Hayekian in China: "China is at a point where it needs to listen to Hayek"
Hayek Association is an informal, unregistered group of scholars in China


At its Sinosphere blog, the New York Times has a report from Didi Kirsten Tatlow on the following the classical liberal economist Friedrich Hayek has among Chinese scholars. She speaks to Gao Quanxi, a law professor at Beijing's Beihang Univeristy described as a Chinese Hayekian, and reports about an unregistered, informal group of scholars in Beijing that call themselves the Hayek Association. Gao, the law professor, argues that communism and socialism have failed in China, leaving it with "statism," something Hayek "really opposed."
Hayek's ideas about the self-organizing economies would seem to be particularly beneficial in China, given the complexity of governing a nation of more than a billion people and the kind of economies it produces. As China's Communist Party approaches the age at which most single-party regimes crumble, will free market theories be able to take root? From the Times:
According to one participant [at a Hayek Association talk], who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of political sensitivities, a district-level party secretary in a city he declined to name recently distributed copies of Hayek's classic, ''The Road to Serfdom,'' to his colleagues to study. The book warns that with state economic control comes tyranny; the foundations of liberty are a free economy and individualism.
What is the government's attitude to all this?
''They maintain an attitude of silence. But they may use parts of it on a practical level,'' said Mr. Gao. He cited the 1990s, when the government privatized many state-owned companies. But that agenda has run out of steam, he said, and must be reprised, though he was skeptical it would happen soon. Political change to enhance the personal liberties Hayek urged was especially unlikely, he said. ''Perhaps in five or 10 years.''
Many economists, scholars and politicians believe that China is facing deep challenges to its economic model, that it needs to shift from a fixed investment-fueled economy, where the hand of the state is heavy, to one with more private enterprise and market forces.
For the Hayekians, it's all pretty obvious. What China needs is more of the medicine Hayek prescribed. ''China is at a point where it needs to listen to Hayek,'' said Mr. Gao.
Read the rest of the article here, and more Reason on Hayek here.
h/t Dave Kreuger
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
B-b-b-b-but Keynes.
If they do decide to we're just about finished here in the US. Thankfully (for the US) the urge to control is almost impossible to resist when you are the one in control of the guns.
Oh, I don't know. It might be a Sputnik moment: a rival's success spurs us to do some things differently. But it won't happen with Obama in office.
To me, one of the great mysteries of politics is why the remnants of the hippie New Left so completely abandoned their decentralized vision of change and went full statist. You'd think that individualists and rebels would appreciate Hayekian self-organization, but when they do, it always seems to be for the goal of more centralized power. I know a self-proclaimed anarchist artist who just frothed at the mouth about the evil Republicans who shut down the government. The contradiction doesn't seem to occur to him.
Oh, I don't know. It might be a Sputnik moment: a rival's success spurs us to do some things differently. But it won't happen with Obama in office.
If anything it'll just make them triple down on the stupid.
I've always loved the exquisite irony of anarchists who live in terror at the thought of anarchy.
A whole lot of anarchists seem to believe that we need to get from the state of affairs here to over there. And I agree with them on a lot of that. Now, here is dominated by a lot of unpleasant actors, and it's really hard to get an entire culture moving in the right direction all at once, which is also something I can completely agree with. So, many anarchists conclude, the first thing to do is to use the force of the state to set things right...and somehow they fail to see that this is moving away from what they claim to want, not towards it.
Many anarchists also seem to desire a state of affairs where everyone is happy and peaceful and cooperates. And that sounds great. But the thing about letting people do their own thing is that some of them are not going to behave the way you want. Some of them are going to be royal shitbirds, in fact. So you either have to accept that a free society is going to include some people acting in ways you don't like, or you have to give up on libert? to enforce ?galit? and fraternit?. And the fact that a lot of "anarchists" are perfectly willing to do this suggests that they're not really anarchists at all.
What are you talking about? Those hippies wanted peace and love and everyone working together for the common good. They weren't individualists. They were total collectivists. Now they are in power and they are forcing their collectivist vision onto society. There's no mystery about it. The communist subversives of the late 60s are now running the show.
EXCEPT...peace, love and the common good cannot be obtained through theft.
They have PROVEN that attempting to provide for the good through force turns you into that which you originally despised.
.
There's a difference between voluntary and involuntary collectivism.
Anarchism means to most anarchists no police so they can steal your stuff.
With, I assume, just enough police to stop you from shooting those anarchists?
Well, someone has to enforce gun control laws.
In an Anarcho-Communist state, the laws against gun ownership will be enforced the same way as the laws against governments.
In Soviet Russia, guns enforce YOU!
Many forms of "anarchism" are simply attempts to rebrand government.
I guess this helps explain all those stories I hear from Britain about the "anarchists" rioting in the streets over tuition hikes at state schools or cuts to government services.
Hell, didn't the Sex Pistols even write a song about it?
Those crazy Brits!! Such anarchist-y, collectivist, statist fucks!
Many forms of "anarchism" are simply attempts to rebrand government.
Communism is a form of anarchy. The State was supposed wither away once the worker's paradise was achieved.
ahh yes the state would just go away, ride off into the sunset to re-educate some other poor free sods who just don't realize how bad they've got it.
