Latest Articles

Peter Schaar

Privacy as a human right

Edward Snowden and the control of power

The Snowden revelations revealed just how far some states had departed from the guarantees of privacy enshrined in the human and civil rights agreements of the post-war era. The European Union must take the lead in setting enforceable data protection standards internationally, writes Peter Schaar. [ more ]

Beate Roessler

What is there to lose?

Elke Rauth

Smart tales of the city

Volodymyr Sklokin

Turning public

Corina L. Apostol, Dmitry Vilensky

ArtLeaks: From intervention to infrastructure

New Issues


Razpotja | 18 (2014)

Spolnost [Sexuality]

Dérive | 58 (2015)

Urbanes Labor Ruhr [The Ruhr Region as urban laboratory]

Esprit | 2/2015


Frakcija | 68-69 (2014)

Art & Money

Eurozine Review

Eurozine Review

The right to blaspheme

In "Esprit", a Catholic philosopher defends the right to blaspheme after the Charlie Hebdo attack; "Dérive" visits the unique urban lab that is Germany's post-industrial Ruhr region; "Krytyka" notes the ascendancy of the Russian language in post-Maidan Ukraine; "Frakcija" eavesdrops ArtLeaks' discussion of art and money; "Multitudes" says the art market's rigged; "Letras Libres" celebrates the art of biography; "Mittelweg 36" immerses itself in the world of work; and "Razpotja" says sexualized society leaves much to be desired.

Eurozine Review

Everything is falling down, now

Eurozine Review

Dance mania and diplomatic parleying

Eurozine Review

Massaging the writer's ego

Eurozine Review

The way we let the young into the world

My Eurozine

If you want to be kept up to date, you can subscribe to Eurozine's rss-newsfeed or our Newsletter.

Share |

The role of the sceptic

A conversation with John Gray

The destination of intellectual journeys, remarks John Gray, is unknown at any one time. Utopianism, on the other hand, usually ends in disaster. Thus the radical anti-communist of the 1970s finds Marx's analysis of capitalism prescient today and rates Keynes above Hayek.

René Scheu: Mr. Gray, you are one of the philosophical voices that is really listened to in the United Kingdom. You yourself once praised Hayek for his lucid analysis of the market economy. Today you praise Karl Marx for his critique of the economic system. Why this change of heart?

John Gray: The destination of intellectual journeys is unknown at any one time. Judgments are always subject to revision. I would say: let's start with Hayek.

RS: Shoot.

JG: I still see Hayek as the best critic of all forms of centralized economic planning. It is to his merit to have shown scientifically that centralized planning cannot work for an economy because complete knowledge of that economy is never available centrally. As nice as it would be to have one, there is no mastermind who knows and can control everything, and there never will be. This was Hayek's scientific argument for the superiority of the market economy. A planned economy is only a viable means where there is a clear overarching goal – during wartime. A war economy is always a planned economy. Supporters of central economic dreams should therefore hear it once and for all: centralized economic planning is not suitable during peacetime.

RS: Market economy versus planned economy: that is reminiscent of old ideological debates. What does Hayek have to say to us today?

JG: The centralists are still among us, and they have never read Hayek. However, they should do so. Since we live in a knowledge society, this part of Hayek's thinking is more relevant than ever. The more knowledge-based a society, the more important the local organization! But the incorrigible centralists give me just as much of a headache as the dogmatic Hayekians.

RS: Please, elaborate.

JG: He who states that markets cannot fail, that market failure is always the result of government intervention, is a dogmatist. How the hell would he know? Overall, Hayek was not a dogmatist, although in his writings there can be found traces of such a liberal utopianism. There we encounter the motto: "What is not supposed to be, must not be! And what must not be, is not!" To me, all isms are suspicious anyway. The sceptic in me asks: why should markets be more reasonable than other human institutions? And we can see it every day: markets are also imperfect, prone to error, and in need of repair, like everything else that man has created.

RS: I have never interpreted Hayek as having declared that the market is infallible. He rejected the naive equilibrium models of his fellow economists in no uncertain terms. His point seems to me to be a different one: the market is far from being perfect, but we have not found a better mechanism to coordinate the needs and preferences of people. We have to live with constant ups and downs.

JG: Hayek thought: if the government does not intervene in the market, then it has a tendency towards perfect coordination.

RS: Exactly: a tendency!

JG: But not even that is true.

RS: Ergo, there is a need for constant government intervention in the market?

