Why Austrian Socialism?

Posted November 8th, 2009 by Shaka

Have you read the Review of Austrian Economics lately?

Socialist objectives can be achieved in a market context with the rule of law if market socialism were to take the form of competitive worker-owned and self-managed enterprises, supplemented by universally available welfare redistributions, which could include a basic income, universal capital grants, or education and health insurance vouchers.

The Society for the Development of Austrian Economics gave this communist $1000. This is money they collected $10 at a time from people just like you, who didn’t know that they were funding a communist.

Steve Horwitz is honoring this communist on November 13th at George Mason University.

Benedict Horwitz writes:

Burczak’s book, Socialism after Hayek, represents the first serious scholarly attempt to defend socialism using Hayekian principles. By pairing Burczak’s book with selections from Hayek’s own corpus, this program will offer participants the opportunity to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of this criticism of Hayekian liberalism.

This perversion of Mises’ legacy turns my stomach.

If it turns your stomach too, then why not send the chairman of the GMU Economics Department an e-mail and give him a piece of your mind? dhouser@gmu.edu

output

You better watch out Shaka

On November 14th, 2009 The Pedant says:

I got a text from someone at the conference - they're making a list of defenders of Mises and capitalism that they will be targeting after their socialist revolution and your name was near the top of the list! If you get any strange phone calls or knocks on the door late Sunday, you better run!

more facts

On November 8th, 2009 The Pedant says:

Not only that, the $1000 was not collected from members of the Society - it is a prize supported by the Foundation for Economic Education.

Burczak is not being "honored" this coming weekend. The conference is a discussion of his book along with several Hayek essays on knowledge, the law, and calculation. It is an academic conference at which there is no agenda, pro or anti-Burczak. (Who, btw, is not a communist.)

Horwitz didn't organize the conference, IHS did. Horwitz is just leading the discussion, if you actually read the webpage. And the conference is not at GMU, but at a local hotel.

And writing the GMU econ dept is silly, because they had absolutely nothing to do with the conference.

You, Shaka, are both wrong and an idiot.

On the subject of facts...

On November 10th, 2009 Shaka says:

The Smith Center writes:

The $1000 awards are made at the annual dinner of the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics.

That sounds to me like the SDAE gave Burczak their highest honor.

No?

Richard M. Ebeling of the Foundation for Economic Education writes:

Burczak’s analysis ends up simply demonstrating how hollow the socialist ideal remains, even in this reformulation.

Unless you have evidence that FEE contributed to the $1000 given to Burczak, I wouldn't drag them into this.

You write:

Horwitz didn't organize the conference, IHS did. Horwitz is just leading the discussion. And the conference is not at GMU, but at a local hotel.

Weasel.

That's like saying that Hillary Clinton isn't responsible for our foreign policy - the Obama Administration is. Clinton represents the Obama Administration in the same way that Horwitz represents the Institute for Humane Studies.

And, anyway, how do you know where the conference is being held? Like an underground rave, the organizers do not release the location of the meeting room until they've vetted someone and accepted their admission money. They recommend a hotel where one can obtain lodging, but there is no reason to think that they hired a conference hall there. They would only do so if they had too many participants to fit in a classroom, which is unlikely.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

Interesting enough Shaka

On November 8th, 2009 Republicae says:

Interesting enough Shaka however, if you do a search of the Review of Austrian Economics Archives you will not find a single article that is entitled Why Austrian Socialism. The only reference that I have found is the one your provide, which is not an direct link to the actual Review itself.

You will also find that Theodore Burczak has never been a contributing author in the Review. I would question any article that would dare have the balls to associate two completely different economic philosophies, i.e. Austrian Economics and socialism. They are completely incompatible.

http://www.1776solution.b...

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

Volume 22, Number 3 / September, 2009

On November 8th, 2009 Shaka says:

Lame.

