Mises, Hayek ve Norveç Katliamı

Norveç’te geçtiğimiz hafta silahla ve bombayla gerçekleştirdiği katliamda en az 93 kişiyi öldüren Anders Behring Breivik’in saldırıdan saatler önce 5700 kişiye maille yolladığı 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence adlı 1500 küsur sayfalık manifesto sonunda internete düşmüş.

Norveç’teki sağcı ve muhafazakâr-liberal bir parti olan Fremskrittspartiet’in bir dönem üyesi de olan Breivik, manifestosunda kendisini iktisadî açıdan liberal olarak nitelendiriyor, devrimci ve kültürel bir muhafazakâr olarak tanımlıyormuş.

Breivik’in manifestosunun bizim açımızdan ilgi çeken tarafı, içinde Ludwig von Mises ve Friedrich von Hayek adlı liberallerin isimlerinin de geçiyor olması. Mises’in ismi bir, Hayek’inki de yedi defa geçiyor. Ayrıca Mises Enstitüsü’nün internette yayınladığı yazılardan üçüne de link veriliyor.

Metinde Mises’ten çok kısaca bahsedilmiş ve Socialism adlı kitabından bir alıntı yapılmış (ancak alıntının bu kitaptan yapıldığı yazılmamış). Aynı yerde Karl Popper’in ismi de geçiyor. Hayek’in isminin geçtiği yerlerde de Hayek’in The Road to Serfdom kitabından üç, The Intellectuals and Socialism adlı makalesinden iki defa bahsedilmiş. İlâveten, Hayek’in ismi Milton Friedman’ın anıldığı iki yerde daha geçiyor.

Mises’in Socialism adlı kitabı Sosyalizm adıyla Türkçeye çevrildi. Ancak kitabın çevirisinin kötü olduğunu burada sıkça yazdım. Hayek’in The Road to Serfdom adlı kitabının Türkçesi çevirisi de uzun bir süredir Kölelik Yolu adıyla piyasada bulunuyor. Fakat kitabın büyük bir bölümünün çevirisi yarım yüzyıldan fazla bir süre önce yapılmış, nitekim kitabın sonunda Osmanlıca-Türkçe bir sözlük var. The Intellectuals and Socialism makalesinin Türkçesi de şurada bulunuyor: Entelektüeller ve Sosyalizm, Çev. Mustafa Demirci, Liberal Düşünce, Kış 2004, Sayı: 33, s. 27-39.

Breivik’in kullandığı metinlerin Türkçeye çevrilmiş olması iyi bir tesadüf. Böylece merak edenler buralarda ne yazdığını kendileri okuyup öğrenebilirler. Herhangi bir yanlış anlamayı da hemen düzeltelim:

Bunları yazmakla Norveç’teki katliamın sorumlularının aslında Mises ve Hayek olduğunu ya da bu ikisinin fikirlerinin insanları böyle bir katliama teşvik ettiğini ileri sürmüyorum elbette. Ancak, katliamı yapan şahsın kendi fikirlerini meşrulaştırmak için kullandığı isimlerin arasında Mises ve Hayek’in de olması bizi biraz şüpheye sevk etmeli. Bu liberallerin fikirleri gerçekte nedir? Bu kişilerin fikirleri bu tarz eylemlerin meşrulaştırılmasına açık kapı bırakıyor mu? (Nitekim burada daha önce Hayek’in diktatörleri desteklediğini yazmıştım.)

Türkiye’de Mises ve Hayek’in fikirlerinden hareketle liberallik yaptığını iddia eden insanlar var. “İddia eden” diyorum, zira bu kişilerin hepsinin Mises ve Hayek’i tam olarak bildiklerini ya da anladıklarını zannetmiyorum. Bu kişiler yazılarında ve konuşmalarında liberalizm (ve tabii sosyalizm) hakkında öylesine çok yanlış yapıyorlar, piyasa ekonomisini savunurken öylesine yalan yanlış şeyler söylüyorlar ki, bunların ne Mises’in ve Hayek’in gerçek fikirleriyle ilgisi bulunuyor, ne de aklı başında herhangi bir liberalin bunları ciddiye alması mümkün görünüyor.

Mises ve Hayek’in kimi Türkçe çevirilerinde sorunların ve yer yer yanlışların olduğu bilinen bir şey. Her ikisinin de makalelerinin çok azı Türkçeye çevrildi. Sanırım bu çeviriler bir elin parmaklarını ya geçer ya geçmez. Mises’in dört, Hayek’in de sadece bir kitabı şu anda piyasada bulunuyor. Bu kadar az ve sorunlu kaynakla bu ikisinin fikirlerini düzgün öğrenmek maalesef mümkün değil. Mises ve Hayek’in fikirleri tam olarak öğrenilmediği ve hâliyle anlaşılmadığı için, bunlara dayanarak yapılan liberallik de baştan aşağı sorunlu oluyor. İngilizce bilen meraklı kişilerin bunları İngilizcelerinden okuması bana işin en doğrusu olarak görünüyor.

* * *

Manifestoda Mises’in ve Hayek’in isimlerin geçtiği yerlerde yazılanları aşağıya ekledim. Manifestoda sayfalar numaralandırılmamış. Bu nedenle sayfa numarası olarak akrobat dosyasının sol üst köşesindeki kutucukta yazan numaraları verdim.

