The aforementioned project is, of course, that of liberalism, reinvigorated in neoliberalism. It is of the most critical importance, if we wish to even dare to hope for change, that we understand how we got to a situation in which liberalism rules our Western imagination. Our whole political frame is dominated by liberalism. The only question is whether one leans left or right. But underlying the very distinction of left and right is a mutual acceptance of liberalism. Insofar as we accept liberalism—no matter how left leaning we might be—we deny all alternatives. The individualist solipsism that Carlo Mazzucchelli writes about on this platform, Stultifera Navis, is precisely what liberalism argues to be the very best solution in enabling a just and functioning society. Insofar as we vote for liberal parties, we subscribe to the idea that there are no alternatives, at least no better alternatives.
This should not be. Liberalism is no enlightened doctrine of justice and equality. It is, rather, a doctrine which demands equal right to everyone in taking advantage of their talent in furthering their own personal position. If you are not as talented as someone else, too bad for you: you only have claim to equality commensurate with your talent. If you are poor, then, in the name of equality you deserve to be so in relation to someone who is more talented. ‘Inequality as such is morally irrelevant.’[i] Liberalism promotes natural law, namely the law of the jungle with the exclusion of physical violence (which, of course, is wholly hypocritical as the history of Italy and Chile demonstrate).
Liberalism promotes natural law, namely the law of the jungle
Liberalism is, however, an intellectually deprived doctrine. Its theoretical propositions amount to latent nonsense, that is, language that appears to make sense, but which on closer inspection does not. I suggest we must dismantle liberalism by exposing its theoretical underpinnings for what they are, namely self-defeating sophisms. It is sometimes objected that these sorts of projects amount to mere intellectual exercises, as if somehow supposedly removed from the real world. To such objections we need simply to answer that behind all ideological battles lie at least a need to be based on theoretical foundations, even if those foundations are weak. And if the foundations of an ideology are weak, as is the case with liberalism, fundamental and radical challenges can be mounted to challenge it. As a reminder, this was seen in the first half of the 20th century in Italy, when workers unions educated people in matters of economics. These initiatives were so successful that liberalists murdered people to silence this challenge to their hegemony, as discussed by Clara E. Mattei in The Capital Order. So, no, theoretical matters are nothing to belittle. If the people would have managed to stand their grounds against these elites, life in Italy, and likely elsewhere in Europe, could look much more humane today.
With this in mind, let us dismantle one core liberalist belief. Liberalism—by which I refer to the whole family of liberal positions, namely, historical classical liberalism, contemporary classical liberalism, libertarianism, and neoliberalism—consists of ‘six ideas that form the core of the libertarian worldview.’[ii] These ideas, as listed by libertarian authors John Tomasi and Matt Zwolinski, are private property, scepticism of authority, free markets, spontaneous order, individualism, and negative liberty. Although these ideas are separate, they are intertwined so that each is needed in order to uphold the other, or else the liberalist feels under attack.
I wish here to discuss the nexus of spontaneous order, free markets, and individualism. These most directly make up the liberalist solution to the economic problem of how to distribute resources. Let the prominent liberalist propaganda official F.A. Hayek verbalize this problem here:
What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order?... The economic problem of society is (thus) not merely a problem of how to allocate "given" resources-if "given" is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these "data." It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge not given to anyone in its totality. (Hayek, 1945. Pp. 519-20)
What Hayek is saying here is that, unlike what some believe, the answer to the question of how to best allocate resources is so complex as to necessarily transcend the ability of a (hypothetical God-head) centralized planner. The liberalist solution to this problem is one of designing a system which enables the most efficient utilization of knowledge. But from here on in, the liberalist solution gets completely confused.
What Hayek thinks is that there is knowledge that can be made use of if we think of the collective of all the people as a system. In other words, Hayek believes that there is something like systemic knowledge, expressed by a system which can have knowledge in the sense of being the expression of an aggregate of bits of knowledge otherwise dispersed among people. As Hayek puts it,
[T]he problem of what is the best way of utilizing knowledge initially dispersed among all the people is at least one of the main problems of economic policy-or of designing an efficient economic system. (Hayek, 1945. P. 520)
No individual, nor even a group of individuals, says Hayek, can have access to knowledge in its totality. Even if we gathered the whole of humanity together, things would not change since there is no God-head individual who could process all the information available. What Hayek concludes from this is that there is knowledge beyond that of humans. Knowledge which belongs, or is accessible, only to a higher type of entity called the System (this idea amounts to proposing that we can artificially build intelligence by designing systems).
