the indefatigible Tim Worstall, who seems to have dedicated part of his blogging energies to making the existence of Richard Murphy, hater of economic and social liberty and a general buffoon, a waking nightmare. It may seem cruel to mock the afflicted, but bear in mind that at the moment, the Murphys of this world seem to be succeeding in their desire to shut down an element of global markets, otherwise known as tax havens, since these places create one of the few incentives left to keep taxes down. He’s not just a harmless buffoon, comforting though it might be to assume so. He’s certainly not harmless, and neither is Ms Klein.
There always have been and always will be advocates for special interests. Mr. Murphy is paid by the TUC to advocate policies that will benefit, or at least seem to benefit, its members- those members being primarily government workers (hence the push for more regulations for them to apply) and old industy workers (hence the call for baanks to channel cheap money to industry) wrapped up with an appeaal to envy. It doesn’t appear to have registered with the industrial workers that the weight of regulation, combined with the weight of taxes is what is holding their industry back.
This would eventually collapse under it’s own weight anyway, regulations and taxes would be dropped and the economy would then recover.
But it would be Oh so nice if Mr. Worstal et al could persuade the powers that be to get off this train before it wrecks- rather than repairing it afterwards.
Perhaps instead of whacking away at the writers and wordsmiths of all media, a bit more attention should be given to the reasons their “stuff” has appeal, or often gives gratifications, to a broad spectrum of the electorates.
We know that fats, salts and sugars have certain dietary consequences, which can be adverse if not moderated. But, they have great appeal and offer gratifications.
Perhaps it’s not the wordsmiths, tho’ like fast foods it may be in the presentations and ease of consumption, but rather the need for a resultant taste that satiates with something better and less in need of moderation.
Yes the tide was turned back at the end of the 70s, early 80s. Even my Marxist bro at the time admitted his wrong take on things. Collectivism was completely discredited and only really began making a popular comeback around 2004. But they had been working at it all along. From the enemies next to Mrs T, to the underground activists working on their agendas of control and deceit. Probably what put the lid on sanity was its over extension into the deception of its opposite and the very neat trap of Iraq? The wheels started coming off. Russia nationalised its oil. Murdered a dissident in London with impunity. And Bush’s last stand was to have a shoe thrown in his face.
Collectivism doesn’t work and it will fall apart fairly rapidly but it could get very nasty in the process.
Good day, Samizdata.
Yes, the subject of Naomi Klein and her ilk is a troubling one. RRS, I think you may be on to something but getting to the root of the problem.
Hayek, in some of his work, suggested socialism is an atavistic trait from humanity’s tribal beginnings; indeed, collective ownership, closed tribalism had survival value. However, while our society has changed, human beings haven’t changed much; we are still, essentially, stuck with Stone-Age brains.
It is our social natures, I think, that is the root cause. Our brains are evolved for those primitive days when we shared everything, equal distribution of what little wealth there was. Further, human beings naturally have a top-down mentality; when the reality is that everything happens from the bottom-up.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that socialism appeals to our folk psychology and intuitions; capitalism works against our intuitions, like evolution, so people naturally react.
tdb: this sounds depressingly plausible. But how does coercion fit into this picture?
Oh, that was a silly question – let’s call it ‘rhetorical’ and move on:-)
Another way to fight bad ideas is by promoting good books! ‘Libertarian International’ has a piece, put up for the 14th of November, called ‘Ten Years On’. The Taxpayers Alliance has sponsored it, about what Britain could be like a decade after breaking away from Europe. It could be the 2020 vision, as it were. It looks like a book that is well worth promoting1
Nuke Gray,
Although I’m just a Yank, I don’t see the idea of a European Union as bad in of itself. As an economic and political confederation, it could work marvelously; if it could be wittled down to an agreement not to restrict trade or migration and the adoption of a common currency, it would benefit all involved. As it stands, the problem lies in how much power it has and it’s responsibilities. I would suggest not being so much eurosceptic as against the amount of political power it wields.
Further, libertarians should take a stand against the likes of Nick Griffin and Le Pen. It would affirm to the public that libertarians are against all forms of tyranny.
Thank you, for all the links, Mr. Pearce.
Forget who said “Afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted” Nice line, good policy.
Most of these books and authors have backers. Their profit often comes prior to actual sales. In the US, advocacy of policies and viewpoints is what gets them published; because, those with money want them so.
They’re not so much expressing a viewpoint as they are fronts for those who want those viewpoints popularized
Connections between writers, actors, entertainment,
industries and certain government agencies, wealthy elite and social engineering groups have been known for many years.
Some links to others in the states.
http://solari.com/
Best to use the sitemap
Don’t recall any opinions here of Catharine Austin Fitts.
‘ It could be the 2020 vision,’
in the year 2020 i will be 70 yeas old. i would like change now. really, preferably, before i die.
Dear tdb, and anonymous- the book is about how better Britain would be outside of the current cumbersome clutches of the community. Europe, in the eyes of those who live there, already has too much bureaucracy. This book is a response to all that, and the authors hope that we start now, anonymous, so that we will have a much better Britain, even if it takes a decade or so to loosen all those chains and red tapes.
Mind you, I haven’t read it myself, and I don’t live in Europe, so I don’t know if it is as good as it seems, but it could be a book worth reading and promoting, as a counterweight to those other books.
Nuke Gray: It’s people like you that makes me hopeful for libertarianism in Europe; you guys have a more respectable set of fellow travellers (i.e. Thatcherites, classical liberals in the Lib Dems and Conservatives) than us in the United States. All we have is a motley, none-too-bright set of borderline fascists called Republicans (not like the old Reagan years, when the party still had brains); conspiracy nuts; and racist, socially conservative dolts called paleoconservatives…some of whom interbred with libertarians to produce the paleolibertarian. Scary stuff.
Oh yeah, we also have Glenn Beck (using ‘conservative’ and ‘libertarian’ in the same breath…*shivers*) I don’t think he’s read a word of Hayek, Mises, Friedman…maybe some Ayn Rand, but she don’t count as much as she used to. Her atheism isn’t quite the shibboleth it should be. Beck read, check this, some far right garbage entitled “The Five Thousand Year Leap”…America as a Christian nation, puh-leaze!
So, yeah, you guys the in UK and Europe are the last great hope for libertarianism…if you fail, then libertarianism in both our nations is done for.
No pressure, though.
That’s a very good piece Jonathan. There is so much behind that little word “indefatigible”. I keep a running criticism up at the Taipei Times – but it is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide – minus the dignity.
As governments have demonstrably throughout history gradually (or not-so-gradually) expanded their remit and powers, I can’t see a European Union of any hue remaining a free place. The US didn’t remain free, it took a couple of centuries but it still went downhill. I’ve argued in the past for smaller city-states as the largest form of government not least as it could possibly foster a market in governance… if the form of government you wanted doesn’t get voted in it’s a lot easier to vote with your feet if there is an alternative a few miles down the road.
Of course, even this isn’t infallible… Rome started out as a city-state and we all know how that turned out.
That said, free movement of goods and people are two of the (very) few good things the EU has achieved.
But since you frequently dismiss the value of science and economics because it doesn’t sit well with your own ideology, one wonders on what basis you are going to refute the ideas of Klein or anyone else.
I guess you’re not going to print any of my comments, eh?
Well, even so, this is worth reading on Klein: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n09/stephen-holmes/free-marketeering
And so is this (I know how alergic you all are to anything academic, but stick with it): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1302446
This is why I rarely publish your comments, as you are little more than a blogroach. The notion we dismiss ‘science’ is absurd (and indicates you know nothing of the academic backgrounds of several of our contributors)… and the idea anything you say is ‘science’ and therefore the demonstrable truth is laughable.
Because only Keynesian ‘economics’ qualifies as economics right? That is why I do not even bother reading your comments before not publishing them.
In all fairness though, I think we would be well served by reading the works of our opponents; it’s easier to argue against an position that one is intimately familiar with. When it comes to science, it is best to leave it to the scientists; both sides of the global warming issue would do well to remember that.
Patience is a virtue that we libertarians should learn; being on the fringe has, historically, been our lot in life.
Respect for our opponents is something we should learn as well. Klein, Chomsky, Zinn, Galbraith, Krugman…these guys aren’t intellectual pushovers. In a debate with them, one should be well-read in their views as well as one’s own…to do otherwise would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
We should also take care not to bundle up all their work into one ball of wax; Chomsky especially, since his linguistic work is undeniable and among the best there is. His views on media also have universal application.
Libertarians also need to stand out from both the left and right; we should condemn the far-right as vehemently as the far-left. We should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.
Speaking of Klein, look at what she wrote for The Progressive: (via Reason Magazine)
“Do we want to save the pre-crisis system, get it back to where it was last September? Or do we want to use this crisis, and the electoral mandate for change delivered by the last election, to radically transform that system? We need to get clear on our answer now because we haven’t had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity or we lose it.”
Looks like the Shock Doctrine works for the left.
The Shock Doctrine works primarily for the left. It was Rahm Emanuel who famously said “You don’t ever want a good crisis to go to waste.” And a sentence in one of the articles Vimothy linked (the paper by Art Carden) said it well: “Far more plausible than Klein’s claim about disaster capitalism is the thesis that the government intervention rather than free-market capitalism takes hold during times of crisis, and this is explored systematically by Robert Higgs in a 1987 volume that uses both coherent theory and detailed analysis of evidence.”
Vimothy – the post included favourable mention of several academics. The late Milton Friedman and the very much living Robert Higgs.
Of course two of the best selling anti statists in the United States at the moment are academics.
Thomas Sowell – “Housing: Boom and Bust”.
And Thomas Woods – “Meltdown”.
“No by academic I mean in a formal journal article”.
Well we have our own journals (such as Journal of Austrian Economics).
Let us face facts Vimothy.
You have no arguments to counter the basic truth that it is government policy that caused the present crises – and that quack “cures” of your friends (yet more credit money expansion, yet more wild government spending, and even more regulations on top of the thousands that already exist) will just make things worse over the next few years.
You imply that we have no respect for you – and speaking for myself, you are quite correct. I have no respect for you at all.
Why should this bother you? After all we are enemies.
To you I am reactionary scum, unfit to live. And to me you are a Progressive – not fit to be dog food.
Best to leave it at that.
I find it so frustrating when Mr Marks pulls his punches.
Vimothy presumably thinks that anyone daring to challenge the supreme wisdom of the funny-money Keynesian school is not a serious student of economics and should be ridiculed as an “idealogue”. Riiiiight. Having torn apart his rubbish arguments on several previous threads, I”ll brush aside his sneers as the wailings of a bad loser. As Perry said, a blogroach. Terminate him.
That book I mentioned, ‘Ten Years On’, has been favourably reviewed by Cato! Check out their website!