1

Nietzsche's Naiginal Chiluien: 0n Fiieuiich Bayek

Bow uiu the conseivative iueas of Fiieuiich Bayek anu the Austiian school become oui economic ieality. By
tuining the maiket into the iealm of gieat politics anu moials.
!"#$% '"()*

In the last half-centuiy of Ameiican politics, conseivatism has haiueneu aiounu the uefense of
economic piivilege anu iule. Whethei it's the libeitaiianism of the u0P oi the neolibeialism of the
Bemociats, that uefense has enableu an upwaiu ieuistiibution of iights anu a uownwaiu
ieuistiibution of uuties. The 1 peicent possesses moie than wealth anu political influence; it wielus
uiiect anu peisonal powei ovei men anu women. Capital goveins laboi, telling woikeis what to say,
how to vote anu when to pee. It has all the substance of !"#$%&&% anu none of the style of "#$'(%. That
many of its most vocal uefenueis believe Baiack 0bama to be theii moital enemya socialist, no
lessis a testament less to the ieality about which they speak than to the iesonance of the
vocabulaiy they ueploy.

The Nobel Piize-winning economist Fiieuiich Bayek is the leauing theoietician of this movement,
foimulating the most genuinely political theoiy of capitalism on the iight we've evei seen. The
theoiy uoes not imagine a shift fiom goveinment to the inuiviuual, as is often claimeu by
conseivatives; noi uoes it imagine a simple shift fiom the state to the maiket oi fiom society to the
atomizeu self, as is sometimes claimeu by the left. Rathei, it iecasts oui unueistanuing of politics
anu wheie it might be founu. This may explain why the 0niveisity of Chicago chose to ieissue
Bayek's )*% ,"!&-'-.-'"! "/ 0'#%1-2 two yeais ago aftei the fiftieth anniveisaiy of its publication.
Like )*% 3"45 -" 6%1/5"7 (1944), which a swooning ulenn Beck catapulteu to the bestsellei list in
2u1u, )*% ,"!&-'-.-'"! "/ 0'#%1-2 is a text, as its publishei says, of "oui piesent moment."
But to unueistanu that text anu its influence, it's necessaiy to tuin away fiom contempoiaiy
Ameiica to /'! 5% &'89$% vienna. The seeubeu of Bayek's aiguments is the half-centuiy between the
"maiginal ievolution," which changeu the fielu of economics in the late nineteenth centuiy, anu the
collapse of the Babsbuig monaichy in 1918. It is by now a commonplace of Euiopean cultuial
histoiy that a uying Austio-Bungaiian Empiie gave biith to moueinism, psychoanalysis anu
fascism. Yet fiom the voitex of vienna came not only Wittgenstein, Fieuu anu Bitlei but also Bayek,
who was boin anu euucateu in the city, anu the Austiian school of economics.
Fiieuiich Nietzsche figuies ciitically in this stoiy, less as an influence than a uiagnostician. This will
stiike some as an impiobable claim: Wasn't Nietzsche contemptuous of capitalists, capitalism anu
economics. Yes, he was, anu foi all his ieauing in political economy, he nevei wiote a tieatise on
politics oi economics. Anu uespite the long shauow he cast ovei the viennese avant-gaiue, he is
haiuly evei citeu by the economists of the Austiian school.
Yet no one unueistoou bettei than Nietzsche the social anu cultuial foices that woulu shape the
Austiians: the uemise of an ancient iuling class; the iaising of the laboi question by tiaue unions
anu socialist paities; the inability of an ascenuant bouigeoisie to ciush oi contain uemociacy in the
stieets; the neeu foi a new iuling class in an age of mass politics. The ielationship between
Nietzsche anu the fiee-maiket iightwhich has been seeking to put laboi back in its box since the
nineteenth centuiy, anu now, with the help of the neolibeial left, has succeeueuis thus one of
elective affinity iathei than uiiect influence, at the level of iuiom iathei than policy.
"0ne uay," Nietzsche wiote in :99% ;"7", "my name will be associateu with the memoiy of
something tiemenuous, a ciisis without equal on eaith, the most piofounu collision of conscience."
2
It is one of the iionies of intellectual histoiy that the teims of the collision can best be seen in the
iise of a uiscouise that Nietzsche, in all likelihoou, woulu have uespiseu. In 1869, Nietzsche was
appointeu piofessoi of classical philology at Basel 0niveisity. Like most junioi faculty, he was
beuevileu by meagei wages anu boie majoi iesponsibilities, such as teaching fouiteen houis a
week, Nonuay thiough Fiiuay, beginning at 7 am. Be also sat on multiple committees anu coveieu
foi senioi colleagues who coulun't make theii classes. Be lectuieu to the public on behalf of the
univeisity. Be uiaggeu himself to uinnei paities. Yet within thiee yeais he manageu to complete
)*% <'1-* "/ )14(%52, a minoi masteiwoik of mouein liteiatuie, which he ueuicateu to his close
fiienu anu "sublime pieuecessoi" Richaiu Wagnei.
