Speaking Historically about Globalization and Related Fantasies

Abstract

January 2004 · Historically Speaking23 administrationwere fundamentally different from the policies followed byNazi Germany, to say nothing of the Five Year Plans of the Soviet Union. Moreover, Lindsey's dating of the turn in U.S. policy away from centralized , top-down control back toward markets between 1945 and 1947 is inaccurate. I would suggestthatthe decisive change actuallycame with Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker forty years later. Strikingly, Lindseynever discusses the turnaround in Britain, omitting anymention ofMargaret Thatcher. The key point here is that the U.S. and Britain were different in fundamental ways fromNazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Both had democratic political systems and legal structures that limited the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial authorities and protected private property. None oftheir totalitarian contemporaries had similar safeguards. Moreover, the populations ofthe two democracies had internalized democratic competitive values. Theyknewthe rules ofthe marketgame. The people of Germany and Russia had never known these things. Consequendy, the balanced Western systems were able to withstand the shocks ofdepression and war. They made some compromises, but ultimately remained true to their traditions. These fundamental factors—limited government, democracy, a legal framework for economic activity, and private property—distinguished the Western democracies from the dictatorships , whatever the similarities they mayhave had in their administrative structures. Ironically , Hayekemphasized these important factors in his later works.4 One size does not fit all. Ramming diverse historical examples into an otherwise serviceable theory obscures rather than clarifies. A more nuanced approach would be much more effective. Surely, countries like Britain and the United States should be placed in a separate category from Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. While I agree with much ofwhat Lindsey has to say, it seems to me that his analysis deserves criticism on two grounds, one historical and one logical. The historical roots of centralized, top-down control are deeper and more varied than Lindsey thinks. Grouping together differentregimes because theyshare some administrative methods confuses matters . As Ludwig Erhard pointed out, economies are not ends in themselves. Alfred C. Mierzejewski isan associateprofessor ofhistory at the University ofNorth Texas. He is the author o/The Most Valuable Asset ofthe Reich: AHistory ofthe German National Railway, 1920-1945, two volumes, (University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1999, 2000). 1 Of Hayek's many works I will only recommend the following: The Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1944); Individualism and Economic Order (University ofChicago Press, 1948); Capitalism and the Historians (University of Chicago Press, 1954). I would also suggest three books about Hayek: Alan Ebenstein, Friedrich Hayek: A Biography (Palgrave, 2001); G.R. Steele, The Economics ofFriedrich Hayek (St. Martin's, 1993) and Eamonn Butler, Hayek: His Contribution to thePolitical and Economic Thought ofOur Time (Temple Smith, 1983). 2 Ralph Raico, Die Partei derFreiheit, translated by Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Gabriele Bartel, and Pia Hess (Lucius & Lucius, 1999); Dieter Langewiesche , Liberalism in Germany (Princeton University Press, 2000); andJamesJ. Sheehan, German Liberalism in theNineteenth Century (Universityof Chicago Press, 1978). 3 Sally Marks, Illusion ofPeace: International Relations in Europe, 1918-1933 (St. Martin's, 1976); Stephen A. Schuker,American Reparations to Germany , 1919-1933: Implicationsforthe Third World Debt Crisis (International Finance Section, Department ofEconomics, 1988); and, presenting a very different view, Bruce Kent, The Spoils ofWar: The Politics, Economics, and Diplomacy ofReparations, 1918-1932 (Clarendon Press, 1989). 4 Friedrich A von Hayek, Law, Legislation, andLiberty , 3 vols. (University of Chicago Press, 1973, 1976, 1979). Speaking Historically about Globalization and Related Fantasies Liah Greenfeld History, says Marc Bloch, is the "science of men in time." When one talks ofhistory, even in the non-specialist press, it is useful to mention (or not to mention, depending on the aimed-at result) dates. It is also useful—according to Bloch, absolutely essential—to provide precise definitions ofthe historical phenomena one talks about. Ifone makes historical claims and yet does notmention dates and skimps on definitions , one abuses history and misrepresents it (i.e., presents it forwhat it is most assuredly not: a mixed bag ofarguablyreal butperhaps imaginary events or non-events which either happened or did not happen at one time or another). One thing certain about arguments presented in such a dateless and undefined manner is...