Craner Explains Hayek to Padraig

[dilbert1]

Yeah as I understand, "classical" marxism (if that tracks haha) involves a statist approach insofar as the means of production need to be seized and "self-abolished" a la communization - although I think the concept of self-abolition is too recent perhaps to be called classical?

In any case, yeah I agree, as far as I understand, that marxism doesn't involve a state in its utopian end.

Even more pointedly, Engels

Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. […] As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.

 

[Clinamenic]

I do think it’s an admirable concept, I just think it’s naive to assume that any governmental institution, with a monopoly on coercion, will abolish itself in such a manner as to enable a stateless society. I think there may be certain aspects of this process rendered possible by peer-to-peer financial protocols, but even the implementation of those would require a good amount of bureaucracy.

 

[dilbert1]

Which “impersonal processes of society” is Hayek touching on past the end of the excerpt you shared? Could you finish the quote

 

[Clinamenic]

Which “impersonal processes of society” is Hayek touching on past the end of the excerpt you shared? Could you finish the quote

Oh he was probably referencing the rule of law in this sense of liberalism, wherein the law is laid out in general and indiscriminate terms, treating everyone equally, so that everyone knows ahead of time how the government is equipped to intervene in their lives and practice coercion. Its not impersonal in the absolute sense, insofar as enforcers will always have some margin of discretion, but its intended as a bulwark against the "arbitrary will" of the government. He defines liberty as freedom from being subjected to the arbitrary will of others, and says rule of law should be minimally arbitrary.

But in more novel terms, "impersonal processes" could also refer to peer-to-peer protocols, like how a lot of the internet works.

 

[Clinamenic]

He also talks a lot about how markets are defined by emergent trends drawing from a variety of individual agendas, and how these markets, by virtue of encompassing more than any one person can comprehend and plan for, can be understood as impersonal.

 

[craner]

Now that you've started to read The Constitution of Liberty, @Clinamenic, I think you will be in a better position to appreciate this piece I wrote about the fortunes of Hayek in British politics:

The Letwin Amendment

His political ideas are already as antiquated as Noah’s ark. I do not know a single one of the younger men in England who is influenced by them in the slightest degree, though one hears of one occa…

olivercraner.com

 

[Clinamenic]

Hayek is spitting fire in Constitution of Liberty.

 

[thirdform]

I do think it’s an admirable concept, I just think it’s naive to assume that any governmental institution, with a monopoly on coercion, will abolish itself in such a manner as to enable a stateless society. I think there may be certain aspects of this process rendered possible by peer-to-peer financial protocols, but even the implementation of those would require a good amount of bureaucracy.

It wasn't an assumption but a derivation given certain conditions.

You're confusing the positions of m+e and that of Bakunin.

 

[craner]

So glad I've managed to convert Stan to Pinochet.

 

[Clinamenic]

So glad I've managed to convert Stan to Pinochet.

Your greatest achievement!