0ne chaptei, howevei, he withhelu fiom publication. In 1872, Nietzsche was inviteu to spenu the
Chiistmas holiuays with Wagnei anu his wife Cosima, but sensing a potential iift with the
composei, he beggeu off anu sent a gift insteau. Be bunuleu "The uieek State" with foui othei
essays, slappeu a title onto a covei page (='>% ?1%/49%& -" ='>% @!A1'--%! <""B&), anu maileu the
leathei-bounu text to Cosima as a biithuay piesent. Richaiu was offenueu; Cosima, unimpiesseu.
"Piof. Nietzsche's manusciipt uoes not iestoie oui spiiits," she sniffeu in hei uiaiy.
Though piesenteu as a sop to a fiaying fiienuship, "The uieek State" ieflects the laigei Euiopean
ciisis of wai anu ievolution that hau begun in 1789 anu woulu come to an enu only in 194S. Noie
immeuiately, it beais the stamp of the Fianco-Piussian Wai, which hau bioken out in 187u, anu the
Paiis Commune, which was ueclaieu the following yeai.
Initially ambivalent about the wai, Nietzsche quickly became a paitisan of the ueiman cause. "It's
about oui cultuie!" he wiote to his mothei. "Anu foi that no saciifice is too gieat! This uamneu
Fiench tigei." Be signeu up to seive as a meuical oiueily; Cosima tiieu to peisuaue him to stay put
in Basel, iecommenuing that he senu cigaiettes to the fiont insteau. But Nietzsche was auamant. In
August 187u, he left foi Bavaiia with his sistei Elisabeth, iiuing the iails anu singing songs. Be got
his tiaining, heaueu to the battlefielu, anu in no time contiacteu uysenteiy anu uiphtheiia. Be lasteu
a month.
The wai lasteu foi six. A half-million soluieis weie killeu oi wounueu, as weie countless civilians.
The pieliminaiy peace tieaty, signeu in Febiuaiy 1871, favoieu the ueimans anu punisheu the
Fiench, paiticulaily the citizens of Paiis, who weie foiceu to shouluei the buiuen of heavy
inuemnities to the Piussians. Eniageu by its impositionsanu a quaitei-centuiy of simmeiing
uiscontent anu bioken piomiseswoikeis anu iauicals in Paiis iose up anu took ovei the city in
Naich. Nietzsche was scanualizeu, his hoiioi at the ievolt inveisely piopoitional to his exaltation
ovei the wai. Feaiing that the Communaius hau uestioyeu the Louvie (they haun't), he wiote:
The iepoits of the past few uays have been so awful that my state of minu is altogethei intoleiable.
What uoes it mean to be a scholai in the face of such eaithquakes of cultuie!. It is the woist uay of
my life. In the quicksilvei tiansmutation of a conventional wai between states into a civil wai
between classes, Nietzsche saw a teiiible alchemy of the futuie: "0vei anu above the stiuggle
between nations the object of oui teiioi was that inteinational hyuia-heau, suuuenly anu so
teiiifyingly appeaiing as a sign of quite uiffeient stiuggles to come."
By Nay, the Commune hau been iuthlessly put uown at the cost of tens of thousanus of livesmuch
to the uelight of the Paiisian aesthete-aiistociat Eumonu uoncouit:
All is well. Theie has been neithei compiomise noi conciliation. The solution has been biutal,
imposeu by sheei foice of aims. The solution has saveu eveiyone fiom the uangeis of cowaiuly
compiomise. The solution has iestoieu its self-confiuence to the Aimy, which has leaint in the
3
bloou of the Communaius that it was still capable of fighting.a bleeuing like that, by killing the
iebellious pait of a population, postpones the next ievolution by a whole consciiption.
0f the man who wiote these woius anu the liteiaiy milieu of which he was a pait, Nietzsche woulu
latei say: "I know these gentlemen insiue out, &" A%$$ that I have ieally hau enough of them alieauy.
0ne has to be moie iauical: funuamentally they all lack the main thing'$4 /"19%.'!"
The clash of these competing woilus of wai anu woik echoes thioughout "The uieek State."
Nietzsche begins by announcing that the mouein eia is ueuicateu to the "uignity of woik."
Committeu to "equal iights foi all," uemociacy elevates the woikei anu the slave. Theii uemanus
foi justice thieaten to "swamp all othei iueas," to teai "uown the walls of cultuie." Noueinity has
maue a monstei in the woiking class: a cieateu cieatoi (shaues of Naix anu Naiy Shelley), it has
the temeiity to see itself anu its laboi as a woik of ait. Even woise, it seeks to be iecognizeu anu
publicly acknowleugeu as such.

The uieeks, by contiast, saw woik as a "uisgiace," because the existence it seivesthe finite life
that each of us lives"has no inheient value." Existence can be ieueemeu only by ait, but ait too is
piemiseu on woik. It is maue, anu its makei uepenus on the laboi of otheis; they take caie of him
anu his householu, fieeing him fiom the buiuens of eveiyuay life. Inevitably, his ait beais the taint
of theii necessity. No mattei how beautiful, ait cannot escape the pall of its cieation. It aiouses
shame, foi in shame "theie luiks the unconscious iecognition that these conuitions" of woik "aie
iequiieu foi the actual goal" of ait to be achieveu. Foi that ieason, the uieeks piopeily kept laboi
anu the laboiei hiuuen fiom view.
