Rand and Hayek

[studiodekadent]

Rand hated Hayek. She called him 'real poison.' I want to look at potential similarities between the two as places to start for future explorations. Sciabarra as both a Rand and Hayek scholar may want to do a direct comparison in the future.

1. Prerequisites for Freedom: Hayek believed certain institutions were needed to gain and maintain freedom (as classical liberals aka libertarians understand it). Rand believed certain philosophical prerequisites exist (like an egoistic ethics). This is a commonality, in that a society's beliefs (philosophy) can be considered an institution.

2. Limits of Rationalism: Hayek specifically attacked a specific politico-epistemic outlook called "constructivist rationalism" (the idea that a singular mind can produce an apriori deduction of the perfect society). Rand mistakenly assumed this was an attack on reason in itself. This is not true; Hayek was attacking Rationalism (which Rand also attacked as intrinsicism) rather than the empirical reason of Objectivist epistemology. Hayek's argument can actually be supported by Randian insights, such as Rand's emphasis on context and empirically-derived concepts .

3. Traditionalist Conservatism: Hayek defended traditions as being products of empirical experimentation. This has made many traditionalist conservatives attempt to claim him as one of them (which he rejected in "Why I am not a Conservative"). Hayek differs from Conservatism by seeing traditions as ground-up products of a natural social order that naturally evolve over time and hence do not require government protection. Traditionalist Conservatives, although they hold so much faith in tradition, obviously do not consider their institutions strong enough to survive without government help (i.e. the fear that allowing homosexuals to marry will 'destroy' heterosexual marriage).

Any comments and additions?

[Greybird]

Hayek's respect for "bottom-up" creation of traditions is a subset of his broader concept of spontaneous order, involving activities that are "of human creation but not of human design." (See, among other sources for this, his essay on "The Use of Knowledge in Society.")

Languages, money choices (voluntary ones, not State-imposed), and the market catallaxy generally, in the Austrian sense, are all examples of this. Wherein adjustments and valuations are made — and can only be made, in the longer run and largest sense — by a myriad of individual actions, with any imposed "design" being, at best, inefficient, and at worst, profoundly destructive.

His insight animated a group of us in Chicago to collaborate for many years on the magazine Nomos: Studies in Spontaneous Order. It explored the unexamined or unknown aspects of this concept in all sorts of practices, movements, and institutions. Libertarians and Objectivists put it together, and were most of the writers, but others who could appreciate the subtleties of such broader, un-"planned" human creations were also welcome.

Hayek was far more subtle than Rand cared to examine, methinks. Which is curious, given the attention she paid to his associate, Ludwig von Mises, and his own aprioristic efforts in grounding economic thought.

My own theory is that she disliked how Hayek would interact with conservatives, classical liberals, "progressives," and showed himself capable of learning the grist of institutions and mores from all of them. Not enough denunciation in his makeup, perhaps, for her taste.

I could imagine her being incensed by his dedicating The Road to Serfdom to "The Socialists of All Parties," even though this came from their having taught him about what mistakes to avoid, not about what to follow or admire.

In any event, cultivating intellectual links between Rand and Hayek is potentially a very fruitful enterprise, and I'd look forward to Chris Sciabarra or anyone else taking this up.

[Robert Campbell]

Andrew and Steve,

Chris Sciabarra has written about Hayek (in his first book, Marx, Hayek, and Utopia). He's also written about Rand (in The Russian Radical) in a way that makes many more references to Hayek than you might expect.

I agree that Rand misunderstood Hayek to a considerable degree. It's too bad there wasn't more active intellectual engagement between the two of them.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

I thought one of Ayn Rand's letters referred to the dedication of Road to Serfdom. Rand found it very offensive.

[studiodekadent]

Andrew and Steve,

Chris Sciabarra has written about Hayek (in his first book, Marx, Hayek, and Utopia). He's also written about Rand (in The Russian Radical) in a way that makes many more references to Hayek than you might expect.

I agree that Rand misunderstood Hayek to a considerable degree. It's too bad there wasn't more active intellectual engagement between the two of them.

Robert Campbell

Thanks for the info. I agree that there should have been much more engagement between the two.

Epistemologically, Rand's empiricism and Contextualism plugs very well into Hayek's theories of distributed knowlege (knowlege about individual contexts, for instance), and hence all of Hayek's theories relating to it (such as the knowlege problem with 'market replication' solutions to the calculation problem, the nature of social institutions, the rejection of constructivist rationalism) and Rand's ethics also add more intellectual ammo to the concept of spontaneous order (that rational interests do not conflict). The possibilities are vast. If only Rand didn't have a fetish for intellectual bridge-burning.

