• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The reader should not be fooled: Gaetano Pecora is Professor Gaetano Pecora Gaetano Pecora although the title of this essay - The of Political Theory at University anomalous liberalism of Friedrich of Sannio and Luiss University. He August von Hayek - is rather pointed, is the editor in chief of the journal we are not dealing with a pamphlet, “Archivio Storico del Sannio” and an but with a thoughtful book that does honorary member of Ernesto Rossi not indulge in the pleasure - Gaetano Salvemini Foundation. He THE of provocation. On the contrary, is the author of a number of books, the book criticizes Hayek’s including Uomini della democrazia, The Anomalous Liberalism of Friedrich August von Hayek “anomalous” liberalism and with Norberto Bobbio’s preface analyzes his texts by dissembling (1987; 2007); I pensatori politici: and inspecting them even in their Hans Kelsen (1995); La libertà ANOMALOUS most secluded hollows. Using dei moderni (2004; 2011); Il pensiero clear and direct language in a politico di Gaetano Filangieri (2008). style similar to a conversation, His last book Socialismo come unburdened by unclear tortuosities, libertà. La storia lunga di Gaetano the author engages the reader in his Salvemini (2012) was awarded LIBERALISM critical analysis. The only type the “Giacomo Matteotti” of analysis, after all, that suits prize for Best Manuscript a “great” like Hayek: not to diminish in Political Studies by the Italian him, but to better understand him. Presidency of the Council of Ministers. OF FRIEDRICH AUGUST Rubbettino VON HAYEK Rubbettino Gaetano Pecora The Anomalous Liberalism of Friedrich August von Hayek Rubbettino Published by the European Liberal Forum asbl with the support of Foundation Critica Liberale. Co-funded by the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum asbl are responsible for the content of this publication, or for any use that may be made of it. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) alone. These views do not necessarily reflect those of the European Parliament and/or the European Liberal Forum asbl Translated by Silvia Franceschetti © 2002-2014 - Rubbettino Editore 88049 Soveria Mannelli - Viale Rosario Rubbettino, 10 - tel (0968) 6664201 www.rubbettino.it To the memory of my mother and father Foreword Gaetano Pecora does Liberalism a great service in this treatise on Friedrich Au- gust von Hayek (1899-1992). I commend his effort, long overdue in Liberal circles, to re-evaluate the man’s work. I will not engage here in the classical and much rehearsed argument about the relative merits of Hayek and Keynes as economic theorists: let it suffice to remind the readers of this book that where Keynes believed that free markets, left to their own devices, distorted competition (and that state intervention is therefore not only justified but often necessary), Hayek believed that free markets adjust to ensure continued freedom and he detested intervention by the state to control them. Hayek is thus often seen as the antithesis to Keynes: in fact he was the antithesis to the ideas expounded by Adam Smith in his Theory of Moral Sentiments of which Keynes was the most noted of many disciples. Evidence can be found to support both contentions (which is why J K Galbraith’s barb ‘economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists’ might well have been directed at this dispute) but most of the available evidence backs the former. I have never forgotten the shock I experienced upon entering the Theodor Heuss Academy in Gummersbach, that former haven of expansive and optimistic social liberal thought under Rolf Schroers, sometime around 1988 and finding the place festooned with pieces of paper bearing quotations from the works of Hayek, Friedman and others of that school, hung there on the instructions on FNS boss Fritz Fliszar (later Fritz Goergen). As a Brit who was fighting a rearguard action against Mrs Thatcher’s brand of neo liberalism I was horrified to find a section of Germany’s FDP glorifying it. Hayek would not have described himself as a Conservative. Indeed, in his essay ‘Why I am not a Conservative’ (published in his book The Constitution of Liberty in 1960) he commends Liberalism for ‘wanting to go elsewhere, not stand still’. But his thought developed at a tangent to Liberalism. As the extracts from his work presented here show, it most certainly went ‘elsewhere’. His castigation of legal positivism sug- gests he was closer to the neo Liberals who hijacked Britain’s Conservative Party than to British Liberals. Indeed, Mrs Thatcher and her acolytes used Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty and his three volume Law, Legislation and Liberty (published between 7 1973 and 1979) as the basis for many of their 1979 to 1989 reforms. If hitherto in Liberal circles Hayek has normally escaped condemnation as a neo liberal himself (after all, ideas are not responsible for the people who adopt and develop them) he was at the very least, as Gaetano Pecora points out, a protective deity of neo Liberals. Hayek was not averse to self-doubt (or perhaps had rather learned, as Dahrendorf did, to appreciate after years of living in England the British art of self deprecation): ‘We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride’, he remarked of economists: ‘since as a profession we have made a mess of things.’ In his private life, Hayek lacked the generosity of spirit and urbane personality which define so many Liberals. That this is reflected in his views on economics is well known. While his views on other areas of politics have often been interpreted as being liberal, what this work shows us is that Hayek was not unequivocally a fighter against authoritarian government (which, as an Austrian, he saw at close hand both at home and to the north, south and east); nor necessarily a staunch defender of freedom of thought and conscience. Indeed, on the basis of evidence here, one might conclude - as the author does - that Hayek’s ideas were antithetical to liberal thought. He disapproved of promoting social justice through government redistribution of income (a belief taken up with gusto by Margaret Thatcher, who declared ‘there is no such thing as society’) long after Liberalism had accepted (pace Mill, Grundtvig, Rawls) that voluntary action to protect the victims of destitution from the consequences of events beyond their own control was deeply insufficient. While Liberals should not be afraid of voluntary social action to remedy social ills, experience of the growing social divide suggests the wealthy are insufficiently prepared to dip into their pockets to make this a practical proposition. Just as Erich Wolfgang von Korngold, a compatriot of Hayek’s and his contem- porary, drew inspiration in the field of music which ignored the developments of at least half a century, so Hayek reverted to a pre social contract analysis of society. The Austro-Hungarian empire which fathered Hayek is not noted for a plethora of Liberal thinking. Hayek chose to live in England, later (like Korngold) in America and later still in modern Germany. That his thought made a contribution to twentieth century Liberalism can be in little doubt, as shown by the haste with which some Lib- erals grasped his ideas. For it to be viewed as being in the main stream impoverishes Liberalism and provides a recipe for electoral disaster. Sir Graham Watson President, Alde Party (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) The Anomalous Liberalism of Friedrich August von Hayek Introduction Benedetto Croce said it of prefaces, but it also applies to introductions, especially the kind that are brief and do not repeat the points of an argument, instead letting them unfold gradually in the book’s pages. Croce said that “he who writes a preface -which is always more or less useless- must at least see to one small purpose: to protect against disappointments”. It is important, then, that the reader understand straight away what he will and will not find in this book. The reader will not find a study of the sources, the premises from which Friedrich August von Hayek’s liberalism derives. Nor will he find written here outlines of this liberalism’s evolution. Firstly, because others have already written very thoroughly of these arguments and, truly, we could not con- tribute anything further or anything better to their work. Secondly because- onwards from 1960 (which is the year in which Hayek publishes The Constitution of Liberty) - Hayekian liberalism resembles a house with clearly defined structures which, once erected, were never modified. Naturally this did not prevent its creator from perfecting said construction over time, embellishing its framework now and then, adorning it with terms of ancient resonance (taxis, cosmos, nomothetic, etc.) at times changing the interior to ensure greater space for what had previously been confined to narrower structures (for example the common law system, which over the years becomes more and more the ideal model into whose mould Hayek’s political and juridical reflections are poured). However, interior changes and embellishments aside, the foundations of this construction have remained the same. Precisely the same foundations whose strength we wished to test, only to discover them pitted with fissures, at times even on the verge of collapse. Therefore, another hint is necessary for whoever is so kind to read this book: the reader must not expect an analysis that indulges in celebratory exaltation or sickly sweet acclaim that whirls around a smoke and mirrors show of approval. Hayek, moreover, is such a scholar that he requires neither heels nor stilts to stand out among many other authors, and our praise would not add even the smallest feather to his cap.

Load more

  159

Copy Link