JG: I did not say that. It all depends on the situation – that is the point. Sceptics like me always look at the concrete situation, question it, think about it – and then decide. Government measures to support demand are not per se evil. Insofar John Maynard Keynes was right at the time, and he prevailed in the scientific dispute against Hayek. I personally witnessed that – Hayek never got over this defeat and attributed it more to the general Zeitgeist than to scientific knowledge. After the war, he changed from being a strict economist to become a social philosopher. He developed a theory of cultural evolution of society, which is very deterministic and contradicted his previous scientific beliefs...

RS: short, you prefer the interventionist Keynes to the market economist Hayek?

JG: In my eyes, both of them are advocates of the market economy, but with a different emphasis. Keynes was a very sceptical mind, this is why I feel more closely related to him.

RS: With his conviction of macroeconomic management, Keynes reminds me more of a modern technocrat.

JG: His lesson is the following: it is not the case that the market is always good and the government is always bad, that the market is always rational and the government always acts irrationally. There are good and bad governments, just as there are good and bad functioning markets.

RS: The question is – what is the market? Hayek's answer was: it is a real or virtual place where individuals voluntarily exchange...

JG: ...That is right, in principle. And do not get me wrong – I think markets are a good thing, they have created peace, freedom and prosperity. Yet, there is no such thing as "the" market. There are, in fact, always different markets in different countries and cultures. They change in the course of history, through wars, through revolutions and, today, through geopolitical competition.

RS: What do you mean by that?

JG: To be specific: take Hayek's idea of a privatization of money, which aims to deprive the production of money from the central bank. Let us imagine that the European Union or the United States would actually dare to conduct such an experiment. What would be the consequence? The Chinese would be laughing up their sleeves – the renminbi would become the world currency. The world is not simply a textbook. Towards the end, Hayek was not free from liberal utopianism.

RS: I beg to differ. Hayek's point was that even after the war, the European countries never really emancipated themselves from the collectivist planning carried out during the war. About 60 years later, the welfare state is going through its worst crisis so far. Hayek's analysis is more relevant than ever.

JG: With all due respect – Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" never took place. The interventionism he deplored in the 1940s did not lead to the spectre of a totalitarian system that he evoked. During the war, there was central planning – and afterwards there came, on the one hand, new regulations and, on the other hand, deregulations, a step forward and a step back. Hayek's idea that any intervention required new interventions, so that in the end there can only be the planned economy, was refuted by the empirical observation.

RS: I dare to object again: back then, the Western states have experienced a push of collectivization that continues until today. During the war, each country has introduced many taxes, laws and regulations that endure until today...

JG: ...but each state is free to undo them. Another prophecy of Hayek's concerned out-of-control inflation. Please name a European country in which it came after the war to the hyperinflation that Hayek feared?

RS: The currencies have been drastically devalued since then. We have experienced a high level of creeping inflation for decades, which is much higher than the government-approved inflation...

JG: ...this might be true, but hyperinflation? Nowhere. And let me tell you something: it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

RS: You regard this as mere scare tactics?

JG: As the product of the imagination of an outstanding economist who confused the real world with his theories. That is like when you talk to communists: the perfect, humane communist system is still awaiting its implementation – until forever.

RS: You were a radical anti-communist in the 1970s...

JG: ...and I do not take back one iota of my criticism of communism. Communism was a horrible utopia that millions of innocent people paid for with their lives and hundreds of millions suffered under. And for what? For nothing. Here we can learn that utopianism usually ends in disaster.

RS: Today, you praise in your essays Karl Marx as an analyst of the current capitalist-socialist system.

JG: What Marx said about communism is wrong and dangerous. His analysis of capitalism, however, is on many points up-to-date.

RS: For example?

JG: Marx recognized the revolutionary power of capitalist economies – they create wealth, richness, innovation. But they also create uncertainty, and they tend to destroy the middle class.

RS: You speak as if you bemoan the passing of a world where life followed quiet, predetermined paths. This kind of life probably never existed – this is a projection, thus also a form of utopia.

JG: I am not a nostalgic – all I am saying is that Marx was a good analyst of capitalist economies. But just like Hayek, he was a determinist and utopian.

RS: I see you like the role of the philosopher who eludes all categorization.

JG: Of course, that is the role of the sceptic.

RS: Then I ask the sceptic: What kind of world do we live in?

JG: We have a variety of different powers competing with each other. We have different monetary systems, differently operating central banks that cooperate with each other – but only up to a certain point. All countries and players are connected, all networked with each other. All that we can do in this interconnected, fragile, complex world is to scratch along.

RS: In German we speak of durchwursteln (muddling through). And indeed, just now, governments in Europe take ad hoc decisions – the time frame has been reduced to a few months, the perspective is focused on tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow.

JG: No one knows how the world looks like in a year – and you cannot change anything about that.

RS: Sure. I wanted to say something else: in confused situations, clear principles are helpful. They provide guidance. The governments of the EU countries seem as helpless as the governors of the central banks. That things have become what they are is not a matter of destiny.

JG: Let us stick to the EU. Hayek would have insisted on a clear regulatory policy and pursued an even more blatant austerity policy than Angela Merkel is doing today. The austerity policy aims to achieve a devaluation in the over-indebted countries. Since this is, due to the single currency of the euro, no longer possible via national central banks, the wages are simply pushed down. A devaluation of 30 percent would probably be necessary, maybe even 40 percent. This is simply impossible! So what happens?

RS: Unrest is increasing.

JG: Exactly. The result is not only growing unemployment, but poisoned politics.

RS: Agreed. But the question is: why have the politicians disregarded the warnings of serious economists and introduced a single currency, when it was clear that the respective economies were performing at different rates? That is disastrous utopianism!

JG: That it was, no doubt. But today we have to solve today's problem – do you want to abet a new political nationalism and populism of the worst kind, as we can observe it in Greece, Hungary and Italy, because mistakes have been made in the past?

RS: Absolutely not, however, the politics of "there is no alternative" are not an option either. Especially for a sceptic, the prevailing political reasoning must sounds very implausible: We have accumulated all this debt, and now we must accumulate more debt in order to solve the debt problem.

JG: You see, there are no simple solutions. With economic governance by the book, you do not get ahead. On the contrary – such utopianism would be dangerous in the highest degree. Many liberals lack awareness today of this danger, and Hayek lacked a sense of it during the tense 1930s. If you only argue economically, you risk great social upheavals.

RS: The fundamental data have not changed much since then. What has changed is merely the rhetoric or the perception of the precarious situation. It can tip from one day to the next.

JG: The situation remains precarious, no doubt about it. The high unemployment rate in all EU countries causes me a lot of concern. This is the breeding ground for political extremism. My fear is, in fact, that the situation in the next five years is unlikely to change. Economic stagnation, combined with high unemployment and increasing political populism and extremism, is an explosive mix.

RS: A necessary condition for the solution of the crisis is economic growth. But in recent years, the Europeans have begun to emerge as critics of growth...

JG: ...Growth is an important issue – however it is clear: without investments, no growth. Take China. The People's Republic can suppress a revolution only by generating in its system of state capitalism continuous growth, so that all or almost all Chinese are continuously better off. I have spoken with high Chinese officials. The speak frankly: if we are below four percent of growth for a long time, the whole box will explode. Equally important is the question of the democratic legitimacy of institutions.

RS: The EU institutions do not enjoy high levels of democratic legitimation.

JG: This is your radical Helvetic view. Most EU citizens do recognize the advantages and the potential of a united Europe. Therefore, I am convinced that the Union is facing tough years, but also that it is equipped to master them successfully. Negative utopians, that is, doomsayers, will err one more time. And as always, they will say: the demise will arrive tomorrow. And tomorrow they will say: it comes the day after tomorrow.

RS: If we are still living tomorrow, we at least have the possibility to read good books. For example those of the Jewish liberal Isaiah Berlin, who you also knew in person. What did you learn from him?

JG: Isaiah was an incredibly tolerant person – and I believe that tolerance is an essential part of liberalism. Because tolerance means nothing other than everyone can become happy in his or her own way, as long as it does not bother others. Where tolerance is lacking, there is a need for legislation, rights, entitlements.

RS: Berlin was a representative of negative liberty. To put it bluntly: to be free means to be left in peace by others.

JG: Freedom is the absence of human obstacles that force me to act and live in a way I do not want to act or live. As long as man does not harm anyone, he can live how he wants to live – even if he does harm to himself. That must be borne by the others. Tolerance means precisely that I do not demand from others to live as I want to live. Negative freedom and tolerance are mutually dependent. Berlin was not a liberal fundamentalist – he accepted that in addition to the correct understanding of freedom there are also other values such as justice and social peace. Again, in the end consensus and weighing up are indispensable in a free society.