It's their current issue.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

What's lame are your

On November 8th, 2009 Republicae says:

What's lame are your assumptions. It is not unusual for the AER to publish writings of those who are not followers of Austrian Economics, in fact, it has been done over the years. I just knew that I had not read such an article in the AER in the past. So, I bought the essay and here is my opinion:

Factually speaking, Boettke brought up the subject back in 1995 with his paper entitled "Why are there no Austrian Socialists?" In that essay he clearly expounded the view that Austrian Economic criticism of Socialism as an economic viability was not merely some ideological view, but one with fundamental and sound basis in reality. Indeed, since so many leftists are critical of both Mises and Hayek, it would appear that it would be necessary to show how the world worked in both a free market society and a socialist one.

Burczak's "Socialism After Hayek" does some wonderful things for it confronts any "leftist" with a view of Hayek's critique in a way that is much more sympathetic to Austrian Economics than most "leftists" would be comfortable with. While Burczak challenges Hayek, it does so in a way that is not commonly viewed by Socialists of any stripe and that, in my view is a good thing because it will allow those who are closed to the critique of Hayek of Socialism to view that critique in a completely different manner. Burczak is attempting to do what has been attempted before...to formulate an economic hybrid. He is, none the less, socialistic in both ideology and in his proposed execution of such an economic hybridization. He proposes to use the "market" to redistribute wealth along social justice lines rather than the State, the concept however, is basically the same. Supplementing markets with policies which would allow for social justice as defined by Socialists. Like Lange in 36, Burczak in 2009 can do little to prove Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc wrong when it comes to the Economic Theory of Socialism.

Thus to assume that the Austrian Economic Review was in someway promoting the ideas of Burczak was, on your part, "lame."

I could go on, but that think that should suffice for now.

http://www.1776solution.b...

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

Boettke endorses Burczak on the cover of his book.

On November 8th, 2009 Shaka says:

Republicae writes:

Thus to assume that the Austrian Economic Review was in someway promoting the ideas of Burczak was, on your part, "lame."

Two things:

1) Their initials are RAE.

2) Boettke endorses Burczak on the cover of his book.

Theodore A. Burczak's Socialism after Hayek is a thoroughly researched and thoughtful examination not only of the ideological debate that framed the twentieth century, but of Hayek's intellectual framework. Burczak hopes for an economic framework that is both humanistic in its approach and humanitarian in its concern while being grounded in good reasons. The book should be on the reading list of every comparative political economist and in particular anyone who wants to take Hayek seriously, including those who would like to push Hayek's classical liberal politics toward the left in the twenty-first century. Burczak has made an outstanding contribution to the fields of political and economic thought and to Hayek studies in particular.

Writing an endorsement on the cover of someone's book IS promoting their ideas.

Peter Boettke, if you do not know, is the editor of the Review of Austrian Economics, the journal that you profess such familiarity with that you cannot locate their current issue without help or even get their initials straight.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

Shaka...I spend over 70

On November 9th, 2009 Republicae says:

Shaka...I spend over 70 hours a week making preparations for the collapse of this entire system and for the last 60 or so years I have worked tirelessly to promote the ideals of liberty and freedom. I am weary at my age so pardon me if I don't get everything just on target. I am half blind, almost crippled and my mind, although still relatively sharp, is not as sharp as it was even two years ago. So, with all respect...go blow your snot elsewhere.

The endorsement of a book for intellectual consideration is not the same as endorsing the ideas or the ideology of that book. Austrian Economist have long sought debate of issues, not an authoritarian clampdown on ideas or points of views. Hayek himself was closely associated with many Fabian Socialists, but that did not mean that he himself was a Socialist or that his ideas would one day be the subject of a book by a Socialist with the intellectual ability to think beyond the normal Socialistic box by integrating market ideas into a failed Socialist ideology. The key is debate, open without censorship with anyone willing to participate. You apparently believe in a closure of all associations and debate.

Read Boettke's "endorsement" I see nothing in that which endorses Socialistic ideology only the idea that there can be useful debate for comparison purposes of two completely different economic mindsets. You do strain at a gnat and swallow a camel Shaka.

Besides, if I recall you were never a firm supporter of either the theories of Mises or Austrian Economics, what has changed your mind now that you jump upon the Austrian Economic bandwagon?

http://www.1776solution.b...

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

Like hell the Austrians don't censor people!

