Was Frederick Hayek a Bernie Sanders Socialist?

Homepage | Forums | Topics In Depth | Economics | Was Frederick Hayek a Bernie Sanders Socialist?

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • #456119
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 11,969

      https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/11/18/was-frederick-hayek-bernie-sanders-socialist

      Hayek recognized that mass unemployment could not be ignored. Discussing the economic transition in England from WWII to a peacetime economy, he says that “the one aim which everybody now agrees comes in the front rank: the conquest of unemployment.”

      But how should mass unemployment and hardship be addressed? Hayek certainly understood that some kind of welfare state was necessary. While always cautioning against going down a slippery slope to total centralized economic planning, he writes, “…but there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody.” (Like food stamps and Section 8

      Republicans despise it. But Hayek does not object to what is the most popular plank of the Sanders platform. As Hayek states:

      The environment, perhaps, poses the most difficult problem for those who worship Hayek’s free marketeering and detest Sanders’ efforts to tackle climate change. Rather than deny a role for government when dealing with difficult market externalities, Hayek argues that as long as the regulations apply to all enterprises, they may enhance the welfare of society even if they somewhat reduce narrow economic efficiency. He writes, “To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours, or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.” “Whereas in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #456332
      The Red Menace
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,139

      Longer answer: No, and his name is “Friedrich” not “Frederick”

      Longest answer: Bernie Sanders isn’t a socialist, he doesn’t advocate socialism, and his ideas to not lead toward or build for socialism. And Friedrich Hayek was a completely reprehensible person with an illogical and self-contradicting idea and was not above skipping around criticisms of his idea by simply pretending he believed something else at that moment. Ayn Rand did the same, so did Milton Friedman, and the rest of these cunts.

      • #456487
        Voltairine
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,567

        of free market of market platforms (ie. monetary systems) is fine. Much preferable to being forced at gunpoint to use the state monetary system.

        I’m fairly confident that libertarian socialist monetary systems (eg UBI co-op) would prevail in free market of market platforms, that socialism of decentralized social ownership would outcompete “private ownership”, which by definition is a centralized concept of state and centralized.

        If you think socialism 1) can be and 2 ) should be forced at gunpoint, you are basicially just fanboi of nazistalinism. 😛

        Aloha!

        • #456696
          The Red Menace
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,139

          Real question if Hayek’s ideas were fine, then surely we would be living in an economic utopia of massive prosperity for all. There would be no reason for a place like Jackpine Radicals to exist in such a world.

          Instead we live in a massive dystopia where five people control more wealth than 90% of the populace, where it’s impossible to even rent on a single income, where entry-level jobs demand four years’ education which requires over a hundred thousand dollars at high interest rates. Where a broken limb can send you into a debt spiral and homelessness.

          This is Hayek’s model at work. This is the outcome of mass privatization and deregulation, the outcome of the belief in an “invisible hand of the market.” This is the outcome of “freeing the producers” from the shackles of taxation and corporate charter restrictions.

          And I don’t know if you noticed, but it is enforced through violence. Starvation wages are violence. Homelessness is violence. Using the threat of depravation, suffering, injury, and death to coerce labor is violence, and this is absolutely, with no question, the model that Hayek leaned into. We can even go into our southern neighbors and see the use of torture, murder, and genocide as an intimidation tactic to force societies into quiescence while their economies have been reworked to fit the “Austrian School” model.

          Those economies would subsequently collapse into exactly the same spiral we see in the US, just like we saw after Yeltsin ‘reformed” Russia’s economy, just like we see when the UMF and EU impose these models and ideas against those people that borrow from them. because, well, mass privatization does that. it makes prices explode and makes service deteriorate while at the same time erasing jobs and thus buying power.

          Hayek’s idea is one to maximize efficiency of wealth extraction into an increasingly-narrow number of hands. And it is indeed very good at that; Ask Jeff Bezos, Anatoly Chubais, or Julio Ponce Lerou. it is new-era feudalism, simply stripped of the lord’s obligation to protect serfs from marauding Norsemen.

          • #456709
            Voltairine
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 2,567

            Private property is feud of state property, based on territorial monopoly of violence. Public property and private property are just two sides of the same coin, and neither has anything to do with socialism. Marxist theory of revolution is not socialism, it’s utterly failed path towards socialism by taking over the state apparatus. All it does is to recreate technocratic and totalitarian class society.

            Aloha!

            • #456762
              The Red Menace
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 1,139

              For an “utterly failed path” it sure does work a lot.

              In fact, funnily enough, the “failures of socialism” cited so often almost universally come about due to socialist economies adopting liberal market-based reforms.

              I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your whimpering about everything being violence is not actually an ethical stand. It’s an apathetic one. Justice, an end to exploitation and oppression, almost never comes without violence.

              • #456790
                Voltairine
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 2,567

                FYI, I’ve been card carrying a member of a revolutionary socialist party. From that experience I can tell that vanguard party based on democratic centralism does not work. It’s hopeless and pitiful.

                The recent armed struggles with some degree of success have been mainly libertarian socialist – Zapatistas and PYD of Rojava. But that is not the general path, pen is mightier than sword. New tech and zeitgeist of decentralized ledgers is challenging the class society based on centralized bureaucracy.

                Aloha!

      • #456507
        eridani
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 11,969

        –of a sort.

        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

        • #456536
          Voltairine
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 2,567

          by “democratic socialism”?

          Venezuela? Cuba? Bernie Sanders? What does DSA, which includes many tendencies, both libertarian and authoritarian, really mean by the combo of words?

          Aloha!

        • #456697
          The Red Menace
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,139

          it’s a term adopted by American center-leftists who were so scared of being called “communists” that they had to invent a goofy new term to avoid persecution. You know, from the liberty-loving, nonviolent, warm-hearted capitalists of this country.

          Socialism is inherently democratic. Some socialist societies have ended up centered around an autocratic strongman, but then so have societies of every other variety; making it a uniquely socialist problem is a disingenuous tactic employed by the sort of people  who think “helicopter rides” are funny but that shooting a genocidal emperor is naughty.

          To answer Voltarine’s question, “DSA” is a bullshit organization that channels leftist energy towards the Democratic party with promises of “Don’t worry guys this time will be different!” Despite the name it is not a socialist organization, it is a social democratic organization – welfare capitalism.

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.