[PEN-L:1792] Re: More Polanyi vs. Hayek

[knoWWare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tom Walker)]

While I think it's fair to say the Hayekism *in practice* shares some
characteristics with Fascism. It would be equally accurate to say that
Fascism shares some characteristics with Stalinism. For that matter, all
three share some characteristics with classical 19th century liberalism.

Looked at rhetorically, it seems to me that people use the label "Fascism"
as a danger cry -- it's a rhetorical gambit to try to counter complacency.
The problem, as I see it, is that the term doesn't do what it's supposed to
do. If anything, the label seems to *induce* complacency. Perhaps this is
the result of chronic overuse in the 1960s when, to use a probably not
uncommon example, even high school principals could get labeled "fascist"
for enforcing no smoking rules in the school yard. If everyone's a fascist,
then no one's a fascist, etc. The real danger of the F word is that it seems
to say "as long as it isn't fascism, it's O.K." A real dumb idea.

But there's another issue here, too. One that's sure to provoke controversy.
That issue is whether it's worthwhile to sift Hayek's interesting critical
analysis from his liberal laudatory dreck. It seems to me there are two good
reasons for looking at Hayek's "good side". One is to use Hayek against the
self-styled "Hayekians", the other is to raise useful questions about what
the limits of socialism might be.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Only in mediocre art does life unfold as fate." -- Michael Ignatieff

Tom Walker
knoWWare Communications
http://mindlink.net/knowware/