WEBVTT

NOTE Mises as Radical: Retrospective on Rothbard's Thesis

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.800
In 1981, Rothbard wrote an article called The Laissez-faire Radical,

2
00:00:03.800 --> 00:00:06.100
Quest for the Historical Mises,

3
00:00:06.100 --> 00:00:09.300
in which he took issue with the prevailing interpretation of Mises as a conservative.

4
00:00:09.300 --> 00:00:15.600
He said, look, this guy is a radical, he was against nationalism, against war,

5
00:00:15.600 --> 00:00:22.400
he believed in secession down to the village level and principle down to the level of individual,

6
00:00:22.400 --> 00:00:28.100
he believed in open borders, he analyzed society in terms of class conflict,

7
00:00:28.100 --> 00:00:36.100
He was a rationalist critic of religion, he was an admirer of the French Revolution, so in all these respects he seems radical rather than conservative.

8
00:00:36.100 --> 00:00:41.100
Ten years later, Jeff Tucker and Lew Rockwell wrote an article called The Cultural Thought of Ludwig von Mises,

9
00:00:41.100 --> 00:00:45.100
in which, while not disagreeing with anything Rothbard had said,

10
00:00:45.100 --> 00:00:50.100
made the case for the respects in which Mises could be regarded as conservative.

11
00:00:50.100 --> 00:00:56.100
That he was a traditionalist about family and gender and marriage,

12
00:00:56.100 --> 00:01:05.100
that he praised Western civilization as superior to all others, he was a critic of mass culture and so on.

13
00:01:05.100 --> 00:01:10.100
So I just want to talk a little bit about respects in which Mises can be viewed as radical,

14
00:01:10.100 --> 00:01:16.100
respects in which Mises is apparently not a radical, what can we make of this?

15
00:01:16.100 --> 00:01:19.100
Well first it depends exactly what we mean by radical.

16
00:01:19.100 --> 00:01:23.100
There are, it seems to me, at least three different ways the word is used.

17
00:01:23.100 --> 00:01:28.100
And one of the ways is going to turn out really to be two ways in itself, so it's really three and a half or four.

18
00:01:28.100 --> 00:01:34.100
In one sense, when we say it's radical, we simply mean extreme, extreme of anything.

19
00:01:34.100 --> 00:01:41.100
So if something is really extreme or thorough going, goes sort of all the way consistently in some direction, then we call it radical.

20
00:01:41.100 --> 00:01:46.100
So there's radical as opposed to moderate, radical as opposed to wishy-washy.

21
00:01:46.100 --> 00:01:51.100
There's another sense, we may call it a political or an ideological sense,

22
00:01:51.100 --> 00:01:58.100
where being radical is opposed to being politically and or culturally conservative.

23
00:01:58.100 --> 00:02:01.100
And you can see these two senses aren't going to be quite the same.

24
00:02:01.100 --> 00:02:06.100
Someone who is really extremely conservative would count as a radical

25
00:02:06.100 --> 00:02:09.100
in the sense of being extremely in some direction,

26
00:02:09.100 --> 00:02:14.100
but they wouldn't count as radical in the sense of being extremely opposed to conservatism.

27
00:02:14.100 --> 00:02:18.100
Then there's a third sense which is also connected to but distinct from the others

28
00:02:18.100 --> 00:02:24.820
and others, where radical means someone who seizes things by the root, that's the original

29
00:02:24.820 --> 00:02:33.940
root meaning of radical, and someone who thinks that you have to analyze social phenomena

30
00:02:33.940 --> 00:02:38.940
in terms of their connection to a whole totality, that they don't believe in merely local fixes,

31
00:02:38.940 --> 00:02:45.060
you think you, in order to change one thing, you have to change a lot of different things,

32
00:02:45.060 --> 00:02:49.100
And so therefore, someone who's radical in that sense,

33
00:02:49.100 --> 00:02:51.460
there's a sense that someone like Chris Guevara

34
00:02:51.460 --> 00:02:53.980
has spent a lot of time talking about connections

35
00:02:53.980 --> 00:02:56.220
between radicalism and libertarianism,

36
00:02:56.220 --> 00:02:58.140
in that sense of radical.

37
00:02:58.140 --> 00:03:00.340
You can see it's connected to the other two,

38
00:03:01.380 --> 00:03:04.420
but not identical with them.

39
00:03:04.420 --> 00:03:06.860
Well, so let's take the simplest sense.

40
00:03:06.860 --> 00:03:10.020
Radical just meaning advocating an extreme version

41
00:03:10.020 --> 00:03:11.500
of whatever it is you advocate.

