Anathema — good word — should be used more often
by Will, 27 November 2007
The aversion to infallibility would have brought Popper up to arms today against market fundamentalism. Neo liberals and libertarians ‘believe’ that a free market and absolute freedom will always lead to a better result for mankind. Reality proved them wrong. In the book The Lesson of This Century Popper claims: “A free market without intervention does not and cannot exist”. Unconditional belief in freedom and a free market often lead to indifference towards people who can’t perform in society due to sickness or old age. It even leads to corrosion of the free market due to monopolies. A strong government is required to guard the free market from monopolies and price agreements. A strong government is required to defend the constitutional state and to guarantee the safety and freedom of its civilians. A strong government is required to help the sick, seniors and disabled, and to give children the educational opportunities to develop their own talents.
Certain aspects of Karl Popper’s ideals and philosophy are abstractly appealing (some, sometimes, with qualifications).
Why the same philosophy and ideas should appeal to ‘libertarians’ is a mystery. Look here and see more.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 3:35
In the book The Lesson of This Century Popper claims: “A free market without intervention does not and cannot exist”.
Libertarians are kooks, believing as they do that removal of government will free markets - for which no evidence exists.
However neo-liberalism is the strong intervention by governments to free markets, the IMF and World Bank encourage governments to do act this way. The underlying belief is that by having a market of several competing solutions, differences can be observed and the best option chosen - essentially popperist.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 9:49
Neoliberalism is not falsifiable, at least not at the level it would need to be to falsify it before it asset-strips society. It is an evacuated teleology with a built-in confirmation bias that would make a groupuscule thrall blush. Market failures (sic) only ever indicate the need for more markets. Harm is only ever the product of failing to be Neoliberal enough. There Is No Alternative: markets cannot and should not be resisted and to think otherwise is insane. This is Historicism after “the end of history”.
For all these reasons Neoliberalism is essentially anti-Popperian, or Popper is essentially anti-it. From a mid-twentieth-century anti-totalitarian Liberal point of view, fungible choices within an economic system for consumers are not the same as choice of a political system for a member of a free society.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 10:48
It’s a mystery to me too. Popper’s all about scepticism; Hayekian fundamentalists live on faith.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 12:18
All government systems are subjective. Falsifying on the basis of a subjective set of results is indeed impossible for neo-liberal governance, as it is for all forms of government. A way to obtain an objective measure within a purely subjective realm is to offer subjects competing sets of alternatives which they choose between. In this manner a market of possible solutions is formed, with no set solution is provided and choice is made of the best solution by consumers.
“From a mid-twentieth-century anti-totalitarian Liberal point of view, fungible choices within an economic system for consumers are not the same as choice of a political system for a member of a free society.”
Indeed, but nor are the fungible choices of consumers an infringment upon our participation in free society.
“There Is No Alternative: markets cannot and should not be resisted and to think otherwise is insane.”
Exactly. There is no proven alternative. To be skeptical is to favor the opportunity to engage as many alternative solutions as possible. When people claim that a single solution that is not subject to competition is the best way - pardon my scepticism.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 14:22
This is going to be rushed, but I have to comment.
The bloggertarians at Samizdata quote Popper as selective use of material from The Open Society and its Enemies fits in with their crude ideological agenda. Is this any surprise? Not to me it isn’t.
But what of Karl Popper, the political philosopher? The Open Society is a classic text, and for very good reason. Anyone with an interest in democracy should read it.
I cannot help thinking, however, that Popper the epistemologist is very different from Popper the political thinker, and one should be wary of giving credence to Popper’s political views based on his perceived renown as a philosopher of science.
The stuff about strong government, for example, comes across to me a a bold assertion not backed up by rational argument. He may or may not be right, but it doesn’t necessarily follow from his philosophical expertise that he is right in this case.
I could counter by saying that strong communities and civil society are required to guarantee the safety and freedom of citizens, and ensure the freedom of the market against systemic failings and/or human tendencies that lead to the emergence of monopolies widespread fraud. I see strong government as a replacement for weak society.
Popper’s quoted words come across to me as almost Thatcherite. During the Thatcher years, with all the privatisation, market deregulation, etc., we saw a massive increase in the power of public and private corporations, and a centralising of political power. There was nothing “libertarian” or even “liberal” about the development. It was more the emergence of a highly sophisticated kleptocracy that took advantage of the economic mess and spiritual malaise (for want of a better term) left behind by a post-war social democracy whose creative energy didn’t last long. One of the results of this is the hydra-like managerialism that none of the major political parties have the bottle to challenge.
And what of Popper’s philosophy of science? Apart from the rapidly dwindling old guard, few scientists today take Popper that seriously. Instead they regard his work as an important contribution to a debate that has since moved on. The framework developed by Popper fails to take into account that science is done by real people, and that real people very often act in irrational ways, even if the end result is planned.
Scientific inspiration is often little different from artistic inspiration. There are methods used to ensure the reliability of data and analyses, but the rules are flexible. Paul Feyerabend is in greater favour these days as a philosopher of science than his mentor Karl Popper.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 14:42
“Certain aspects of Karl Popper’s ideals and philosophy are abstractly appealing (some, sometimes, with qualifications).”
People were known to be shot, hanged or drawn and quartered for sentences even more hesitant than this one.
Duly noted…
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 14:46
unaha-closp
“Libertarians are kooks, believing as they do…”
That statement (the whole of it, I mean) seems to me to be true. However, I cannot miss a chance to remark that there are people who believe in other socio-economic theories that were known to fail when practiced. At least Libertarians believe in something yet untried, even if logically unsound.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 15:06
Excellent comment Francis.
Some additional points.
1. Popper was a political philosopher of social democracy not libertarianism. It was a reflection of the fact that he was writing at a time when social democracy was the main alternative to Communism. His anti-totalitarianism (as much Plato as Stalin) was picked up by libertarians but not the rest of his ideological baggage. His social democracy was predicated on the idea of a benevolent, democratic and redistributive state rather than Thatcherite centralism. And I am so pleased that you point out that Thatcherism was authoritarian and statist and not libertarian.
2. I would be less inclined to say that social democracy ran out of creative energy, than that it was killed by a deliberate counter revolution using the impact of the oil crisis.
3. Managerialism combines the worst of the social democratic tradition with Thatcherite centralism. However, bloggertarians get it slightly wrong. It is not the statism that is at fault but that managerialism is an instrument of domination by a political/administrative class to control workers, even including those who had formerly had the privilege of some independence, particularly public sector workers and professionals.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 15:58
Indeed, but nor are the fungible choices of consumers an infringment upon our participation in free society.
And nor are they a substitute for it.
When people claim that a single solution that is not subject to competition is the best way - pardon my scepticism.
And mine regarding Neoliberalism for the same reason.
Tuesday 27 November 2007 at 16:09
The reference in my comment to Popper and Thatcherism is a clumsy attempt at interpreting the philosopher’s words in a contemporary context. I’m sure I could make the point more coherently if I had the time and wasn’t so flustered. Ditto that about strong government filling in a void left by weak civil society.
My fear is that civil society in Britain is weakening now. Part of this may be due to government actively increasing its remit, but at the same time individuals and communities have a responsibility to organise for themselves, and I think we’re getting lazy. No amount of bloggertarian railing against the state is going to change *that*.
I would say that social democracy ran out of creative steam. The great ideas of universal healthcare and a welfare safety net were implemented with little regard for the way in which they were to be managed. The new corporatism arose out of this (see Gadgie’s point 3). and the rest is history.