kohenari:

Corey Robin gives us a pretty damning portrait of Friedrich von Hayek’s support for Augusto Pinochet’s notorious regime, looking closely at a piece in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology—”Preventing the ‘Abuses’ of Democracy: Hayek, the ‘Military Usurper’ and Transitional Dictatorship in Chile?” by Andrew Farrant, Edward McPhail, and Sebastian Berger:

Farrant et al demonstrate that Hayek’s support of Pinochet was not contingent or begrudging—an alliance of convenience due to Pinochet’s embrace of free market economics—but was rather the product of two longstanding ideas and commitments.

First, a belief that welfare/socialist states of modern democracies have a tendency toward totalitarianism. This has been the subject of some debate over at Crooked Timber, but Farrant et al show just how consistently Hayek held this belief throughout his career ….

Second, a belief in the virtues of temporary dictatorships as a means of saving these totalitarian-bound democracies from themselves ….

As Farrant et al note, Hayek’s faith in the stewardship of good dictators flies in the face of his own warnings against trusting in the good intentions of government bureaucrats—not to mention his admonitions against an earlier generation of liberals and leftists, who were prepared to accept the allegedly temporary dictatorship of the Bolsheviks as a way station to the future.

Robin then takes things one or two steps farther, connecting Hayek and Carl Schmitt:

[I]t seems to me, in the course of defending Pinochet and Salazar—and the whole idea of temporary dictatorship— Hayek was prepared to entertain an even deeper betrayal of his own stated beliefs. As he said to Sallas in 1981, when any “government is in a situation of rupture, and there are no recognized rules, rules have to be created.” That is what a dictator does: create the rules of social and political life. (Again, Hayek is not referring to a situation of civil war or anarchy; he’s talking about a social democracy in which the government pursues “the mirage of social justice” through administrative and increasingly discretionary means.)

Yet Hayek is famous—arguably most famous—for his notion that the rules of social order are neither known nor made; they are tacit and inherited ….

How one squares Hayek’s praise of dictatorship with his conception of a spontaneous order, I’m not yet sure. But with his vision of an unmoved mover knowingly and forcibly creating rules, by design, from a lawless firmament (not to mention his conception of democratic drift), Hayek puts himself within the orbit of Carl Schmitt, with whom he maintained a running dialogue, and who famously described the moment when a new order is brought into being—a new order of rules and routines—as a “an absolute decision created out of nothingness,” as the moment when “the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism [the democratic state] that has become torpid by repetition.”

Robin’s complete blog post is here; it will be interesting to keep an eye on the comments there to see if Hayekians find a way to rally to his defense.

Just a quick thought: Ugh, Hayek.

From The Economist, the region faces slower growth, but not disaster. To up the pace, now is the time for reforms to boost productivity… (via vruz)

“But there is a political obstacle. “To preach fiscal adjustment amid abundance is very difficult, because of the social demands” in Latin America, admits Nicolas Eyzaguirre, the IMF’s most senior official for the region, who has been trying to do so for the past couple of years.” 

The longer South American countries, in particular, postpone structural reforms, the more they leave themselves hostage to the outside world.

This is an odd article because South American countries have historically been hostages to the outside world. This is the common history that all “Latino’s” share, any economic “miracle” only temporarily alleviated this pain.