42
00:03:11.500 --> 00:03:21.500
So if what Mises advocates is a priorism in methodology and free markets in economics and politics,

43
00:03:21.500 --> 00:03:24.700
then it seems safe to say that he counts as radical in both senses.

44
00:03:24.700 --> 00:03:32.200
His version of methodological a priorism is extreme in the sense that it's very thorough going.

45
00:03:32.200 --> 00:03:34.900
He never claimed to have originated this a priori method.

46
00:03:34.900 --> 00:03:38.600
He thought it was implicitly the method of most previous good economists,

47
00:03:38.600 --> 00:03:43.800
But he certainly, it's much more explicit, much more consistent.

48
00:03:43.800 --> 00:03:48.800
Likewise, in free markets, he wasn't the only guy around who was talking about free markets,

49
00:03:48.800 --> 00:03:53.300
but compare him with other people like Milton Friedman, other free market advocates,

50
00:03:53.300 --> 00:03:59.400
he's clearly much more thorough going in his advocacy of free markets.

51
00:03:59.400 --> 00:04:03.400
People who are usually thought of in the mainstream as extreme free marketers,

52
00:04:03.400 --> 00:04:07.000
like the German Ordo Liberals, who Mises called interventionists,

53
00:04:07.000 --> 00:04:11.000
or the Mont Pelerin people that Mises called a bunch of socialists.

54
00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:16.000
You can see that in that sense he is extreme.

55
00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:19.000
Again, this is extreme in a value-neutral sense.

56
00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:22.000
Sometimes people use extreme as though it's a bad thing.

57
00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:27.000
Obviously it seems to me it depends what it is that you've got an extreme amount of,

58
00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:29.000
whether that's a good or a bad thing.

59
00:04:29.000 --> 00:04:33.000
And being extremely free market is not something I regard as a bad thing.

60
00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:43.000
On the other hand, you could say that Mises was not as radical a free marketer as some of the people.

61
00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:51.000
One of the things that Guido Hulsman's biography brings up quite nicely is how bemusing it was for Mises to go from Europe to the United States

62
00:04:51.000 --> 00:04:56.000
and find that he had gone from usually being the most extreme free market person in the room in Europe

63
00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:01.000
to suddenly clashing with people like Rothbard and Roosevelt or Lane and R.C. Hoyles

64
00:05:01.000 --> 00:05:08.900
who all thought that he was much too moderate in his pursuit of free markets and this must have been a rather of a surprise for him.

65
00:05:08.900 --> 00:05:17.700
So, he wasn't sort of the, so just in terms of being a radical in the sense of advocating an extreme version of whatever it is you advocate,

66
00:05:17.700 --> 00:05:26.700
you know, he was pretty radical but obviously not as radical as some of these wild-eyed obstreperous Americans.

67
00:05:26.700 --> 00:05:29.200
What about radical in the sense of being opposed to conservative?

68
00:05:29.200 --> 00:05:41.200
Well, of course, that depends, you know, first of all, exactly what counts as conservative and second, exactly what counts as, you know, being opposed to conservative or being farther away from conservative.

69
00:05:41.200 --> 00:05:55.200
Rothbard, back in his left and right days, argued there was a mistake to think of state socialism as the polar opposite of free market libertarianism.

70
00:05:55.200 --> 00:06:10.200
He thought that that actually, I'm sorry, of the polar opposite of conservatism, he thought that that historically it was free market libertarianism and positions like that that were the polar opposite and socialism was a middle-of-the-road movement.

71
00:06:10.200 --> 00:06:16.200
What he meant by that was that socialism accepted the same goals as libertarianism and liberalism,

72
00:06:16.200 --> 00:06:25.200
or many of the same goals, more freedom and more prosperity for ordinary people and so on.

73
00:06:25.200 --> 00:06:30.200
But did this by use of conservative means, by conservative means,

74
00:06:30.200 --> 00:06:35.200
the old traditional conservative upholding traditional aristocratic hierarchies and so forth.

75
00:06:35.200 --> 00:06:45.960
and so forth. He said that he thought that the real opposite of conservatism was libertarians

76
00:06:45.960 --> 00:06:50.800
and also he included as well the new leftists. Suppose the old leftists are sort of the Marxian

77
00:06:50.800 --> 00:06:53.960
authoritarians, he thought were sort of more in the middle. The new leftists, although

78
00:06:53.960 --> 00:06:59.960
he had various criticisms of them and departures from them, thought that they were much more

79
00:06:59.960 --> 00:07:03.320
or in the direction of being extremely away.