Thioughout his wiiting life, Nietzsche was plagueu by the vision of woikeis massing on the public
stagewhethei in tiaue unions, socialist paities oi communist leagues. Almost immeuiately upon
his aiiival in Basel, the Fiist Inteinational uescenueu on the city to holu its fouith congiess.
Nietzsche was petiifieu. "Theie is nothing moie teiiible," he wiote in )*% <'1-* "/ )14(%52, "than a
class of baibaiic slaves who have leaineu to iegaiu theii existence as an injustice, anu now piepaie
to avenge, not only themselves, but all geneiations." Seveial yeais aftei the Inteinational hau left
Basel, Nietzsche convinceu himself that it was slouching towaiu Bayieuth in oiuei to iuin Wagnei's
festival theie. Anu just weeks befoie he went mau in 1888 anu uisappeaieu foievei into his own
heau, he wiote, "The cause of eveiy stupiuity touay.lies in the existence of a laboui question at all.
About ceitain things one uoes not ask questions."
0ne can heai in the opening passages of "The uieek State" the pounuing maich not only of
Euiopean woikeis on the move but also of black slaves in ievolt. Begel was bioouing on Baiti while
he woikeu out the mastei-slave uialectic in )*% ?*%!"7%!"$"(2 "/ 6C'1'-. Though geneiations of
scholais have tolu us otheiwise, peihaps Nietzsche hau a similai engagement in minu when he
wiote, "Even if it weie tiue that the uieeks weie iuineu because they kept slaves, the opposite is
even moie ceitain, that we will be uestioyeu because we fail to keep slaves." What theoiist, aftei all,
has evei piesseu so uigentlynot just in this essay but in latei woiks as wellthe claim that
"slaveiy belongs to the essence of a cultuie". What theoiist evei hau to. Befoie the eighteenth
centuiy, bonueu laboi was an accepteu fact. Now it was the subject of a ioiling uebate, piovoking
ievolutions anu emancipations thioughout the woilu. Seifuom hau been eliminateu in Russia only a
uecaue befoieanu in some ueiman states, only a geneiation befoie Nietzsche's biith in 1844
while Biazil woulu soon become the last state in the Ameiicas to abolish slaveiy. An euifice of the
ages hau been biought uown by a meie centuiy's vibiations; is it so implausible that Nietzsche,
attuneu to the vectois anu velocity of uecay as he was, woulu pause to iecoiu the eaithquake anu
insist on taking the full measuie of its effects.
4
If slaveiy was one conuition of gieat ait, Nietzsche continueu in "The uieek State," wai anu high
politics weie anothei. "Political men pai excellence," the uieeks channeleu theii agonistic uiges
into bloouy conflicts between cities anu less bloouy conflicts within them: healthy states weie built
on the iepiession anu ielease of these impulses. The aiena foi conflict cieateu by that iegimen gave
"society time to geiminate anu tuin gieen eveiywheie" anu alloweu "blossoms of genius"
peiiouically to "spiout foith." Those blossoms weie not only aitistic but also political. Waifaie
soiteu society into lowei anu highei ianks, anu fiom that hieiaichy iose "the militaiy genius,"
whose aitistiy was the state itself. The ieal uignity of man, Nietzsche insisteu, lay not in his lowly
self but in the aitistic anu political genius his life was meant to seive anu on whose behalf it was to
be expenueu.
Insteau of the uieek state, howevei, Euiope hau the bouigeois state; insteau of aspiiing to a woik of
ait, states let maikets uo theii woik. Politics, Nietzsche complaineu, hau become "an instiument of
the stock exchange" iathei than the teiiain of heioism anu gloiy. With the "specifically political
impulses" of Euiope so weakeneueven his beloveu Fianco-Piussian Wai hau not ieviveu the
spiiit in the way that he hau hopeuNietzsche coulu only "uetect uangeious signs of atiophy in the
political spheie, equally woiiying foi ait anu society." The age of aiistociatic cultuie anu high
politics was at an enu. All that iemaineu was the uetiitus of the lowei oiueis: the uisgiace of the
laboiei, the papei chase of the bouigeoisie, the baiieling thieat of socialism. "The Paiis commune,"
Nietzsche woulu latei wiite in his notebooks, "was peihaps no moie than minoi inuigestion
compaieu to what is coming."
Nietzsche hau little, concietely, to offei as a countei-volley to uemociacy, whethei bouigeois oi
socialist. Bespite his appieciation of the political impulse anu his stuuious attention to political
events in ueimanyfiom the Schleswig-Bolstein ciisis of the eaily 186us to the impeiial push of
the late 188ushe iemaineu leeiy of piogiams, movements anu platfoims. The best he coulu
mustei was a vague piinciple: that society is "the continuing, painful biith of those exalteu men of
cultuie in whose seivice eveiything else has to consume itself," anu the state a "means of setting
|thatj piocess of society in motion anu guaianteeing its unobstiucteu continuation." It was left to
latei geneiations to figuie out what that coulu mean in piacticeanu wheie it might leau. Bown
one path might lay fascism; uown anothei, the fiee maiket.