On November 9th, 2009 Shaka says:

Austrian Economist have long sought debate of issues, not an authoritarian clampdown on ideas or points of views... The key is debate, open without censorship with anyone willing to participate.

Example of Austrians censoring an anti-socialist post.

Seventy hours a week posting endless repetitions of your "dollar's gonna collapse, buy gold" post is NOT the same thing as opposing socialism.

News flash: The socialists couldn't give a wet fart in a high wind if you have a gold coin under your mattress, provided only that you are too dim to notice that they are routinely banning anybody who dares to oppose their socialist agenda.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

What, on earth, are you

On November 9th, 2009 Republicae says:

What, on earth, are you rambling about now Shaka? Your last tirade exhibits the complete weakness of your arguments, so you resort to attack that which you have no clue about. Do you? I mean really, do you have any clue about what I do or do not do, have done or are willing to do? Indeed, you have no clue about what preparations I have and are making, do you? If you don't then all you are doing is castigation for castigation sake. Thus your points are completely and absolutely moot.

So, since you are not aware of what I do, what I have done either in this country or others in which I have served, then perhaps you should consider silence as a best friend, for unless you have some unrevealed psychic faculties that makes you privy to my personal or public life, then you would do well to restrain yourself and thereby retain some degree of reputation for debate instead aimless castigation, for indeed your above comments only prove to provide evidence of such aimlessness on your part.

As far as the "dollar collapses", you will notice I didn't mention the collapse of the dollar, I said the system will collapse, that is far more encompassing then a collapse of currency, although drastic currency debasement will certainly be involved and play a part in the collapse of the system.

http://www.1776solution.b...

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

Just click on the link.

On November 10th, 2009 Shaka says:

You take 240 words to denounce a 60-word post of rambling???

Just click on the link and then tell me that you HONESTLY do not believe that the Austrian leadership is quietly working behind the scenes to re-define Austrian economics to be, basically, socialism.

Keep in mind that I said "honestly." Please don't waste my time or anybody else's if you are just going to parrot the usual cultish denounciations.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

Misesians view Austrian

On November 10th, 2009 BmoreBrawler says:

Misesians view Austrian Economics as a value free, apolitical scientific device.

They did.

On November 11th, 2009 Shaka says:

The socialists who have taken over the movement view Austrian Economics as a pliable theory that can be re-defined to be, basically, socialism.

And they view you guys as too dim to notice the change in leadership.

Evidence.of your new leaders quietly re-defining Austrian Economics.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

Austrians have been taken

On November 11th, 2009 BmoreBrawler says:

Austrians have been taken over by Anarchists, not socialists.

You're thinking of Hoppe.

On November 12th, 2009 Shaka says:

You're thinking of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who has had little influence on Austrian economics except to occasionally embarrass them at some public venue where he started talking about "anarcho-capitalism."

But Hoppe is not the one who is banning free-market economists. It is the followers of Boettke, Burczak and Horwitz who are re-defining Austrian economics to be socialism while quietly banning anybody who questions their new definition. Evidence.

You guys think that you're promoting free-market economics by posting endless repetitions of your "dollar's gonna collapse, buy gold" post, but the reality is that your leaders are socialists and your having a gold coin under your mattress is no obstacle to the communist takeover that they are planning.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

what about Block, Woods, Lew

On November 12th, 2009 BmoreBrawler says:

what about Block, Woods, Lew Rockwell (admittedly not an anarchist, but he is the head of the Mises institute) etc.? There is a division in Austrian between the more mainstream George Mason folks and the anarchists at Mises, and thanks to their unwavering support for the Gold Standard and connections to Ron Paul this group is the primary Austrian influence on the movement.

Copy and paste the OP at Mises.org

On November 12th, 2009 Shaka says:

Copy and paste the OP at Mises.org. If it hasn't been deleted by tomorrow, then I'll believe that the Mises Institute is not working with GMU to re-define Austrian economics.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

I'd rather not go through

On November 12th, 2009 BmoreBrawler says:

I'd rather not go through the trouble of registering there. I think that the Mises institute IS trying to redefine Austrian economics, but not towards socialism. They are mostly extreme Rothbardians.