And finally, we can note that nearly all of modern economics, whether neoclassical, Keynesian, Socialist or Austrian, is built on a mistake about science; in the attempt to make their discipline “scientific†in the mold of physics, they abandoned the only thing that can make a humane science “scientific,†namely the principle of justice and particularly distributive justice.
I was struck by this quote, because it reminded me of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy’s essay (originally from Out of Revolution) “I Am an Impure Thinker.” In it, ERH contends that much of modern science—specifically physics and metaphysics, the “foundations” of modern science—are concerned solely with dead things. They fail to interact with our world in a “lifely” way. His answer to this problem is simple: “To veer between Ego and It is the secret of man’s soul.” In other words, the key to making our way in science (or in any endeavour) is to find a balance between making it personal (Ego) and studying it in the abstract (It).
I begin with this because, to be honest, I like what ERH says about science better than what Medaille says. Perhaps it’s because I quite understand his claim that “the only thing that can make a humane science ’scientific’ … [is] the principle of justice.” Perhaps it’s because I don’t know what “distributive justice” is supposed to mean. At any rate, I’m uncomfortable with the groundwork that Medaille lays at the beginning of this post. (Not in a “I hate justice!” kind of way, but just in a “I wish I knew more clearly what he meant” kind of way. I promise I’m not being purposefully dense. Here in Canada, for example, we have something called the Human Rights Tribunal which seeks out justice for the victims of “hate speech” and seeks to punish individuals who voice politically incorrect opinions. In their minds, that’s justice.)
Indeed, the theories of Hayek have been tested just as much as have the theories of Karl Marx, and with about the same results: more government power, less economic freedom; under neither did the state whither away, but became an all-encompassing behemoth.
I can buy that, for now. I’m sure that capitalists could offer objections to this, but I’m not well-read enough to do more than accept Medaille’s assertion. However, I do know that Christian economists—even the capitalists (*gasp!*)—would be quick to point out that there is no economic system that can lead to freedom on its own. Without the Gospel, any form of economic planning or justice will quickly lead to slavery. Which is why, I think, Eugen declares we must veer between Ego and It.
In Keynesian states, people cease to be citizens and become mere clients of the state, where even their most ordinary needs are the subject of one or more governmental bureaucracies, and where even ordinary local problems are pushed up to be the responsibility of the most distant levels of government.
Aha! Canada! (Enough said.)
So, in the end I’m willing to buy Medaille’s argument that capitalism does not work. However, I’m not really buying it on the merit of his argument: as a blog post, his examples are necessarily truncated and I’m quite sure that many objections could fairly be made by someone more familiar with the topic than I. The reason I’m willing to buy it is because, in the comments, he describes himself as someone who doesn’t want to ignore history:
But I like to delve into things. I would like to know why a system like Keynesianism gets better results than pure capitalism, when it shouldn’t work at all. Yet work it has, and you and I have lived our whole lives under it, in a time of not only great prosperity and peace, but relative equality (until the last 10 years or so.) This is remarkable. You keep telling me that capitalism works, and I keep asking “When?†“Where?†The system you praise might not ever have existed, but the closer we get to it, the more misery results.
Count me as curious, then: I look forward to seeing distributism explained.