[emb021]

Hmmm.

Not sure if this adds to the conversation.

I recently order a bunch of books from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (taking advantage of their 25% off books they published if ordered in March). One of them is the "Essential Rothbard". I was skimming thru it, and came upon a section where Rothbard was assessing Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" (a book that I have yet to obtain or read, but want to). Rothbard was apparently incesed (sp?) about some of the concepts Hayek put forth on Rationalism, which Rothbard viewed (similiar to Rand) as an attack on reason. Rothbard's conclusion was the book was an 'evil book'. I was frankly quite surprised by this, as it seemed more of a reaction I would have expected from Rand, not Rothbard.

[Martin Radwin]

Hmmm.

Not sure if this adds to the conversation.

I recently order a bunch of books from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (taking advantage of their 25% off books they published if ordered in March). One of them is the "Essential Rothbard". I was skimming thru it, and came upon a section where Rothbard was assessing Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" (a book that I have yet to obtain or read, but want to). Rothbard was apparently incesed (sp?) about some of the concepts Hayek put forth on Rationalism, which Rothbard viewed (similiar to Rand) as an attack on reason. Rothbard's conclusion was the book was an 'evil book'. I was frankly quite surprised by this, as it seemed more of a reaction I would have expected from Rand, not Rothbard.

Rothbard had some of the same tendencies toward authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent that infected objectivism during the NBI days and that continues to infect some of modern objectivism. Rothbard, who penned "The Ayn Rand Cult", had strong cultist tendencies himself. In a way, this is not all that surprising. Rothbard and Rand were both pioneering geniuses with large popular followings. And geniuses are not infrequently not very nice people.

Martin

[studiodekadent]

Lets also remember that Rothbard, although officially he was epistemologically very close (if not in agreement with) Objectivism, had a strong tendency towards rationalism in the areas of political economy. He was, after all, a Misesian and Mises, in spite of his genius, was a rationalist Kantian. Hayek was strongly influenced by empiricist Karl Popper, even though he started as a rationalist (Hayek can be seen, similar to Rand, as incorporating elements of Empiricism and Rationalism, albiet Rand was ultimately empiricist, Im not sure about Hayek). So its not surprising Rothbard would call it an evil book.

But Hayek himself often did not clearly specify he was attacking Constructivist Rationalism, and Rand/Rothbard both used the term "Reason" when ultimately speaking, both are empiricists. There is a case for vocabulary misunderstanding as well. However, there is also a case that Rand thought that if John Galt couldn't solve the economic calculation problem then that means perpetual skepticism.

Either way, its manifest Rand misunderstood Hayek, and Rothbard did as well (or maybe he was pissed off Hayek got more recognition than Mises, but I prefer not to psychologize).

[Chris Grieb]

Martin; I would question whether either Rand or Rothbard had a huge popular following but if either of them did then it was Rand. Rothbard even in his best days never reached Rand's.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the only mention of Hayek on the CDROM (I later found another one, see below). It is in a letter from Rand to to Rose Wilder Lane dated August 21, 1946 (The Letters of Ayn Rand, pp. 308-309). I gave a fuller quote for the context of her criteria.

Now to your second question: "Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?" I don't think this can be answered with a flat "yes" or "no," because the "almost" is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time, are definitely more harmful than the 100% enemies. The standard of judgment here has to be the man's attitude toward basic principles. If he shares our basic principles, but goes off on lesser details in the application of these principles, he is worth educating and having as an ally. If his "almost" consists of sharing some of the basic principles of collectivism, then we ought to run from him faster than from an out-and-out Communist.

As an example of the kind of "almost" I would tolerate, I'd name Ludwig von Mises. His book, Omnipotent Government, had some bad flaws, in that he attempted to divorce economics from morality, which is impossible; but with the exception of his last chapter, which simply didn't make sense, his book was good, and did not betray our cause. The flaws in his argument merely weakened his own effectiveness, but did not help the other side.

As an example of our most pernicious enemy, I would name Hayek. That one is real poison. Yes, I think he does more harm than Stuart Chase. I think Wendell Willkie did more to destroy the Republican Party than did Roosevelt. I think Willkie and Eric Johnston have done more for the cause of Communism than Earl Browder and The Daily Worker. Observe the Communist Party technique, which asks their most effective propagandists to be what is known as "tactical nonmembers." That is, they must not be Communists, but pose as "middle-of-the-roaders" in the eyes of the public. The Communists know that such propagandists are much more deadly to the cause of Capitalism in that "middle-of-the-road" pretense.