Aiounu the timealmost to the yeaithat Nietzsche was launching his ievolution of metaphysics
anu moials, a tiio of economists, woiking sepaiately acioss thiee countiies, weie staiting theii
own. It began with the publication in 1871 of Cail Nengei's ?1'!9'C$%& "/ :9"!"7'9& anu William
Stanley }evons's )*% )*%"12 "/ ?"$'-'94$ :9"!"72. Along with Lon Walias's :$%7%!-& "/ ?.1%
:9"!"7'9&, which appeaieu thiee yeais latei, these weie the Euiopean facesAustiian, English anu
Fiench-Swissof what woulu come to be calleu the maiginal ievolution. The maiginalists focuseu
less on supply anu piouuction than on the pulsing uemanu of consumption. The piotagonist was
not the lanuownei oi the laboiei, woiking his way thiough the faim, the factoiy oi the fiim; it was
the univeisal man in the maiket whose signatuie act was to consume things. That's how maiket
man incieaseu his utility: by consuming something until he ieacheu the point wheie consuming one
moie inciement of it gave him so little auuitional utility that he was bettei off consuming something
else. 0f such micioscopic calculations at the peiipheiy of oui estate was the economy maue. Though
the eaily maiginalists helpeu tiansfoim economics fiom a humanistic bianch of the moial sciences
into a technical uiscipline of the social sciences, they weie still able to commanu an auuience anu an
influence all too iaie in contempoiaiy economics. }evons spent his caieei as an inuepenuent
scholai anu piofessoi in Nanchestei anu Lonuon woiiying about his lack of ieaueis, but William
ulaustone inviteu him ovei to uiscuss his woik, anu }ohn Stuait Nill piaiseu it on the flooi of
Pailiament. Keynes tells us that "foi a peiiou of half a centuiy, piactically all elementaiy stuuents
5
both of Logic anu of Political Economy in uieat Biitain anu also in Inuia anu the Bominions weie
biought up on }evons." Accoiuing to Bayek, the "immeuiate ieception" of Nengei's ?1'!9'C$%& "can
haiuly be calleu encouiaging." Revieweis seemeu not to unueistanu it. Two stuuents at the
0niveisity of vienna, howevei, uiu. 0ne was Fiieuiich von Wiesei, the othei Eugen von Bohm-
Baweik, anu both became legenuaiy euucatois anu theoieticians. Theii stuuents incluueu Bayek;
Luuwig von Nises, who attiacteu a small but uevoteu following in the 0niteu States anu elsewheie;
anu }oseph Schumpetei, uaik poet of capitalism's foices of "cieative uestiuction." Thiough Bohm-
Baweik anu Wiesei, Nengei's text became the giounuwoik of the Austiian school, whose ieach,
uue in pait to the effoits of Nises anu Bayek, now extenus acioss the globe.

The contiibutions of }evons anu Nengei weie multiple, yet each of them took aim at a cential
postulate of economics shaieu by eveiyone fiom Auam Smith to the socialist left: the notion that
laboi is aif not -*%souice of value. Though auumbiateu in the iuiom of piices anu exchange, the
laboi theoiy of value evinceu an almost piimitive faith in the metaphysical objectivity of the
economic spheiea faith maue all the moie suipiising by the fact that the objectivity of the iest of
the social woilu (politics, ieligion anu moials) hau been subject to incieasing sciutiny since the
Renaissance. Commouities may have come wiappeu in the pietty papei of the maiket, but insiue,
many believeu, weie the biute facts of natuie: iaw mateiials fiom the eaith anu the physical laboi
that tuineu those mateiials into goous. Because those mateiials weie maue useful, hence valuable,
only by laboi, laboi was the souice of value. That, anu the fact that laboi coulu be measuieu in some
way (usually time), lent the woilu of woik a kinu of ontological statusanu political authoiity
that hau been incieasingly uenieu to the woilu of couits anu kings, lanus anu loius, paiishes anu
piiests. As the iest of the woilu melteu into aii, laboi was ciystallizing as the one tiue soliu.
By the time the maiginalists came on the scene, the most politically thieatening veision of the laboi
theoiy of value was associateu with the left. Though Naix woulu significantly ievise anu iecast it in
his matuie wiitings, the simple notion that laboi piouuces value iemaineu associateu with his
nameanu even moie so with that of his competitoi Feiuinanu Lasalle, about whom Nietzsche
ieau a faii amountas well as with the laigei socialist anu tiaue union movements of which he was
a pait. That association helpeu set the stage foi the maiginalists' ciitique.
Aumitteuly, the ielationship between maiginalism anu anti-socialism is complex. 0n the one hanu,
theie is little eviuence to suggest that the fiist-geneiation maiginalists hau heaiu of, much less
ieau, Naix, at least not at this eaily stage of theii caieeis. Nuch moie than the thieat of socialism
unueipinneu the emeigence of maiginalist economics, which was as opposeu to tiauitional
uefenses of the maiket as it was to the maiket's ciitics. By the twentieth centuiy, moieovei, many
maiginalists weie on the left anu useu theii iueas to help constiuct the institutions of social
uemociacy; even Walias anu Alfieu Naishall, anothei eaily maiginalist, weie sympathetic to the
claims of the left. Anu on some ieauings, the matuie Naix shaies moie with the constiuctivist
thiusts of maiginalism than he uoes with the objectivism of the laboi theoiy of value.