This System-entity is then responsible for the rise of spontaneous order, superior to what can be achieved by human effort. The mechanism which is supposed to feed the System with knowledge is the price signal arrived at by bidding in a free market. Finally, and self-defeatingly, the individual is supposed to be both the source of the knowledge the System utilizes, as well as the decision-maker over what to do with the knowledge that the System is supposed to utilize in its creation of a spontaneous order which transcends the abilities of all human beings. But how can individuals make decisions over the far superior systemic knowledge of the System-entity when individuals are supposed to be mere bits of knowledge within the System, which System is the source of spontaneous order?
Spontaneous order has supposedly arisen from the System, and not as the result of any individual inherently incapable of bringing about such great order. This is what is meant by decentralization: that spontaneous order arises from specific bits of knowledge utilized by the System, not that specific bits of knowledge create spontaneous order. In other words, decentralization is not supposed to mean that individuals use their knowledge—which knowledge is centralized, that is, ‘given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem’ (see quote above, from Hayek, 1945)—in solving the problem of what to do with resources. Yet this is exactly what Hayek disingenuously suggests we do. Hayek effectively argues that everyone should be given the decision-making power of a centralized decision-maker. This leads to a solipsistic view of the world where every individual is disconnected from others as the relative importance of ends is known only by each individual. In other words, in accordance with liberalist theory, from the point of view of the individual no one else but itself can know the relative importance of ends. Just like solipsism doubts the existence of other minds, liberalism doubts the knowledge of others. The liberalist decentralization of planning is the solipsistic centralization of knowledge. It forbids making decisions together in favour of each individual making isolated sovereign decisions.
Central to Hayek’s argument is what is probably a deliberate use of a deux ex machina. In order for his so-called theory to work, he must assume a System-entity which “utilizes” knowledge. Otherwise, it could not be maintained that the System makes better use of knowledge than human planners. Yet, at the same time, it is supposedly the human being whose knowledge is to be made use of. How can a system make use of human knowledge? We must next ask:
Can a System Utilize Knowledge?
This is the same as asking “can a system make use of knowledge?”, or “can a system have knowledge?”. No, it cannot. The reason appears simple yet becomes complicated to explain. In short, as philosopher Anthony Kenny says: ‘if having information is the same as knowing, then containing information is not the same as having information.’
Knowledge is not a state. Rather, knowledge is akin to an ability, and knowledge as ability does not have to correspond with a mental state. Mental states can come and go, and they can be interrupted. But knowing cannot be interrupted, nor does knowledge of something cease with the change of mental states. When one stops concentrating intensely, the halt of this mental state does not mean one is no longer in possession of the knowledge which one was intensely concentrated on. Further, knowledge is the ability to make use of perceived, acquired, and learned information in relation to the goals and desires of the individual, which goals and desires are situation and context specific.
In contrast, a system can only contain information, that is, an array of symbols that express knowledge which is had by organic animate creatures with intelligence, i.e. humans. A system is the medium of symbols and nothing else. In the above terms, in a system there is no distinction between state and ability, they are the same thing. Moreover, a system does not have mental states. Neither the symbols nor the materials which constitute any system are engaged in, for example, intense concentration. Just the same, a book does not make use of knowledge: it contains knowledge expressed in the form of symbols by a being that has knowledge.
Okay, the liberalist might next say, we must accept that a system cannot itself utilize knowledge. But can it not be that a system can be so designed as to encourage people to make use of their knowledge? We next ask:
Can a System Promote the Use of Knowledge by Humans?
In this understanding of a system that could supposedly make use of the knowledge people have hides yet another illicit dualistic assumption. This understanding is built on the idea of there being a system which the individual looks at as an outsider. Yet, the individual is supposedly a part of this system which it supposedly cannot comprehend. According to this understanding of the System, individuals look at the information (price signals) provided by free markets which then allows them to act in accordance, thus making use of their knowledge (i.e. the ability to direct actions). As a result, the liberalist proclaims, arises a spontaneous order which has made better use of all available knowledge with regard the problem of how to use resources than centralization can ever hope to achieve.