Personally, I feel sick whenever I come up against a compromising conservative. But my attitude is this: if the man compromises because of ignorance, I consider him worth enlightening. If he compromises because of moral cowardice (which is the reason in most cases), I don't want to talk to him, I don't want him on my side, and I don't think he is worth converting.

I found a slightly earlier reference to Hayek in a letter to Leonard Read dated August 1, 1946 (The Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 299). Since both of these references occur near the same date, it is reasonable to assume that Rand either read Hayek or had important discussions about him around this time.

What we need are real intellectuals, that is, thinkers. But we cannot "convert" thinkers or "regain their devotion." We need them to convert us—that is, to teach businessmen and conservatives the proper kind of philosophy.

Such thinkers still exist somewhere and we need them desperately. No, they are not "fainthearts," as you say in your letter. And they have not given up. They have been choked off, stopped, prevented from functioning publicly through the fault of our businessmen. You know that for the last fifteen years every legitimate avenue of expression—newspapers, magazines, book publishing houses—has been closed to them. All these so-called respectable publications, owned by conservatives, have been staffed with pinks who maintain a blockade against all real advocates of our side. Only the Hayeks and such other compromisers are allowed to get through, the kind who do more good to the communist cause than to ours. Now the real thinkers whom we need will be hard to find, because they have not been allowed to make a name for themselves, to come out in the open and be discovered. So it's our job to find them. And, believe me, that should be the most important job of your organization.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Its a shame Rand considered Hayek a compromiser. Hayek (like myself) was a moderate on the welfare issue but with everything else he was radically classical liberal, and he had to 'masquerade' somewhat in order to get teaching posts. Its unfortunate but the academic environment demanded it of him. Jospeh Schumpeter did the same in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy"... he didn't reveal he was a classical liberal until deep into the book (so Marxists would actually start reading and hopefully, after the 'coming out' of the author, finish it).

The academy back then demanded such things, unfortunately. Hayek did not have Mises's libertarian benefactors, or Rand's monumental book sales.

[Martin Radwin]

Martin; I would question whether either Rand or Rothbard had a huge popular following but if either of them did then it was Rand. Rothbard even in his best days never reached Rand's.

Chris,

"Popular" is a relative term. Certainly, they didn't have the popularity or name recognition of celebrity rock stars or movie stars, but by the standards of intellectuals, they were pretty well know, Rand especially.

During the NBI days, The Objectivist had a fairly large paid circulation (over 20,000, I think). Thousands of people took courses through NBI. And hundreds of thousands of people bought Rand's fiction and, in lesser numbers, non-fiction.

Rothbard certainly had less of a popular following than Rand. There was no organized Rothbardian movement, unlike NBI. Books on economics and political/ethical theory don't generally sell as well as novels. But "Mr. Libertarian" Rothbard was quite influential in the libertarian movement. He was active in the early Libertarian Party and was a founder of the Cato Institute.

Martin

[Chris Grieb]

Martin; I don't think we are disagreeing. I think you are on the high end of numbers for NBI's mailing list. Rothbard was highly influential with the Libertarian Party. He was actually at several of the convention 76, 80, 82, 84, and 88. He left the party after the Ron Paul campaign. I think some of Rothbard's anger at Rand was based on the fact that she was more well known but I am open to facts that present a different view to me.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[emb021]

Rothbard certainly had less of a popular following than Rand. There was no organized Rothbardian movement, unlike NBI. Books on economics and political/ethical theory don't generally sell as well as novels. But "Mr. Libertarian" Rothbard was quite influential in the libertarian movement. He was active in the early Libertarian Party and was a founder of the Cato Institute.

Comparing Rand to Rothbard in terms of 'followers' or the like I think is incorrect.

As noted, there never was any organized Rothbardian movement. One speaks of Objectivists or 'Randians' or even 'Randoids' or the like. I've never heard of anyone referred to as a 'rothbardian' or the like.

Now, Rothbard did have a big influence, but one that I think many [lL]ibertarians may not be aware of. He was involved with many libertarian magazines/newsletters/journals, establishing several himself. He was involved in establishing several libertarian groups, not just Cato, but the Center for Libertarian Studies, the von Mises Institute, and maybe others, and was involved with several groups as well. His "For a New Liberty" has been cited as an important work in the libertarian world, which probably influenced many people.

There were some conflicts. He had a big falling out with Cato. I think he also got disillusioned by the direction of the LP.