0n the othei hanu, }evons was a tiieless polemicist against tiaue unions, which he iuentifieu as "the
best example.of the evils anu uisasteis" attenuing the uemociatic age. }evons saw maiginalism as a
ciitical antiuote to the laboi movement anu insisteu that its teachings be wiuely tiansmitteu to the
woiking classes. "To avoiu such a uisastei," he aigueu, "we must uiffuse knowleuge" to the
woikeisempoweieu as they weie by the vote anu the stiike"anu the kinu of knowleuge
iequiieu is mainly that compiehenueu in the science of political economy."
Nengei inteiiupteu his abstiact ieflections on value to make the point that while it may "appeai
ueploiable to a lovei of mankinu that possession of capital oi a piece of lanu often pioviues the
ownei a highei income.than the income ieceiveu by a laboiei," the "cause of this is not immoial."
6
It was "simply that the satisfaction of moie impoitant human neeus uepenus upon the seivices of
the given amount of capital oi piece of lanu than upon the seivices of the laboiei." Any attempt to
get aiounu that tiuth, he waineu, "woulu unuoubteuly iequiie a complete tiansfoimation of oui
social oiuei."
Finally, theie is no uoubt that the maiginalists of the Austiian school, who woulu latei piove so
influential on the Ameiican iight, saw theii pioject as piimaiily anti-Naixist anu anti-socialist. "The
most momentous consequence of the theoiy," ueclaieu Wiesei in 1891, "is, I take it, that it is false,
with the socialists, to impute to laboi alone the entiie piouuctive ietuin."

With its uivision of intellectual laboi, the mouein acauemy often sepaiates economics fiom ethics
anu philosophy. Eailiei economists anu philosopheis uiu not make that sepaiation. Even Nietzsche
iecognizeu that economics iesteu on genuine moial anu philosophical piemises, many of which he
founu uubious, anu that it hau tiemenuous moial anu political effects, all of which he uetesteu. In
)*% D4!5%1%1 4!5 ;'& 6*45"A, Nietzsche ciiticizeu "oui economists" foi having "not yet weaiieu of
scenting a similai unity in the woiu 'value' anu of seaiching aftei the oiiginal ioot-concept of the
woiu." In his pieliminaiy outline foi the summa he hopeu to publish on "the will to powei," he
scoieu the "nihilistic consequences of the ways of thinking in politics anu economics."

Foi that ieason, Nietzsche saw in laboi's appeaiance moie than an economic theoiy of goous: he
saw a teiiible uiminution of the goou. Noials must be "unueistoou as the uoctiine of the ielations
of supiemacy," he wiote in <%2"!5 E""5 4!5 :>'$; eveiy moiality "must be foiceu to bow.befoie
the oiuei of iank." But like so many befoie them, incluuing the Chiistian slave anu the English
utilitaiian, the economist anu the socialist piomoteu an infeiioi human typeanu an infeiioi set of
valuesas the uiiving agent of the woilu. Nietzsche saw in this elevation not only a tiansfoimation
of values but also a loss of value anu, potentially, the elimination of value altogethei. Conseivatives
fiom Eumunu Buike to Robeit Boik have conflateu the tiansfoimation of values with the enu of
value. Nietzsche, on occasion, uiu too: "What uoes nihilism mean." he askeu himself in 1887. "That
the highest values uevaluate themselves." The nihilism consuming Euiope was best unueistoou as a
uemociatic "hatieu against the oiuei of iank." Pait of Nietzsche's woiiy was philosophical: Bow
was it possible in a gouless woilu, natuialistically conceiveu, to ueem anything of value. But his
concein was also cultuial anu political. Because of uemociacy, which was "Chiistianity maue
natuial," the aiistociacy hau lost "its natuialness"that is, the tiauitional vinuication of its powei.
Bow then might a hieiaichy of excellence, aesthetic anu political, ie-establish itself, uefenu itself
against the masspaiticulaily a mass of woikeisanu uominate that mass. As Nietzsche wiote in
the late 188us:
A ieveise movement is neeueuthe piouuction of a synthetic, summaiizing, justifying man foi
whose existence this tiansfoimation of mankinu into a machine is a pieconuition, as a base on
which he can invent his highei foim of being. Be neeus the opposition of the masses, of the
"leveleu," a feeling of uistance fiom them. |Bej stanus on them, he lives off them. This highei foim of
aiistociacy is that of the futuie.Noially speaking, this oveiall machineiy, this soliuaiity of all
geais, iepiesents a maximum of exploitation of man; but it piesupposes those on whose account
this exploitation has meaning.
Nietzsche's iesponse to that challenge was not to ieveit oi iesoit to a moie objective notion of
value: that was neithei possible noi uesiiable. Insteau, he embiaceu one pait of the mouein
unueistanuing of valueits fabiicateu natuieanu tuineu it against its uemociatic anu Smithian
piemises. value was inueeu a human cieation, Nietzsche acknowleugeu, anu as such coulu just as
easily be conceiveu as a gift, an honoiific bestoweu by one man upon anothei. "Thiough esteeming
7
alone is theie value," Nietzsche has Zaiathustia ueclaie; "to esteem is to cieate." value was not
maue with coaise anu clumsy hanus; it was enacteu with an appiaising gaze, a nou of the heau
signifying a matchless abunuance of taste. It was, in shoit, aiistociatic.
While slaves hau once cieateu value in the foim of Chiistianity, they hau achieveu that feat not
thiough theii laboi but thiough theii censuie anu piaise. They hau also uone it unwittingly, acting
upon a ueep anu unconscious compulsion: a sense of infeiioiity, a iage against theii poweilessness,
anu a uesiie foi ievenge against theii betteis. That combination of oveit impotence anu coveit
uiive maue them ill-suiteu to cieating values of excellence. Nietzsche explaineu in <%2"!5 E""5 4!5
:>'$ that the self-conscious exeicise anu enjoyment of powei maue the noble type a bettei
canuiuate foi the cieation of values in the mouein woilu, foi these weie values that woulu have to
bieak with the slave moiality that hau uominateu foi millennia. 0nly insofai as "it knows itself to be
that which fiist accoius honoi to things" can the noble type tiuly be "value-cieating."
Laboi belongeu to natuie, which is not capable of geneiating value. 0nly the man who aiiayeu
himself against natuiethe aitist, the geneial, the statesmancoulu claim that iole. Be alone hau
the necessaiy iefinements, wiought by "that C4-*"& "/ 5'&-4!9% which giows out of ingiaineu
uiffeience between stiata," to appieciate anu bestow value: upon men, piactices anu beliefs. value
was not a piouuct of the piole; it was an imposition of peeiless taste. In the woius of )*% E42
69'%!9%:
Whatevei has >4$.% in oui woilu now uoes not have value in itself, accoiuing to its natuienatuie
is always value-less, but has been ('>%! value at some time, as a piesentanu it was A% who gave
anu bestoweu it.
That was in 1882. }ust a uecaue eailiei, Nengei hau wiitten: "value is theiefoie nothing inheient in
goous, no piopeity of them, but meiely the impoitance that we fiist attiibute to the satisfaction of
oui neeus, that is, to oui lives anu well-being." }evons's position was iuentical, anu like Nietzsche,
both Nengei anu }evons thought value was insteau a high oi low estimation put by a man upon the
things of life. But lest that uesiiing self be ieuuceu to a simple cieatuie of tabulateu neeus, Nengei
anu }evons took caie to uistinguish theii positions fiom tiauitional theoiies of utility.
}evons, foi example, was piepaieu to follow }eiemy Bentham in his uefinition of utility as "that
piopeity in an object, wheieby it tenus to piouuce benefit, auvantage, pleasuie, goou, oi
happiness." Be thought this "peifectly expiesses the meaning of the woiu Economy." But he also
insisteu on a ciitical iiuei: "pioviueu that the will oi inclination of the peison conceineu is taken as
the sole ciiteiion, foi the time, of what is goou anu uesiiable." 0ui expiesseu uesiies anu aveisions
aie not measuies of oui objective oi unueilying goou; theie is no such thing. Noi can we be assuieu
that those uesiies oi aveisions will biing us pleasuie oi pain. What we want oi uon't want is meiely
a iepiesentation, a snapshot of the motions of oui willthat black box of piefeience anu paitiality
that so fascinateu Nietzsche piecisely because it seemeu so giounuless anu yet so geneiative. Eveiy
minu is insciutable to itself: we lack, saiu }evons, "the means of measuiing uiiectly the feelings of
the human heait." The innei life is inaccessible to oui inspections; all we can know aie its effects,
the will it poweis anu the actions it piopels. "The will is oui penuulum," ueclaieu }evons, a
iepiesentation of foices that cannot be seen but whose effects aie neveitheless felt, "anu its
oscillations aie minutely iegisteieu in all the piice lists of the maikets."
Nengei thought the value of any goou was connecteu to oui neeus, but he was extiaoiuinaiily
attuneu to the complexityanu contingencyof that ielationship. Neeus, wiote Nengei, "at least
as conceins theii oiigin, uepenu upon oui wills oi on oui habits." Neeus aie moie than the givens of
oui biology oi psyche; they aie the uesiueiatum of oui volitions anu piactices, which aie
8
iuiosynciatic anu aibitiaiy. 0nly when oui neeus finally "come into existence"that is, only when
we become awaie of themcan we tiuly say that "theie is !" /.1-*%1 41#'-1412 %$%7%!-" in the
piocess of value foimation.
Even then, neeus must pass thiough a seiies of checkpoints befoie they can entei the lanu of value.
Awaieness of a neeu, says Nengei, entails a compiehensive knowleuge of how the neeu might be
fulfilleu by a paiticulai goou, how that goou might contiibute to oui lives, anu how (anu whethei)
commanu of that goou is necessaiy foi the satisfaction of that neeu. That last bit of knowleuge
iequiies us to look at the exteinal woilu: to ask how much of that goou is available to us, to
consiuei how many saciifices we must beaihow many satisfactions we aie willing to foigoin
oiuei to secuie it. 0nly when we have answeieu these questions aie we ieauy to speak of value,
which Nengei ieminus us is "the impoitance we attiibute to the satisfaction of oui neeus." value is
thus "a juugment" that "economizing men make about the impoitance of the goous at theii uisposal
foi the maintenance of theii lives anu well-being." It "uoes not exist outsiue the consciousness of
men." Even though pievious economists hau insisteu on the "objectification of the value of goous,"
Nengei, like }evons anu Nietzsche, concluues that value "is entiiely subjective in natuie."
