Welcome friends!
I know I was supposed to stop talking about economic issues for a little while but I wanted to follow up a bit on a point I mentioned last time (and most likely any number of times previously): the intellectual relationship between “socialism” broadly conceived and neoclassical economic theory on the one hand and the conservative “free market” economic ideology sometimes associated with economic theory or anyway with certain flawed interpretations of economic theory on the other hand. Hey, what can I say? It’s my thing or one of my things anyway. I think it’s interesting. I might be the only one, but still. Allow me to indulge myself once again and I’ll be back with some non-economic content next time. Maybe. Or maybe the time after that. Let’s just say soon to be on the safe side. That’s the thing about the multi-headed monster of contemporary conservative: spend too long staring into the empty unblinking eyes of any one head and next thing you know one of the other heads might just take a bite out of your backside.
Let’s do neoclassical economic theory first. I know I’ve done a couple of posts about how President Trump and the Republican Party have diverged recently from conservative economic orthodoxy in the direction of national something or other, not national socialism per se but something very much like. What were they calling it? Economic nationalism? Something like that? Anyway, that’s not what I’m talking about this time out. I’m talking about the supposed basis of conservative economic ideology in it’s purest and most traditional form: neoclassical economic theory. If you’re familiar with economic theory you’ll know it talks or purports to talk an awful lot about what is best for society at large. The ostensible endpoints of interest are presented correctly or incorrectly as “socially optimal outcomes” or “social optimums.” If one considers accepting the objective of attending to the overall welfare of society the hallmark of “socialism” at it’s most fundamental level, which I think is really the only sensible way to interpret the word, then neoclassical economic theory must I think be classified as a form or variant of socialism. As I (and even more eloquently Mr. Kranekpantzen) have pointed out repeatedly the funny thing of course is that economic theory doesn’t really work as advertised. It attempts to derive recommendations for socially optimal economic arrangements without considering the distributional aspects of those arrangements; however, it doesn’t and logically never could. Everyone has beliefs relating to fair or optimal distributions or mechanisms of distribution and hence there’s really no way to talk about social optimality in any meaningful way without getting into those types of issues. And economic systems inevitably distribute goods one way or another whether we like it or not. We can’t set up an economic system that is agnostic between all possible distributions. So really there’s no way to support particular economic arrangements without also supporting particular distributions unless one breaks out those economic arrangements that relate to distributions, which is a bit awkward to say the least since those represent a pretty big chunk of what we consider economic arrangements in the first place (most notably the labor market but also taxes, inheritance laws, etc.) The notion that economic theory can establish the case for perfectly competitive markets without taking up distributional issues is all a big misunderstanding or if you’re of a more conspiratorial frame of mind a load of purposefully misleading claptrap, which provides a convenient segue to the slow-witted cousin of economic theory: conservative "free market" economic ideology.
As one might suppose based on flawed economic theory or at least certain conventional but flawed interpretations of that theory one can find conservatives (of the economic variety) who seem a little confused by that theory and honestly feel not only that a “free market” equates to a perfectly competitive market but that a perfectly competitive market equates to the best we can do as a society. From a liberal perspective these conservatives may be considered the “good” or at least better sort of economic conservatives in the sense they agree with liberals on the ends although obviously not the means. This is the type of economic conservative who tends to have a superficial knowledge of neoclassical economic theory from sources like the ubiquitous Econ 101 and to take it very, very seriously albeit entirely uncritically. In the vernacular, they accept the theory or anyway the conventional flawed interpretations of that theory hook, line, and sinker. These particular conservatives tend to have a condescending air toward liberals and leftists because they view them as basically rather silly uneducated or irrational people whose hearts may be in the right place but who just can’t or don’t understand the mathematical and geometric intricacies of economic theory. It makes them a little annoying particularly for liberals who have studied economics in a rather more serious way but not usually insufferably so. This type of economic conservative tends to take a relatively narrow view of “socialism” that equates it to particular economic arrangements such as government ownership or shared ownership of businesses and so on. One assumes they would generally take umbrage at the notion their own ideology is based on what must ultimately be considered a particular formulation of the socialist ethos because it suggests the welfare of society at large in fact matters. However, it’s not all relative goodness and light even with this lot. These conservatives like their less wholesome brothers and sisters have a dark side. In particular, they tend to harbor a profound fear, distrust, and sometimes even abject hatred for democratic government because they believe ignorant people, such as liberals or progressives or leftists of all sorts, may use their democratic voting power to force government to “interfere” with existing market arrangements to make them more stable or equitable thereby unwittingly harming society by shifting it off its supposed optimum.
The bad type of economic conservative from a liberal or leftist perspective rejects the goal of attending to the welfare of society at large in favor of viewing the world as a vicious dog eat dog affair in which the only ethically acceptable objective is to do the best one can for oneself and perhaps one’s loved ones and let everyone else fare as they may. These are the conservatives of the Ayn Randian, ubermensch, Me Generation, greed is good, unbridled egotism variety. If they appear to support the findings of economic theory it’s because they understand perfectly well it doesn’t really work as advertised and in particular don’t take the flawed arguments in that theory about “social optimums” seriously even for a moment. No, they believe there are inevitably winners and losers in human society and they’re doing everything they can to ensure they’re one of the former. They don’t see the point of worrying about the fate of the “losers.” They don’t harbor any romantic notions that market economies work out well for everyone or even that one should speak honestly and seriously about political or economic or philosophical matters so we can work together collectively and collaboratively toward common ends like what’s best for society at large but instead view communication as a rhetorical tool to obtain or maintain power of both the economic and political variety. This is the sort of conservative that has recently taken center stage with all the Trumpian double-talk and fake news and “alternative facts.” They sometimes espouse a rather mangled or cherry picked version of economic theory not because they believe it has any intellectual merit but because they think it might muddy the water enough to keep the better sort of more civic-minded economic conservative on board while providing them with what they want themselves: an attractive rhetorical defense of their own economic power. These conservatives tend to view liberals and leftists in general as not just silly uneducated people who may mean well but simply don’t understand economics but rather as wily and quite often overly educated people who understand economic theory rather better than they ought but who are essentially evil people with flawed ethics and in particular adherents of “socialism” defined as the incorrect and dangerous ethical proposition what happens to one’s fellows matters. Their relatively broad view of socialism means they tend to see the dangers of socialism everywhere because of course socialism broadly defined as a concern for one’s fellows is everywhere in most functioning societies including our own. These conservatives are intensely and blatantly opposed to democratic government unless they have an effective way to control it and use it to their own personal advantage, as they do currently with the Trump administration. This group’s shifting positions on practical economic issues like tariffs and deficits and so on can take the well-meaning but relatively slow-witted “good” economic conservatives by surprise and has led to a lot of hand-wringing among the latter tribe about what it means to be a “real” economic conservative.
So what’s my point for today? Difficult to say. People who believe in democratic government and have certain beliefs relating to social welfare or economic justice need to fight economic conservatism in both forms but perhaps there’s something to be gained by keeping in mind it’s not always about one’s values; sometimes it’s about ignorance. Liberals and leftists need to fight the economic head of the multi-headed monster of contemporary conservatism on both fronts. We need to keep banging on about the shortcomings and illogical bits of neoclassical economic theory as well as pointing out the errors in the flawed interpretations of that theory one finds in popular conservative economic ideology on the one hand, and we need to argue the case for our ethical beliefs regarding one’s responsibilities toward one’s fellows against the stylings of the conservative anti-social disciples of personal greed and all consuming egotism on the other. So let’s get to it!