80
00:07:03.320 --> 00:07:07.960
So to that extent, if the farther you move

81
00:07:07.960 --> 00:07:09.320
toward free market libertarianism,

82
00:07:09.320 --> 00:07:11.320
the farther away you are from conservatism,

83
00:07:11.320 --> 00:07:14.480
and if being a radical in the political or ideological sense

84
00:07:14.480 --> 00:07:17.160
means being farther away from conservatism,

85
00:07:17.160 --> 00:07:24.160
then insofar as Mises was extremely free market,

86
00:07:24.400 --> 00:07:29.400
then Mises was also not only radical in the extreme sense,

87
00:07:29.960 --> 00:07:59.960
but also radical in the political sense but then of course he fell short of people like Rothbard in that sense and being favorable to conscription in principle at least in his later writings and his principle of sort of secession down to at least the village level was to some extent in tension with Mises idea that it was the job of the central government to impose more liberal policies

88
00:07:59.960 --> 00:08:16.960
What about cultural conservatism? If being more radical means being more opposed to conservatism, does that just mean politically or does it mean culturally too?

89
00:08:16.960 --> 00:08:28.040
Well, that's a debate that I don't need to get into too much here, except to notice that traditionally libertarians,

90
00:08:28.040 --> 00:08:32.720
you know, if we go to the 19th century, libertarians tended to be very much opposed to cultural conservatism.

91
00:08:32.720 --> 00:08:41.720
You might say that being opposed to cultural conservatism is really the ultra-paleo-libertarian position.

92
00:08:41.720 --> 00:08:50.360
It's true that Mises has had culturally conservative views to some extent on things like marriage and relations of the sexes,

93
00:08:50.360 --> 00:08:56.560
but it's a little more complicated than that because, you know, if you look at what he says about marriage,

94
00:08:56.560 --> 00:09:05.480
on the one hand, he's very critical of feminism and critical of the free love movement, and both of them he associates with socialism.

95
00:09:05.480 --> 00:09:10.480
Although if you actually look at the history of libertarianism, libertarians are very much involved both in early feminism

96
00:09:10.480 --> 00:09:18.480
and the early free love movement, and by free love they didn't mean promiscuity, they just meant removing coercion from the sphere of sexual relations.

97
00:09:18.480 --> 00:09:27.480
But what exactly is his view on marriage? Well, here's something he says about marriage.

98
00:09:27.480 --> 00:09:31.480
Marriage is an adjustment of the individual to the social order.

99
00:09:31.480 --> 00:09:39.480
Exceptional natures whose abilities lift them far above the average cannot support the coercion with such an adjustment to the way of life of the masses must involve.

100
00:09:39.480 --> 00:09:45.480
The man of genius cannot, in the long run, feel himself bound by marriage without violating his own self.

101
00:09:45.480 --> 00:09:51.480
Genius does not allow itself to be hindered by any consideration for the comfort of its fellows, even of those closest to it.

102
00:09:51.480 --> 00:09:56.480
The ties of marriage become intolerable bonds, which the genius tries to cast off.

103
00:09:56.480 --> 00:09:59.480
I know this is something he said before he was married.

104
00:09:59.480 --> 00:10:29.480
Well, now it's true that this doctrine is not a feminist doctrine because what he says is well this is marriage inevitably cramps the style of the male genius but the woman has no choice because her biological nature leads to her subordinate creativity to reproduction and therefore the woman has no choice but to marry but a man at least a man of genius you know would never want to marry well so it's not a feminist view but it's not exactly a cultural concern

105
00:10:29.480 --> 00:10:34.480
to say, you know, the truly independent man would have nothing to do with marriage

106
00:10:34.480 --> 00:10:36.480
and would break the ties of it if he possibly could.

107
00:10:36.480 --> 00:10:40.480
It's not standard cultural conservatism anyway.

108
00:10:44.480 --> 00:10:53.480
Also some questions ask about whether there's a tension between his views about women's necessary preference for reproduction over creativity,

109
00:10:53.480 --> 00:10:58.480
the expression of biology, whether that sits well with his view that we don't know anything

110
00:10:58.480 --> 00:11:01.880
about the biological basis of human preferences

111
00:11:01.880 --> 00:11:06.480
and that we shouldn't try to base theymology on physical and empirical psychology.

112
00:11:06.480 --> 00:11:11.480
But anyway,

113
00:11:11.480 --> 00:11:15.880
in that sense, Mises' attitudes are in some respects culturally conservative

114
00:11:15.880 --> 00:11:18.480
and in some respects the opposite. It's a kind of a mix.

