This was Hayek's point: "I think the net effect of John Stuart Mill on economics has been devastating, and [W. Stanley] Jevons knew this. Jevons regarded Mill as a thoroughly pernicious influence. And while I would never use quite as strong language, I think Jevons was fundamentally right ... it was Marshall, with his harking back to Mill ... that preserved this tradition. And it's out of this tradition that the whole of English socialism has sprung. If you look at--whether it's [George Bernard] Shaw or Bertrand Russell--the whole leaders of opinion in England at the beginning of this century, they were brought up on John Stuart Mill."
RL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Rutherford" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:39:12 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto
So advocating control of natural monopolies puts you on the road to Fascism?? Poor J. S. Mill.
MR.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-07-21, at 1:33 PM, "Crmccann" < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
Th e reference to control of investment was to Fascism, thus meant to distinguish it from the proto-Fascism (your term) of the Progressives. The Progressive notion, as professed by Ely in particular in his Arena article, "Should the Government Control the Telegraph?" and other writings, centered on government control of "natural" monopolies. (One must also mention Henry Carter Adams in this regard.) In addition, there are the efforts of T. Roosevelt and Wilson at nationalization. Later, FDR went even further. The point is the extent of governmental interference in the activities of the corporation. If the context was unclear, I hope this clarifies it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Rutherford < [log in to unmask] >
To: SHOE < [log in to unmask] >
Sent: Sat, Jul 21, 2012 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto
Who, among progressives, argued for "investment to be directed by a central authority"?
Malcolm Rutherford.
Sent from my iPad
On 2012-07-21, at 10:35 AM, "Crmccann" < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
Tr ue, eugenics was not confined to Progressives, but it did represent a means by which, for many, the population could better be made to "fit" into the model of the Great Community. Also, that some such as Commons, Cooley, and Wolfe may have made allowances for those at the bottom who were capable of "social uplift," the fact remains that eugenic measures were also on the table -- social reform may have been the first choice, but if that failed, there was always Plan B!
As to Fascism, once again, the corporation per se was not the problem, only the manner of its direction. Private ownership was allowed, but investment was to be directed by a central authority. Given the definition as provided by Einzig, which is as good as any, the label "proto-Fascist" seems appropriate. That it is today in bad odor should not matter.
CM
-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Rutherford < [log in to unmask] >
To: SHOE < [log in to unmask] >
Sent: Sat, Jul 21, 2012 1:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto
On 21/07/12 9:31 AM, "Malcolm Rutherford" < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
I would like to jump into this discussion. Eugenics was adopted by many progressive economists, but not only by progressive economists. One of the problems with Tim Leonard’s work on this subject is that he includes in the category of “progressive economists” several individuals who were not really “progressives.” For example, Frank Fetter, T. N. Carver, and Irving Fisher. All these people adopted eugenic ideas but Fetter’s economics was a subjectivist type of neoclassicism, Carver was known for his extension of J. B. Clark’s distribution theory, and Fisher’s economics was
also neoclassical. Carver was a well known conservative in most of his political opinions and Fisher was certainly no progressive in any general sense. Moreover Fisher was the economist who was by far the most closely and intimately involved with the eugenics movement. There were, in addition, eugenic enthusiasts who basically denied that other social reform policies could have much effect on the problems of “social degeneracy.” People such as Commons, Cooley, and A. B. Wolfe thought that while there was some proportion of the population who were beyond the reach of social uplift, the vast majority of those at the bottom of the ladder could indeed be lifted up through social reform. Leonard talks about this as the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor, but the point is that many of the progressives were, in the context of the time, arguing for the relative effectiveness of social reform.
Eugenics at that time seemed to be scientific, endorsed by the leading statisticians, and in line with Darwin and the evolutionary thinking of the time. It was extremely widespread and not the property of progressives alone.
As for Fascism, one can find some amount of paternalism in the progressive writings, but on the whole they were attempting to preserve democracy while also using the state to find solutions to the problems created by industrial development. Generally they did not take corporatist positions, but were suspicious of corporate power. To see the progressives as proto-
Fascists I think is a serious distortion.
Malcolm Rutherford.
On 21/07/12 7:37 AM, "E. Roy Weintraub" < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
Which dismantles your attempts to e.g. associate
progressivism with eugenics. Eugenics was a fad.
Some progressives were susceptible. Some weren't.
(As with conservatives. E.g., Popenoe.)
Alan Isaac
One can't sensibly discuss this subject from a priori convictions like "eugenics was a fad". These are historical issues, and some historians on this list have had much to say. Bateman's glorious article on "Clearing the Ground" in the Morgan-Rutherford volume should be required reading here, as should Rutherford's new volume on Institutionalism, and Tim Leonard's articles. Progressivism was a evangelical Christian response in the second religious reawakening, attempting to construct the kingdom of God here and now. The perfection, thus perfectibility, of men and institutions was needed to remake society as the Kingdom of God, and eugenics was just as much a natural tool to perfect humankind as were the anti-trust laws for the "social control" of business. (Thus the US and UK versions of eugenics are not the same in the sense of having arisen from identical sources.) Am I the only American on this list whose high school hygiene text talked about, and had photos of, the Jukes and Kallikaks?
|
