Read on Twitter
Is Elizabeth Anderson the only "mainstream" academic to recognize the existence of a centuries-old, left-wing pro/free market tradition of thought? One which which explicitly sees the market as an egalitarian way to challenge "hierarchical orders of rule"? https://twitter.com/123456789blaaa/status/1205771715546165248?s=20
I've talked a bit about the genealogy of this tradition before but I had no idea an academic had already written about it in their main work. Anderson even begins the tradition with the Levellers like I did and Georgism gets a brief mention in the book! https://twitter.com/123456789blaaa/status/1252383568682049537?s=20
It's kinda funny actually, given that she talks about this tradition in the context of explaining why she thinks it's no longer viable due to structural changes in the economy + how refusing to recognize this has turned free/pro market thinking towards the Right
Anderson contrasts two of the most famous passages about market society. The first by Adam Smith which represents market society as a free society of equals, the second by Marx which represents market society as a mere portal into relations of domination and subordination
Each passage indicates how market relations either challenge or support social hierarchies of authority, esteem, and standing.
Pausing briefly here to link this paper on Smith https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S153759271300282X
It perhaps places a tad more stress on Smiths overlap with modern Progressive liberals than I think is correct but overall the paper does a good job of indicating why he fits the category of left-winger.
It perhaps places a tad more stress on Smiths overlap with modern Progressive liberals than I think is correct but overall the paper does a good job of indicating why he fits the category of left-winger.
(there's also this article summarizing the paper if you'd prefer a 5 minute read https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/adam-smith-and-inequality/#comments)
TL;DR Adam Smith did not see inequality as natural or inevitable and he attacked rentier practices by the rich and powerful which distorted economic outcomes
TL;DR Adam Smith did not see inequality as natural or inevitable and he attacked rentier practices by the rich and powerful which distorted economic outcomes
The above paper also shows how Smith demonstrated a consistent concern for the welfare of the poor throughout his work, a point echoed in this paper as well https://twitter.com/123456789blaaa/status/1205754172093739008?s=20
Going back to Andersons book, she argues that the Industrial Revolution is what caused the egalitarian assessment of market society to reverse. Furthermore, she believes that the ideal of market society before the IR blinds many to the reality of private domination today
In order to gain the clarity required to address this private domination and the challenges it poses to a free society of equals, we must thus recover the intellectual context of egalitarian thought before the Industrial Revolution when the market was “left".
Anderson begins by talking about the Levellers, a 17th century movement of radicals (probably the first "left-wing" radicals in history) that arose during the English Revolution. The Levellers are most famous for their advocacy of mass suffrage but were also ardently pro-market
Early Modern England was characterized by an array of interlocking hierarchies of domination and subordination. The Levellers were rebelling against this social order and their support for free trade was another way for individuals to lead lives free from the domination of others
An ideology that rationalized these hierarchies was that of the Great Chain of Being. All creatures were seen as linked in an authoritarian chain that reached up to God, with superiors and inferiors. Breaking rank would fracture the chain and bring disaster.
However, 16th c England saw social and economic changes that led to the rise of "masterless men". These men made a living on their own and owed no natural allegiance to any particular individual. This undermined the Chain and the hierarchies it rationalized.
The personal independence of masterless men was threatened by state-licensed "private government" like church courts and guild monopolies. Free trade would allow for independence from arbitrary masters and even advance equality for those who couldn't attain independence
The Leveller critique of arbitrary and unaccountable state power was hence intertwined with their critiques of other forms of domination-that of the church over English subjects, of lords over tenants, of guilds over artisans, and even of men over women to a limited extent
Did the Levellers vision survive into the 18th century? Well if we look to Adam Smith, we can see that he saw the security of individuals and liberation from servile dependency upon their superiors to be by far the most important effects of the transition to market society
In his view, feudalism was based around exchanges of "hospitality" for obedience. The result was *private government*. The gift-giving lord had dominion over his subjects-the recipients of his gift. This was BAD government as it led to servile dependency + regular wars btwn lords
The transition from gift-exchange to market society as the main basis by which ppl satisfied their needs allowed for peace and liberation. One effect of the rise of commerce and manufacturing is that people could leave their lords estates to become artisans and tradesmen.
Farmers could get impersonal long-term leases instead of being tenants instead of being tenants who had to bow and scrape for fear of being evicted at any time. The power of landlords being undermined meant the state could impose peace, order, and rule of law
Smith wanted to abolish monopolizing constraints on trade like primogeniture and entail which kept land locked up by a small minority. Without them, individuals could buy their own land to become independent yeoman farmers
In general, Smith had good reason to believe that a fully freed market would be an economy of small artisans and merchants with only a few employees at most. Labor would get a "liberal reward" and wealth would be diffused. It was a vision that aligned with that of the Levellers
Before the Industrial Revolution, the free states of America were the leading hope of egalitarians across the Atlantic. Looking at the prevailing conditions there, it seemed like the egalitarian utopia envisioned by pro-market left-wingers was emerging in this environment
Anderson moves on to the famous radical democrat and US founding father Thomas Paine. Despite being one of the most famous far-left revolutionaries of his day, Paine held many positions that you would today find among libertarians.
In Paines time, the most radical workers was not the industrial proletariat but rather artisans who operated their own businesses. Self-employment was seen as key for avoiding poverty and attaining a free society of equals. The US offered proof of concept with Paine advocating
In this context, it doesn't make much sense to pit workers against capitalists. Rather, Paines focus was on special favors and Privileges doled out by the state which unjustly benefit elites at the expense of others like the poor and working people.
Incidentally, this form of class theory is a consistent theme of the pro/free-market tradition in general. David Hart has the most complete article on this I believe, tracing these ideas from the Levellers in the 17th c to thinkers in the modern day http://davidmhart.com/liberty/ClassAnalysis/HistoricalSurvey/Sept2020draft.html#thetwotraditions
Paines America probably came closer than anywhere else in avoiding market failure. The prevailing conditions meant that there was much less need for employment, anti-trust, land-use, pollution, consumer-good safety, and financial regulations + the gold standard was desirable