115
00:11:18.480 --> 00:11:22.680
What about some of the other aspects of the social goals of

116
00:11:22.680 --> 00:11:25.980
the left, or at least of the new left, the

117
00:11:25.980 --> 00:11:29.980
The Left that Rothbard thought was at least partially salvageable.

118
00:11:29.980 --> 00:11:36.980
Mises did not share Rothbard's even partial enthusiasm for the New Left.

119
00:11:36.980 --> 00:11:43.980
Guido quotes in his biography a letter from Mises talking about Rothbard's alliance with the New Left saying,

120
00:11:43.980 --> 00:11:46.980
It's sad to see a brilliant mind go to pot that way.

121
00:11:46.980 --> 00:11:51.980
If you think about some of the issues the New Left stressed,

122
00:11:51.980 --> 00:11:54.980
and some issues Mises seems to be sympathetic and others not.

123
00:11:54.980 --> 00:12:07.980
For example, the New Left was very, like the old, was sympathetic with the struggles of industrial workers against employers and with peasants against landowners.

124
00:12:07.980 --> 00:12:13.980
Now, Mises didn't have much sympathy with the struggles of industrial workers against employers.

125
00:12:13.980 --> 00:12:23.980
He, in fact, refers to the workers as dull beneficiaries of the capitalistic system who indulge in the delusion that it is their own performance of routine jobs that create all these marvels.

126
00:12:23.980 --> 00:12:24.980
and all these marvels.

127
00:12:24.980 --> 00:12:27.820
He says, well really, it's not the workers, the workers are just sort of droning away

128
00:12:27.820 --> 00:12:32.860
and it's really the employers who employ all the entrepreneurial skill.

129
00:12:32.860 --> 00:12:36.580
I'm not sure how he knew it was only the employers who were involved in that.

130
00:12:36.580 --> 00:12:41.180
But anyway, he was not sympathetic to the left on that.

131
00:12:41.180 --> 00:12:43.100
But when it comes to peasants, he's a bit more sympathetic.

132
00:12:43.100 --> 00:12:51.700
He has this view that the existence of peasant societies where you have vast holdings of

133
00:12:51.700 --> 00:12:57.600
of Land owned by a few small landowners and all these people working a service on it.

134
00:12:57.600 --> 00:13:03.180
He thought that that was very unlikely to arise from pure market forces.

135
00:13:03.180 --> 00:13:08.420
He thought that that sort of thing almost always arose from government intervention

136
00:13:08.420 --> 00:13:15.240
on behalf of the landowning class and therefore he held that if you opened it up to free markets,

137
00:13:15.240 --> 00:13:17.860
those vast land holdings would quickly get eaten away.

138
00:13:17.860 --> 00:13:24.860
He also thought that the peasants who were working on those lands were by and large the descendants of the people from whom the lands had been taken in the first place.

139
00:13:24.860 --> 00:13:38.860
Now his attitude to this is a bit different from Rothbard's. Rothbard's view was that the land, you know, when we can establish that these peasants really are the descendants of the original people from whom the land was expropriated, then the land should be returned to the peasants.

140
00:13:38.860 --> 00:13:48.860
Mises didn't think that, partly I think because Mises doesn't have this natural rights view of property,

141
00:13:48.860 --> 00:13:59.860
but Mises did think that in fact just letting free markets operate would tend to get rid of this land-owning class.

142
00:13:59.860 --> 00:14:29.860
Moreover, part of his objection to immigration controls was he thought that this was a way in which vast areas of uncultivated land were being kept out of cultivation and that people, you know, so in a sense he was anticipating some of Walter's views on it's being wrong for people to bar off some area of un-homesteaded land and prevent it from being homesteaded. Although Mises' reasons for that weren't rights-based, they were sort of

143
00:14:29.860 --> 00:14:59.860
utility-based. Also when he talks about colonialism he sounds as new lefty as anybody. He says the basic idea of colonial policy was to take advantage of the military superiority of the white race over the members of other races, the Europeans set out equipped with all the weapons and contrivances that their civilization placed at their disposal to subjugate weaker peoples to rob them of their property and to enslave them. On issues such as whether his antithesis

144
00:14:59.860 --> 00:15:09.860
Mises had antipathy to many aspects of popular culture, makes him anti-lefty, it's hard to evaluate since the left has had such a love-hate relationship with popular culture itself.

145
00:15:09.860 --> 00:15:18.860
It's true that he did say that no culture outside of the West has ever really expressed the idea of liberty.

146
00:15:18.860 --> 00:15:24.860
But then he hadn't read my article on Confucianism. I don't know why he missed that article.