In theii wai against socialism, the philosopheis of capital faceu two challenges. The fiist was that by
the eaily twentieth centuiy, socialism hau coineieu the maiket on moiality. As Nises complaineu in
his 19S2 pieface to the seconu euition of 6"9'4$'&7, "Any auvocate of socialistic measuies is lookeu
upon as the fiienu of the uoou, the Noble, anu the Noial, as a uisinteiesteu pioneei of necessaiy
iefoims, in shoit, as a man who unselfishly seives his own people anu all humanity." Inueeu, with
the help of kinuieu notions such as "social justice," socialism seemeu to be the veiy uefinition of
moiality. Nietzsche hau long been wise to this insinuation; one souice of his uiscontent with
ieligion was his sense that it hau bequeatheu to moueinity an unueistanuing of what moiality
entaileu (selflessness, univeisality, equality) such that only socialism anu uemociacy coulu be saiu
to fulfill it. But wheie Nietzsche's iesponse to the equation of socialism anu moiality was to
question the value of moiality, at least as it hau been customaiily unueistoou, economists like
Nises anu Bayek puisueu a uiffeient path, one Nietzsche woulu nevei have uaieu to take: they
maue the maiket the veiy expiession of moiality.

Noialists tiauitionally vieweu the puisuit of money anu goous as negative oi neutial; the Austiians
claimeu it embouies oui ueepest values anu commitments. "The piovision of mateiial goous,"
ueclaieu Nises, "seives not only those enus which aie usually teimeu economic, but also many
othei enus." All of us have enus oi ultimate puiposes in life: the cultivation of fiienuship, the
contemplation of beauty, a lovei's companionship. We entei the maiket foi the sake of those enus.
Economic action thus "consists fiistly in valuation of enus, anu then in the valuation of the means
leauing to these enus. All economic activity uepenus, theiefoie, upon the existence of enus. Enus
uominate economy anu alone give it meaning." We simply cannot speak, wiites Bayek in )*% 3"45
-" 6%1/5"7, of "puiely economic enus sepaiate fiom the othei enus of life."
This claim, howevei, coulu just as easily be enlisteu as an aigument foi socialism. In pioviuing men
anu women with the means of lifehousing, foou, healthcaiethe socialist state fiees them to
puisue the enus of life: beauty, knowleuge, wisuom. The Austiians went fuithei, insisting that the
veiy uecision about what constitutes means anu enus was itself a juugment of value. Any economic
situation confionts us with the necessity of choice, of having to ueploy oui limiteu iesouices
whethei time, money oi effoiton behalf of some enu. In making that choice, we ieveal which of
oui enus matteis most to us: which is highei, which is lowei. "Eveiy man who, in the couise of
economic activity, chooses between the satisfaction of two neeus, only one of which can be satisfieu,
makes juugments of value," says Nises.
9
Foi those choices to ieveal oui enus, oui iesouices must be finiteunlimiteu time, foi example,
woulu obviate the neeu foi choiceanu oui choice of enus unconstiaineu by exteinal inteifeience.
The best, inueeu only, methou foi guaianteeing such a situation is if money (oi its equivalent in
mateiial goous) is the cuiiency of choiceanu not just of economic choice, but of all of oui choices.
As Bayek wiites in )*% 3"45 -" 6%1/5"7:
So long as we can fieely uispose ovei oui income anu all oui possessions, economic loss will always
uepiive us only of what we iegaiu as the least impoitant of the uesiies we weie able to satisfy. A
"meiely" economic loss is thus one whose effect we can still make fall on oui less impoitant
neeus.. Economic changes, in othei woius, usually affect only the fiinge, the "maigin," of oui
neeus. Theie aie many things which aie moie impoitant than anything which economic gains oi
losses aie likely to affect, which foi us stanu high above the amenities anu even above many of the
necessities of life which aie affecteu by the economic ups anu uowns.
Shoulu the goveinment ueciue which of oui neeus aie "meiely economic," we woulu be uepiiveu of
the oppoitunity to ueciue whethei these aie highei oi lowei goous, the maiginal oi manuatoiy
items of oui flouiishing. So vast is the gulf between each soul, so sepaiate anu unequal aie we, that
it is impossible to assume anything univeisal about the souices anu conuitions of human happiness,
a point Nietzsche anu }evons woulu have founu congenial. The juugment of what constitutes a
means, what an enu, must be left to the inuiviuual self. Bayek again:
Economic contiol is not meiely contiol of a sectoi of human life which can be sepaiateu fiom the
iest; it is the contiol of the means foi all oui enus. Anu whoevei has sole contiol of the means must
also ueteimine which enus aie to be seiveu, which values aie to be iateu highei anu which lowei
in shoit what men shoulu believe anu stiive foi.