To me, one of the great mysteries of politics is why the remnants of the hippie New Left so completely abandoned their decentralized vision of change and went full statist. You'd think that individualists and rebels would appreciate Hayekian self-organization
There decentralized vision was mainly the breakup of the government and private corporations, in favor of decentralized communes. Individualism to them meant elimination of traditional morality, of which "individual responsibility" is an important part. Some libertarians try to rewrite history and claim that "the movement" was originally libertarian before it was mysteriously corrupted by those people. They are cultural liberals, they don't want to accept that their cultural heroes were nothing but subversive marxists.
It's important to note that the opposition to the war was a point of nucleation for a bunch of different groups outside the establishment that opposed the status quo, albeit with very incompatible ideas as to the endpoint of any reform.
And, I think that the initial steps for many of these incompatible journeys of reform were identical eg. could want communism or anarchism and still be opposed to the draft.
Unfortunately, the number of people who oppose the mainstream establishment fall largely into two categories: {people who are philosophically opposed to the system; people who can't function in the system}
The latter set has a very high proportion of lazy idiots compared to the rest of the population. And the more benign the establishment, the more the latter group dominates the opposition.
Some libertarians try to rewrite history and claim that "the movement" was originally libertarian before it was mysteriously corrupted by those people
This.
I mean Hitler thought opposing the government was good when he was in opposition but when he came to power he now thought it was bad. Who would have guessed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Theses
We all know the Lenin turned out to be a pacifist and got rid of cops, bureaucrats and the army and allowed decentralized political control
Because decentralization was not really the goal; social revolution was. When you want to upend a system of moral, aesthetic, and economic values that has existed for hundreds of years and replace it with your own, it's going to be mighty difficult to do so without government power.
Next thing you'll tell me is that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity wasn't just a way to replace Western Imperialism in East Asia with a Japanese one.
At this point, I'd by happy to see *any* country embrace the principles of liberty and free markets. It would be especially delicious if it was China. God knows it's not going to happen here any time soon.
Maybe it's time to brush up on the Mandarin...
The Chinese Communist Party won't let this happen. It's a existential threat to their hegemony.
"""As China's Communist Party approaches the age at which most single-party regimes crumble"''
Except that these other regimes were going bankrupt and were isolated. Chinese communists have tons of money and access to the worlds technology, trade and finance.
These other regimes were becoming more and more pariahs in the world while the Chinese communists get their ass kissed wherever they go in the world.
Just look at the last major Chinese dissident that hit the news, that blind guy, nobody cares about him, the West thought he was an embarrassment.
We have spent the decades since Nixon giving the Chinese Communists legitimacy, money, technology, trade and influence, they are not going away without a fight and they control the Chinese Military.
"Chinese communists have tons of money and access to the worlds technology, trade and finance."
Tons of money yes, but very little actual wealth backing it up. Basically as long as the US and to a lesser extent the EU debt parade continues they will have plenty of cash. The instant our economies crash (and they will crash together, one going down will take down the other) the cashflow will stop and they'll be looking at half a billion unemployed people who now have had a taste of wealth for themselves and won't be happy going back to the farm camps.
Basically they are riding the tiger with no real options to get off that leave them in power.
They also have a gigantic real estate bubble, an economy totally twisted out of shape by government and corruption, hundreds of violent demonstrations every year, frightening levels of pollution, and a bunch of other teetering dominoes.
I have just the slightest bit of doubt that the high-level corruptocrats in China are going to give up their positions willingly.
There may be a big change, particularly if their economic bubble bursts suddenly, but it's unlikely to be a peaceful change.
At a guess it will only happen after the American debt problem truly explodes and catches the rest of the world in the aftermath.
Most likely. The Chinese are highly dependent on the USA remaining a big customers. If we stop buying their shit--for whatever reason--they're dead in the water.
Related
Is Hayek the guy who taught Krugman or was it Friedman? China can just spend all the money of whatever they want right? So that's why they need Keynes? My reading comprehension takes a nosedive in the afternoon. But I'm pretty sure Kayak is not the cheapest place to buy health insurance online.
If the middle class in China keeps growing at this rate it will become increasingly difficult to deny much of the economic and social freedom we in the west are accustomed to. Does this mean Hayek? Probably not. But how long can you keep reeducating your dissidents before they start multiplying. The Chinese people may be culturally pliant to the megastate but with prosperity they may want something else.
That something is freedom. Book it. Fine, I'll go back to work.
Paging Mr. Friedman, Mr. Friedman to the gray courtesy phone please.
FUCKING MONGORIANS!
THE UNITED STATES IS OVER-REVERAGED!
OK! I BEERD YOU A FUCKING SHITTY BANK!
Tis a sad state of affairs that China should be the last shining beacon of hope for individual freedom.
China may be a horrible place now but they get free-er with every passing day (even if just by a bit)
We lose liberty every day (alot faster than most people think)
The good professor makes a good point! I love his Point!However a bit of history then comparisons. China under Mao believed completely in Socialistic Statism. Under Deng that was changed. Is it Statism? yes, much more free however than our current Statism being imposed as we speak in America.
To the degree China has evolved to capitalism and free enterprise gaining a middle class , America is in the opposite direction rapidly losing a middle class to Statism socialistically applied
If you want to read some in depth articles I invite you to visit http://www.hedgemastermb.blogspot.com