Hayek and Nietzsche: Perhaps Not Partners in a Cross-Century Anti-Equality Plot

Kevin Vallier at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian site looks askance at The Nation's attempt to weigh down F.A. Hayek and the Austrian economics project with Nietzsche, in a delightful demolition, which I'll excerpt choice bits and pieces of below with commentary. He starts by stating Nation author Corey Robins' goal--to declare Nietzsche and the Austrians brothers in a plot to valorize aristocratic values as the only legitimate moral values.

(1) For Robin to draw an interesting, sound and illuminating connection between Nietzsche and the Austrians (specifically Mises and Hayek), he must establish two claims: (i) that Nietzsche and the Austrians share the relevant, important views (in this case, a radical subjectivity about “value”) and (ii) that they were unique in sharing these views. Robin fails to establish either claim.....

All the marginalists, of course, not just the Austrians through whom Robins wants to attack modern libertarianism by slamming their motives, were subjective-value types. (That is, all modern economists are, at this point.)

suppose we scrutinize one of Robin’s most well-developed and specific claims, namely that there is an interesting and illuminating connection between Nietzsche’s and Hayek’s view about the importance of great men setting out new forms of valuation for social development. Even here the argument fails. The only passages from Hayek that can even be construed out of context to support this argument is Hayek’s claim in The Constitution of Liberty that synchronic (simultaneous) inequalities of wealth can work to the benefit of the least-advantaged over time because the luxury consumption of the rich paves the way for manufacturers to create cheaper versions of the same goods and market them to the masses. But Hayek’s discussion here is in no way an endorsement of an aristocratic system of values, or an endorsement of the claim that aristocrats should somehow be the moral model for society as a whole, or that only some people can live or deserve to live full, flourishing lives.

Robin places a lot of weight---way too much--on Hayek making the observation that often times market innovations that make everyone's life better in the long run start as being only for the rich, who can afford to patronize them during their early, expensive stages. Vallier teases this out well

Robin is wrong that Hayek only cares about the “freedom of that unknown and untapped figure of invention” because he misreads Hayek when Hayek says, “What is important is not what freedom I personally would like to exercise but what freedom some person may need in order to do things beneficial to society.” The unknown person is not necessarily an elite entrepreneur, or even probably an elite entrepreneur....

Robin: “Deep inside Hayek’s understanding of freedom, then, is the notion that the freedom of some is worth more than the freedom of others.” But as I’ve already argued, in the passage Robin refers to, Hayek has confined his focus to the general effects of the richer members of society using their market freedom to buy luxury goods. Hayek elsewhere repeatedly emphasizes that through a system of general, predictable rules, all will benefit, both in terms of wealth and freedom....

Robin’s conclusion: “Still, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that though Nietzschean politics may have fought the battles, Nietzschean economics won the war.” Austrian economics just isn’t in any important or illuminating way Nietzschean. There is no evidence of direct influence, which Robin acknowledges, so his entire argument must rely on identifying unique conceptual and ideological commonalities. But as we have seen, Robin fails to do so.

How and why do bright writers like Robin get to this point, Vallier wonders?

Robin’s work is continually plagued by his desire to impose a good guy/bad guy narrative on the history of ideas. Every non-leftist is somehow an enemy of equality. That same flaw pervades this essay. The argument is too complex and poorly executed because Robin knew where he wanted to go ahead of time. Somehow Hayek was going to end up an enemy of equality. Lo and behold, via an extremely tenuous connection with Nietzsche, he is.

Further, many of Robin’s arguments are guilt-by-association (Mises and Hayek with Nietzsche and Hayek with Pinochet at the end). That’s a bad way to do intellectual history because it leads us to focus on personal flaws rather than the development and interplay of ideas.

As Vallier points out, you don't have to be a Hayekian or Austrian or libertarian to understand that Robin is doing some slipshod intellectual history-as-prosecutorial-brief.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥||

    Corey Robins' goal--to declare Nietzsche and the Austrians brothers in a plot to valorize aristocratic values as the only legitimate moral values.

    Sounds like someone has never actually read anything by Nietzsche.

  • Tony||

    Nietzsche seems to exist these days only to be misread.

  • $park¥||

    The dude's got a bad rep.

  • sam the man||

    I agree. My English teacher, when discussing existentialism, brought up Nietzsche to essentially compare the entire philosophy to fascist nihlism. I was stuck in the awkward position of defending Nietzsche in front of a class that had just been taught that Nietzsche = Hitler.

  • $park¥||

    In my opinion, anyone who thinks Nietzsche was a nihilist either didn't read anything by Nietzsche or completely misunderstood what they did read.

  • $park¥||

    Somehow Hayek was going to end up an enemy of equality. Lo and behold, via an extremely tenuous connection with Nietzsche, he is.

    I'll tell you what, Hayek might have been more interesting if he actually was.

  • Nazdrakke||

    So someone with a seeming preoccupation with the equality of outcomes misunderstands Hayek? Colour me surprised.

  • ||

    The first paragraph alone of the Nation piece is so full of vague, warmed-over pap that it can only be a sign of things to come. "[C]onservatism has hardened around the defense of economic privilege and rule," "that defense has enabled an upward redistribution of rights and a downward redistribution of duties," blah blah. And later, in the third paragraph, "It is by now a commonplace of European cultural history that a dying Austro-Hungarian Empire gave birth to modernism, psychoanalysis and fascism. Yet from the vortex of Vienna came not only Wittgenstein, Freud and Hitler but also Hayek, who was born and educated in the city, and the Austrian school of economics." What is that "yet" doing there? The first three are already a disparate group linked more by their nexus in Vienna than anything else; should we be surprised that a fourth idea could be added to the mix? Shitty writing, poorly edited. Hard to be shocked that the ideas are poorly developed as well.

  • ||

    If he'd left out modernism and psychoanalysis the "yet" might've made sense.

  • ||

    Pretty much.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Somehow I don't think the Habsburgs were all that interested in Corporal Shicklgruber.

  • ||

    Great comment on BHL:

    Well, as the old expression goes: "The Nation is a terrible magazine"

  • MJGreen||

    We're all reactionaries according to Corey Robin, who love to lick the boots of bosses (ya know, those few men who rule everything). He's... he's not good. That's the only polite way I can put it.

  • Sam Grove||

    Maybe he wants a date with Naomi Klein.

  • logical_atomist||

    This clown's article is just another typical example of the shockingly widespread ignorance and misunderstanding of Nietzsche's ideas. We could probably easily explain Robin's whole point of view as ultimately based on a deep desire to return to an arrangement of society based on the wonderful, comforting values of medieval Christianity --- a secret desire about which he has been lying to himself throughout his whole life.

    Not to go all Nietzschean on him, or anything.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement