Hayek and Pinochet

Despite the left slant, this examination of Hayek’s involvement with the Chilean Pinochet regime is calm and informative enough to be worth reading (via).  Its relevance to numerous recent discussions on the extreme right is clear.

Given everything we know about Hayek—his horror of creeping socialism, his sense of the civilizational challenge it posed; his belief that great men impose their will upon society (“The conservative peasant, as much as anybody else, owes his way of life to a different type of person, to men who were innovators in their time and who by their innovations forced a new manner of living on people belonging to an earlier state of culture”); his notion of elite legislators (“If the majority were asked their opinion of all the changes involved in progress, they would probably want to prevent many of its necessary conditions and consequences and thus ultimately stop progress itself. I have yet to learn of an instance when the deliberate vote of the majority (as distinguished from the decision of some governing elite) has decided on such sacrifices in the interest of a better future”); and his sense of political theory and politics as an epic confrontation between the real and the yet-to-be-realized—perhaps the Pinochet question needs to be reframed. The issue is not “How could he have done what he did?” but “How could he not?”

(I agree with Corey Robin that the ‘Schmittian’ element in Hayek’s thinking remains an unresolved theoretical problem, but his concrete judgments — as detailed here — strike me as consistently sound.)

June 28, 2013admin 7 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

7 Responses to this entry

  • Contemplationist Says:

    A pre-requisite for being a neoreactionary must include unreservedly being in favor of Pinochet. There is no alternative. A clearly brewing Marxist revolution vs a relatively peaceful military dictatorship. Easy choice.

    [Reply]

    Mike Reply:

    Absolutely. You can add Ian Smith as well.

    [Reply]

    Contemplationist Reply:

    Ian Smith is an even easier case. No apartheid/segregation.
    No internal repression. As close to a perfect state as possible.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2013 at 3:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    Not much push-back so far then …

    [Reply]

    Contemplationist Reply:

    The comments @ MarginalRev are awesome. Good to see a whole host of people defend Pinochet. The leftists are down to name-calling.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    True. The comment thread at Crooked Timber, on the other hand ….

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2013 at 4:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    While we’re on the CT tip, did anyone notice the latest post up there?

    [Trende’s recent series of posts at RCP is] the first time I’ve seen a ‘wonky’ Republican suggest maybe extreme racial polarization should be on the table as a strategic option. It’s so obvious it would be a bad thing for the whole country that I find it dismaying.

    — Holbo

    Dismaying, eh. Boo-hoo. Of course, extreme racial polarisation is not only on the table as a strategic option for progressives, but it’s been the central plank of their strategy for decades now. Viva la Raza!

    On the other hand, interesting that there are signs of life among Republican political types. Who knew …

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2013 at 3:27 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment