I am glad that Geoffrey Lea expressed his doubts about Richard Ebeling’s discussion of “The Remnant.” Although I had read Richard’s story carefully twice, I failed to comment on that part of his story. But Geoffrey’s words remind me that I have doubts too.
I shouldn’t blame Richard too much. I became skeptical in the 1970s, when I first read about Albert Jay Nock’s vision of the Remnant. As Nock himself admitted in his famous 1936 essay, there is no “Remnant” or “mass” that can be defined by class or station. One can be a true member of the elite and a member of the masses; similarly, a person can come from a lowly background and be part of the Remnant. So even if one were to stick to writing only for the Remnant, that would not mean that one should focus on a specific well-defined audience.
When he gets to his real point, Nock is basically saying that we shouldn’t weaken or lower our thinking in order to appeal to the masses. I agree with that. Even if Nock didn’t intend it, however, thinking that someone is generating ideas for Insali can lead to them not reaching others. It can easily lead a person to alienate himself from all but those who already agree with him, whether they are fellow scholars or those who may appear to be members of the “crowd.” Fortunately, many members of the Austrian school engaged in critical outreach to people who might otherwise be mistaken for “the masses,” without compromise or contempt. In my opinion, Murray Rothbard is an example.
However, I remember the story of a famous Austrian scholar who refused to go to a scholar who was not a member of the Austrian school. That Austrian scientist was Israel Kirzner. This may sound surprising, given Kirzner’s original credit for my first essay. But I remember well the story he told the audience at the 1974 South Royalton conference or the 1975 Hartford conference.
Kirzner spoke of his joy when he heard that Sir John Hicks, a former Nobel Prize winner in economics, was writing a definitive Austrian book. A 1973 book was titled Capital and time: Neo-Austrian theory. Kirzner spoke of interest in attending a session of the American Economic Association meetings in New York in 1973 where Hicks was to present his “neo-Austrian” views. Kirzner said that after listening to Hicks for a few minutes, he concluded that Hicks did not understand Austrian economics and he, Kirzner, got up and left before the session ended. When I heard Kirzner say that, I thought, “Stop wasting an opportunity! It is true that Hicks was not Austrian. But the famously good-hearted economist, Hicks, who thinks he’s doing the Austrian economy is probably worth talking to. And who better to try to steer him in the right direction than the thoughtful and often patient Israel Kirzner.
This is from my second article in the Freedom Fund series on the South Royalton Austrian Economics Conference, held in June 1974. Other contributions are also available.
I will have comments on those in a day or two.
Source link