Published 2013-05-21

Original in English
First published in Schweizer Monat 5/2013 (German version); Eurozine (English version)

Contributed by Schweizer Monat
© René Scheu, John Gray / Schweizer Monat
© Eurozine

Focal points     click for more

The politics of privacy
The Snowden leaks and the ensuing NSA scandal made the whole world debate privacy and data protection. Now the discussion has entered a new phase - and it's all about policy. A focal point on the politics of privacy: claiming a European value. [more]

Beyond Fortress Europe
The fate of migrants attempting to enter Fortress Europe has triggered a new European debate on laws, borders and human rights. A focal point featuring reportage alongside articles on policy and memory. With contributions by Fabrizio Gatti, Seyla Benhabib and Alessandro Leogrande. [more]

Russia in global dialogue
In the two decades after the end of the Cold War, intellectual interaction between Russia and Europe has intensified. It has not, however, prompted a common conversation. The focal point "Russia in global dialogue" seeks to fuel debate on democracy, society and the legacy of empire. [more]

Ukraine in focus
Ten years after the Orange Revolution, Ukraine is in the throes of yet another major struggle. Eurozine provides commentary on events as they unfold and further articles from the archive providing background to the situation in today's Ukraine. [more]

Eurozine BLOG

On the Eurozine BLOG, editors and Eurozine contributors comment on current affairs and events. What's behind the headlines in the world of European intellectual journals?
Eurozine Gallery: TIME top ten photos of 2014
Massimo Sestini's aerial shot of a boat containing at least 500 people attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, included in the current exhibition in the Eurozine Gallery, has been named one of the top ten photos of 2014 by TIME magazine. [more]

A master of the daily grind
On Sunday 30 November, Turkish publisher Osman Deniztekin died, just a few weeks after having been diagnosed with leukemia. He was 65. In memoriam. [more]

Time to Talk     click for more

Time to Talk, a network of European Houses of Debate, has partnered up with Eurozine to launch an online platform. Here you can watch video highlights from all TTT events, anytime, anywhere.
Dessislava Gavrilova, Jo Glanville et al.
The role of literature houses in protecting the space for free expression
This summer, Time to Talk partner Free Word, London hosted a debate on the role that literature houses play in preserving freedom of expression both in Europe and globally. Should everyone get a place on the podium? Also those representing the political extremes? [more]

Support Eurozine     click for more

If you appreciate Eurozine's work and would like to support our contribution to the establishment of a European public sphere, see information about making a donation.

Vacancies at Eurozine     click for more

There are currently no positions available.

Editor's choice     click for more

Felix Stalder
Digital solidarity
As the culture and institutions of the Gutenberg Galaxy wane, Felix Stalder looks to commons, assemblies, swarms and weak networks as a basis for remaking society in a more inclusive and diverse way. The aim being to expand autonomy and solidarity at the same time. [more]

Literature     click for more

Olga Tokarczuk
A finger pointing at the moon
Our language is our literary destiny, writes Olga Tokarczuk. And "minority" languages provide a special kind of sanctuary too, inaccessible to the rest of the world. But, there again, language is at its most powerful when it reaches beyond itself and starts to create an alternative world. [more]

Piotr Kiezun, Jaroslaw Kuisz
Literary perspectives special: Witold Gombrowicz
The recent publication of the private diary of Witold Gombrowicz provides unparalleled insight into the life of one of Poland's great twentieth-century novelists and dramatists. But this is not literature. Instead: here he is, completely naked. [more]

Literary perspectives
The re-transnationalization of literary criticism
Eurozine's series of essays aims to provide an overview of diverse literary landscapes in Europe. Covered so far: Croatia, Sweden, Austria, Estonia, Ukraine, Northern Ireland, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Hungary. [more]

Debate series     click for more

Europe talks to Europe
Nationalism in Belgium might be different from nationalism in Ukraine, but if we want to understand the current European crisis and how to overcome it we need to take both into account. The debate series "Europe talks to Europe" is an attempt to turn European intellectual debate into a two-way street. [more]

Conferences     click for more

Eurozine emerged from an informal network dating back to 1983. Since then, European cultural magazines have met annually in European cities to exchange ideas and experiences. Around 100 journals from almost every European country are now regularly involved in these meetings.
Law and Border. House Search in Fortress Europe
The 26th European Meeting of Cultural Journals
Conversano, 3-6 October 2014
Eurozine's 2014 conference in southern Italy, not far from Lampedusa, addressed both EU refugee and immigration policies and intellectual partnerships across the Mediterranean. Speakers included Italian investigative journalist Fabrizio Gatti and Moroccan feminist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Rita El Khayat. [more]

Multimedia     click for more
Multimedia section including videos of past Eurozine conferences in Vilnius (2009) and Sibiu (2007). [more]

powered by