I

Manifestoda link verilen Mises Enstitüsü yazıları şöyle (köşeli parantezlerdeki numaralar yazılara link verilen sayfa numaralarını gösteriyor):

Making Kids Worthless: Social Security’s Contribution to the Fertiliy Crisis [s. 359]

How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden [s. 363]

Why Nazism was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian [s. 642]

II

Mises’in ismi şöyle geçiyor:

What exactly is democracy? Karl Popper has said that “I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence ‘democracy,’ and the other, ‘tyranny.’” Ludwig von Mises held similar views, stating that “The essence of democracy is not that everyone makes and administers laws but that lawgivers and rulers should be dependent on the people’s will in such a way that they may be peaceably changed if conflict occurs.” [s. 556]

III

Hayek’ten bahsedilen yerler de şöyle:

1

[s. 55-56]

In his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism, F.A. Hayek noted already decades ago that “Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is a construction of theorists” and intellectuals, “the secondhand dealers in ideas.” “The typical intellectual need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas. The class does not consist of only journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists.” It also “includes many professional men and technicians, such as scientists and doctors.”

“These intellectuals are the organs which modern society has developed for spreading knowledge and ideas, and it is their convictions and opinions which operate as the sieve through which all new conceptions must pass before they can reach the masses.

“The most brilliant and successful teachers are today more likely than not to be socialists.” According to Hayek, this is not because Socialists are more intelligent, but because “a much higher proportion of socialists among the best minds devote themselves to those intellectual pursuits which in modern society give them a decisive influence on public opinion.” “Socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary character.” “The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeal to him are the broad visions.”

He warns that “It may be that as a free society as we have known it carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, that once freedom has been achieved it is taken for granted and ceases to be valued, and that the free growth of ideas which is the essence of a free society will bring about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends.” “Does this mean that freedom is valued only when it is lost, that the world must everywhere go through a dark phase of socialist totalitarianism before the forces of freedom can gather strength anew?” “If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able to offer a new liberal program which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.”

2

[s. 315]

The European Union cannot be anything but anti-liberty because it concentrates far too much power in a centralised bureaucratic system that is almost impossible for outsiders to understand. As the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek warned in The Road to Serfdom:

“To imagine that the economic life of a vast area comprising many different people can be directed or planned by democratic procedure betrays a complete lack of awareness of the problems such planning would raise. Planning on an international scale, even more than is true on a national scale, cannot be anything but a naked rule of force, an imposition by a small group on all the rest of that sort of standard and employment which the planners think suitable for the rest.”

3

[s. 378-379]

But why is the situation like this? One could claim that this is the effect of the Western Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, or alternatively a product of the Cold War. But if you believe the esteemed Friedrich Hayek, the trend was discernable already in the late 1940s, before the Cold War had left a major impact. How do we explain that? One plausible hypothesis could be to assume that those with conservative viewpoints will generally direct their energies towards business and commerce, while those with left leaning sympathies desire to get into positions where they can influence people’s minds. Over time, this could mean that in an open society, the media, the academia and the intelligentsia will tend to gravitate towards the political Left and become dominated by people sympathetic towards Utopian ideas. Because of the positions they have gained, their political bias will significantly influence what information is presented to the general masses, and how.

In his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism, Hayek noted already around 1950 that “Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is a construction of theorists” and intellectuals, “the secondhand dealers in ideas. The typical intellectual need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas. The class does not consist of only journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction , cartoonists, and artists.” It also “includes many professional men and technicians, such as scientists and doctors.”

“The most brilliant and successful teachers are today more likely than not to be socialists.” According to Hayek, this is not because Socialists are more intelligent, but because “a much higher proportion of socialists among the best minds devote themselves to those intellectual pursuits which in modern society give them a decisive influence on public opinion. Socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary character. The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeal to him are the broad visions.”

He warns that “It may be that as a free society as we have known it carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, that once freedom has been achieved it is taken for granted and ceases to be valued, and that the free growth of ideas which is the essence of a free society will bring about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends. Does this mean that freedom is valued only when it is lost, that the world must everywhere go through a dark phase of socialist totalitarianism before the forces of freedom can gather strength anew? If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able to offer a new liberal program which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.”

4

[s. 528]

Why is the European Union not democratic? One element is its sheer size; another is the massive bureaucracy that has grown up around it. As F.A. Hayek writes in The Road to Serfdom[7]:

“Least of all shall we preserve democracy or foster its growth if all the power and most of the decisions rest with an organisation far too big for the common man to survey or comprehend. Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learnt and practised in affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is awareness of one’s neighbour rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Where the scope of the political measures becomes so large that the necessary knowledge is almost exclusively possessed by the bureaucracy, the creative impulses of the private person must flag.”

5

[s. 537-538]

But as the esteemed writer F.A. Hayek wrote in his classic The Road to Serfdom:

“What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a phenomenon of individual conduct, but also that they can exist only in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide for himself and called upon voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness, neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one’s conviction by sacrificing one’s desires to what one thinks right. Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them, has our decision moral value. Neither good intentions nor efficiency of organisation can preserve decency in a system in which personal freedom and individual responsibility are destroyed.”

6

[s. 674]

Lastly, I will focus on Milton Friedman, who along with F. Hayek is one of the villains of Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

7

[s. 704]

The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

This is actually sound advice and in my view the strategy Western survivalists should follow. When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies; it also contains too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, Globalism, multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.

Comments

comments

Bu yazıyı paylaşınTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+
Can Madenci

Yazar Hakkında Can Madenci

Can Madenci lisans, yüksek lisans ve doktorasını Marmara Üniversitesi iktisat bölümünde yaptı. Madenci doktora tezinde iktisadi hesaplama tartışması ve Friedrich Hayek’in görüşlerini çalıştı. ABD, Alabama'da bulunan Mises Enstitüsü’nde burslu araştırmacı olarak çalışmalar yürüttü. Halihazırda ilgi alanları Marksist ve evrimsel iktisattır.