147
00:15:24.860 --> 00:15:31.560
There's a sense in which Mises can be seen as sharing the New Left's concern with participatory democracy,

148
00:15:31.560 --> 00:15:35.260
although it's not a sense that the New Left would be likely to recognize or embrace.

149
00:15:35.260 --> 00:15:43.060
But the sense is, one of the main things that will sort of lefty proponents of democracy say is

150
00:15:43.060 --> 00:15:51.660
merely being able to go into a voting booth and yank a lever every four years isn't democracy.

151
00:15:51.660 --> 00:15:56.660
and democracy means maximizing your say over the decisions that affect you.

152
00:15:56.660 --> 00:16:01.660
Well, Mises often again referred to the free market as an economic democracy.

153
00:16:01.660 --> 00:16:04.660
I think partly he was using the phrase economic democracy tongue-in-cheek

154
00:16:04.660 --> 00:16:08.660
because that was the leftist phrase, but there's a sense in which he was pointing to the same point

155
00:16:08.660 --> 00:16:14.660
that under the price system, it's consumer decisions of what to buy

156
00:16:14.660 --> 00:16:19.660
that determine exactly how capital ends up getting used.

157
00:16:19.660 --> 00:16:49.660
And so there's a sense, and it's not by majority vote, it's not as though if the majority of people want to buy Britney Spears CDs and the minority want to buy Scarlatti CDs that everyone has to get Britney Spears CDs rather under the market those who vote for Britney Spears CDs get those and those who vote for Scarlatti CDs get those and those who want both get both and those who want neither get neither. So there's a sense in which in this ideological sense of being opposed to cultural conservatism

158
00:16:49.660 --> 00:16:54.660
Although he's certainly more culturally conservative than he is conservative politically,

159
00:16:54.660 --> 00:16:58.660
he's not quite as culturally conservative as he might seem.

160
00:16:58.660 --> 00:17:05.660
What about this dialectical sense, as we might call it, of radicalism being about

161
00:17:05.660 --> 00:17:10.660
not viewing things in isolation but viewing things as part of an overall interconnected system,

162
00:17:10.660 --> 00:17:13.660
therefore thinking that change involves changing the whole system?

163
00:17:13.660 --> 00:17:17.660
Well, he talks that way too.

164
00:17:17.660 --> 00:17:27.660
He talks about the place of the entrepreneur in the economy or the place of prices in the economy is not isolated phenomena but part of the whole system.

165
00:17:27.660 --> 00:17:34.660
He also talks about getting rid of war by changing the fundamental view about the causes of war,

166
00:17:34.660 --> 00:17:39.660
by trying to show that in fact there isn't a fundamental disharmony of interests.

167
00:17:39.660 --> 00:17:46.660
Now one thing where I think he may depart somewhat from this dialectical view is when he talks about something called solidarism,

168
00:17:46.660 --> 00:17:56.660
Which is the view that while free markets are necessary for a flourishing society, they're not sufficient and they need to be supplemented by other provisions.

169
00:17:56.660 --> 00:18:00.660
He talks about two versions of solidarism. What do you call solidarism? This is in his book, Socialism.

170
00:18:00.660 --> 00:18:09.660
One version is where the additional provisions are governmental interventions and obviously those sorts are not going to be something he would advocate.

171
00:18:09.660 --> 00:18:14.660
But he also talks about cases where merely through moral suasion, through trying to appeal to people's consciences,

172
00:18:14.660 --> 00:18:28.660
You try to get them to do things, you try and get them to behave in ways that you regard as moral without basing that in addition to simply following their economic self-interest.

173
00:18:28.660 --> 00:18:41.660
And he calls that a version of socialism. And that I find rather puzzling. It's acting as though you can treat economic self-interest as somehow apart from all these other considerations of moral behavior.

174
00:18:41.660 --> 00:18:51.660
I don't know why he wouldn't just say, if part of the owner's preference is to act in accordance with these moral principles and moral advice, well then there's nothing contrary to the free market about it.

175
00:18:51.660 --> 00:19:01.660
But he also held that in working for a free market, you have to address broader mistakes.

176
00:19:01.660 --> 00:19:10.660
He writes a whole book about the anti-capitalist mentality, which he attacks what he regards as various ideological and moral views that seem to influence this.

177
00:19:10.660 --> 00:19:15.660
So, I would say that if you consider these three dimensions of radicalism,

178
00:19:15.660 --> 00:19:18.660
he scores pretty high on all of them, higher on some than on others,

179
00:19:18.660 --> 00:19:21.660
but I think that in the end it makes sense to view Mises as radical.

180
00:19:21.660 --> 00:19:26.660
Those of us who regard ourselves as radical in all three senses can take Mises as an inspiration.