I have no argument with his thesis, but it is not scholarly behaviour to define an idea largely through vibes and the writing’s of that idea’s opponents
The cynical post-modernists were classically Marxist but their most loyal practitioners these days are the hyper-capitalists in Silicon Valley (see Andreessen vs the Pope). It's silly a proponent of "New Sincerity" literature likewise shadowboxes an undefined neoliberal bogeyman. Weird bedfellows.
I had my own problems with Kelly's book but Friedman, Hayek, plus Thatcher, Reagan, etc., they all and often explicitly pushed self interest as the main and spontaneously self-organizing principle of "good" economics. All you have to do is read their books or listen to their interviews. Friedman did a ten hour series on PBS called Free to Choose
Is the profit motive not self interest? Deregulating industry and lowering taxes? Milton famously says all progress is not just related to self interest but to greed, and that "the world runs on individuals pursuing their own interests"
You are trying to use a binary those thinkers didn't use. Self-interest is inherently cooperative is a market economy based on division of labour: that is foundational from Smith onwards. The gains from trade are mutually beneficial. It is inadequate and reductionist to present this--over the course of a whole monograph!--as merely a philosophy of self-interest.
Adam Smith actually said the division of labor was dangerous for it could make us as "stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become”. He was a critic of mercantile capitalism. Not sure what you mean by binary, but it’s quite plain that the architects of neoliberalism put individual self interest very strongly forward in their free market ideology in order to counter new deal gov regulations that curbed profit and hindered trade.
Individuals pursuing their self-interest are not necessarily being selfish, or are part of a atomised individualism, or whatever other moralised idea is imputed to these thinkers to imply they believed in, or promoted, greed, isolation, asocial ideas. From Smith onwards, liberal thinkers have seen self-interest as part of the cooperative nature of a market economy. It is beneficial, in their view, because it benefits everyone, not just the individuals involved, and because it is mutual.
Again, Smith warned against the merchant class bullying their way in to taking over economies and thereby producing hardship for everyone else, via the division of labor and in their pursing of their own welfare and profit. He was a critic of self interest. And as regards later "thinkers" (really Hayek and the so called Monday Club were stooges and spokespeople for the wealthy business class), just bc they claimed their conception of self interest was related to the public good (ie trickle-down Reaganomics, which failed) doesn’t mean that is the way it is in reality. This was merely part of their ideological rhetoric, not part of the reality. It was how they sold neoliberalism to the public.
But I understand your criticism is mainly of Kelly’s book, which could have been better I agree. He could have teased these ideas out more fully, it’s true.
Given that he advised, assisted and defended the brutal dictatorships of Portugal and Chile, he’s actually much worse than Kelly and I are asserting. Although he’s probably more interesting and nuanced than dingdongs like Friedmann and the others, he was mainly a spokesman for the merchant and corporate classes.
English Profs love to work on economics and literature, but "learn" their economics from non-economists. But what will fix this problem?
grumpy blog posts?
put you on their tenure committees
lol
Thank you for stopping me buying this book.
Thanks for this superb piece!
thanks!
I went to Amazon to find out what this book is about. The criticism here sounds valid, but so does Kelly's thesis.
I have no argument with his thesis, but it is not scholarly behaviour to define an idea largely through vibes and the writing’s of that idea’s opponents
Agree 100%. I see this across the board in academia.
Take this protest organized by the myopic, misguided president of our union: https://open.substack.com/pub/dogl/p/happening-today-protest-to-retain?r=eo3qf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
The cynical post-modernists were classically Marxist but their most loyal practitioners these days are the hyper-capitalists in Silicon Valley (see Andreessen vs the Pope). It's silly a proponent of "New Sincerity" literature likewise shadowboxes an undefined neoliberal bogeyman. Weird bedfellows.
I had my own problems with Kelly's book but Friedman, Hayek, plus Thatcher, Reagan, etc., they all and often explicitly pushed self interest as the main and spontaneously self-organizing principle of "good" economics. All you have to do is read their books or listen to their interviews. Friedman did a ten hour series on PBS called Free to Choose
Nope
Is the profit motive not self interest? Deregulating industry and lowering taxes? Milton famously says all progress is not just related to self interest but to greed, and that "the world runs on individuals pursuing their own interests"
You are trying to use a binary those thinkers didn't use. Self-interest is inherently cooperative is a market economy based on division of labour: that is foundational from Smith onwards. The gains from trade are mutually beneficial. It is inadequate and reductionist to present this--over the course of a whole monograph!--as merely a philosophy of self-interest.
Adam Smith actually said the division of labor was dangerous for it could make us as "stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become”. He was a critic of mercantile capitalism. Not sure what you mean by binary, but it’s quite plain that the architects of neoliberalism put individual self interest very strongly forward in their free market ideology in order to counter new deal gov regulations that curbed profit and hindered trade.
Individuals pursuing their self-interest are not necessarily being selfish, or are part of a atomised individualism, or whatever other moralised idea is imputed to these thinkers to imply they believed in, or promoted, greed, isolation, asocial ideas. From Smith onwards, liberal thinkers have seen self-interest as part of the cooperative nature of a market economy. It is beneficial, in their view, because it benefits everyone, not just the individuals involved, and because it is mutual.
Again, Smith warned against the merchant class bullying their way in to taking over economies and thereby producing hardship for everyone else, via the division of labor and in their pursing of their own welfare and profit. He was a critic of self interest. And as regards later "thinkers" (really Hayek and the so called Monday Club were stooges and spokespeople for the wealthy business class), just bc they claimed their conception of self interest was related to the public good (ie trickle-down Reaganomics, which failed) doesn’t mean that is the way it is in reality. This was merely part of their ideological rhetoric, not part of the reality. It was how they sold neoliberalism to the public.
But I understand your criticism is mainly of Kelly’s book, which could have been better I agree. He could have teased these ideas out more fully, it’s true.
You are mischaracterising Hayek in the same way Kelly did!
Given that he advised, assisted and defended the brutal dictatorships of Portugal and Chile, he’s actually much worse than Kelly and I are asserting. Although he’s probably more interesting and nuanced than dingdongs like Friedmann and the others, he was mainly a spokesman for the merchant and corporate classes.
I don’t know why on earth I was subscribed to a libertarian propagandist, but I’ll be going now. (Mercatus Center…Christ.)
I am not a libertarian, nor a libertarian propogandist.