The problem is that no knowledge can be made use of if this understanding of making use of knowledge were correct. For consider the following. It is the expression of their own knowledge as participants in markets that are contained as information in the system (along with the expression of knowledge of others, of course.) This leads to absurdity. If individuals received information of their own acts on the market as outsiders looking at it, upon which information individuals now had knowledge of this past action, then whose actions would individuals be receiving information about? The information expressing this past knowledge could not be information of the past knowledge of the individuals who receive the information. Any information not yet received by an individual cannot have been made use of by the individual. Yet, the assumption here is that these individuals have already directed their action in accordance with the information that they are now supposed to be receiving, which information is supposed to be the expression of their knowledge, which knowledge they already have.
It follows from what has been said that individuals (or market participants) do not act in accordance with the information provided by the market, which is what the liberalist believes in.[iii] Rather, the market acts in accordance with the actions of the participants. Our final question is:
the system does not make use of knowledge. Rather, people make use of their knowledge of the system.
What is the Correct Description of the Free Market as an Economic System with which to Promote the use of Knowledge?
In correcting the confused liberalist idea according to which a system makes use of knowledge, we should say rather that the free market system is a set of ideas for collecting and delivering information which, once received by individuals, can be used by those individuals when they interact with this system. Contrary to what the liberalist says, the system does not make use of knowledge. Rather, people make use of their knowledge of the system. It is clear that the knowledge we are talking about here is knowledge which is limited to the framework of the system. So, far from tapping into knowledge in general, this only involves the use of knowledge that conforms to what the system is asking for.
In other words, just like playing chess involves knowledge of the rules of the game, playing that game does not involve knowledge of how to build a house. Just the same with the price signal game: it involves individuals having knowledge of this game. But playing the price signal game has nothing to do with the specific knowledge individuals have, apart from the knowledge they have that can be made use of within the game. You may know how to build a house better and cheaper, but the game does not ask for this knowledge: rather, it may incentivise you to not build better and cheaper because not doing so can make you more money. After all, value is subjective.
It is easy to see that decentralized planning by way of free markets is really the opposite of planning for two reasons. First, it does not make use of the ‘dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory’ specific knowledge individuals have. (Hayek, 1945. P. 519) Instead, it uses the knowledge individuals have of the system, which means individuals using their knowledge of the same thing (chess), not the specific knowledge they themselves have (e.g. building a house). This means that, contrary to the liberalist claim, directing action is here not based on the specific knowledge which individuals have, which specific individual knowledge is precisely what the liberalist argues is important in light of achieving the goal of a plan. Secondly, if each individual pursues its own unknown and undisclosed ends, then by definition there can be no route to the best use of shared resources, which is precisely the problem liberalists claim they are interested in.
Divide and Conquer
How is the best knowledge of any of the members of society regarding the use of resources secured when this system does not make use of the specific knowledge of individuals? The answer, of course, is that it is not. This system is designed emphatically to restrict and censure the use of best knowledge. It does this by a divide and control strategy.
Contrary to their deceptive claim according to which central planning by a ‘single mind’ is a futile concept, liberalists actually affirm the God-head single mind in the individual: it is supposedly only the individual who knows the relative importance of ends, and who is thus best suited to decide over the best use of resources. This move is intended to disperse and hide knowledge so that it cannot be made use of. Then, through the concept of competition through markets, liberalists pit these God-head individuals against each other, rendering cooperation at scale extremely unlikely.
Notes
[i] Zwolinski, M., Tomasi, J. The Individualists—Radicals, reactionaries, and the struggle for the soul of libertarianism. 2023. Princeton University Press: Oxford, Uk. P. 209. The irrelevance of inequality to liberal advocates is also discussed by Ingrid Robeyns in Limitarianism—The case against extreme wealth, see p. 36.
[ii] Ibid. P. 21
[iii] Hayek, 1945, P. 521. ‘[A]re [we] more likely to succeed in putting at the disposal of a single central authority all the knowledge which ought to be used but which is initially dispersed among many different individuals, or in conveying to the individuals such additional knowledge as they need in order to enable them to fit their plans in with those of others.