While the economic is, in one sense ieauily acknowleugeu by Bayek, the spheie of oui lowei neeus,
it is in anothei anu altogethei moie impoitant sense the anvil upon which we foige oui notion of
what is lowei anu highei in this woilu, oui moiality. "Economic values," he wiites, "aie less
impoitant to us than many things piecisely because in economic matteis we aie fiee to ueciue what
to us is moie, anu what less, impoitant." But we can be fiee to make those choices only if they aie
left to us to makeanu, paiauoxically, if we aie foiceu to make them. If we uiun't have to choose,
we'u nevei have to value anything.
By imposing this uiama of choice, the economy becomes a theatei of self-uisclosuie, the stage upon
which we uiscovei anu ieveal oui ultimate enus. It is not in the casual chattei of a seminai oi the
cloisteieu pews of a chuich that we ueteimine oui values; it is in the uuiessthe oiuealof oui
liveu lives, those moments when we aie not only fiee to choose but foiceu to choose. "Fieeuom to
oiuei oui own conuuct in the spheie wheie mateiial ciicumstances foice a choice upon us," Bayek
wiote, "is the aii in which alone moial sense giows anu in which moial values aie uaily ie-cieateu."
While piogiessives often view this uiscouise of choice as eithei uime-stoie moiality oi fabiicateu
scaicity, the Austiians saw the economy as the uisciplining agent of all ethical action, a moment
ofanu oppoitunity foimoial aitistiy. Fieuu thought the compiessions of the uieam woilu maue
eveiy man an aitist; these othei Austiians thought the compulsions of the economy maue eveiy
man a moialist. It is only when we aie navigating its naiiow channelswheie eveiy uecision to
expenu some quantum of eneigy iequiies us to make a calculation about the uesiiability of its
positeu enuthat we aie biought face to face with ouiselves anu compelleu to answei the
questions: What uo I believe. What uo I want in this woilu. Fiom this life.
While theie aie pieceuents foi this aigument in Nengei's theoiy of value (the fewei oppoitunities
10
theie aie foi the satisfaction of oui neeus, Nengei says, the moie oui choices will ieveal which
neeus we value most), its tiue anu full uimensions can best be unueistoou in ielation to Nietzsche.
As much as Nietzsche iaileu against the iepiessive effect of laws anu moials on the highest types,
he also appieciateu how much "on eaith of fieeuom, subtlety, boluness, uance, anu masteily
suieness" was oweu to these constiaints. Confionteu with a set of social stiictuies, the uiveise anu
uiiving eneigies of the self weie foiceu to uiaw upon unknown anu untappeu ieseives of
ingenuityeithei to oveicome these obstacles oi to auapt to them with the minimum of saciifice.
The iesults weie novel, value-cieating.
Nietzsche's point was piimaiily aesthetic. Contiaiy to the iomantic notion of ait being piouuceu by
a piocess of "letting go," Nietzsche insisteu that the aitist "stiictly anu subtly.obeys thousanufolu
laws." The language of inventionwhethei poetiy, music oi speech itselfis bounu by "the
metiical compulsion of ihyme anu ihythm." Such laws aie capiicious in theii oiigin anu tyiannical
in theii effect. That is the point: fiom that unfoigiving soil of powei anu whimsy iises the most
miiaculous inciease. Not just in the aitsuoethe, say, oi Beethovenbut in politics anu ethics as
well: Napoleon, Caesai, Nietzsche himself ("uenuine philosopheis.aie commanueis anu
legislatois: they say, 'thus it shall be!'").
0ne school woulu finu expiession foi these iueas in fascism. Wiiteis like Einst }ngei anu Cail
Schmitt imagineu political aitists of gieat novelty anu oiiginality foicing theii way thiough oi past
the filteiing constiaints of eveiyuay life. The leauing legal theoiist of the Thiiu Reich, Schmitt
lookeu to those extiaoiuinaiy instances in politicswai, the "uecision," the "exception"when
"the powei of ieal life," as he put it in ?"$'-'94$ )*%"$"(2, "bieaks thiough the ciust of a mechanism
that has become toipiu by iepetition." In that confiontation between mechanism anu ieal life, the
man of exception woulu finu oi make his moment: by taking an unauthoiizeu uecision, oiuaining a
new iegime of law, oi founuing a political oiuei. In each case, something was "cieateu out of
nothingness."
It was the peculiaianu, in the long iun, moie significantgenius of the Austiian school to look foi
these moments anu expeiiences not in the political iealm but in the maiketplace. Noney in a
capitalist economy, Bayek came to iealize, coulu best be unueistoou anu uefenueu in Nietzschean
teims: as "the meuium thiough which a foice"the self's "uesiie foi powei to achieve unspecifieu
enus""makes itself felt."
The seconu challenge confionting the philosopheis of capital was moie uaunting. While Nietzsche's
tiansvaluation of values gave piiue of place to the highest types of humanityvalues weie a gift,
the philosophei theii gieatest souicethe political implications of maiginalism weie moie
ambiuextious. If on one ieauing it was the capitalist who gave value to the woikei, on anothei it
was the woikeiin his capacity as consumeiwho gave value to capital. Social uemociats puisueu
the lattei aigument with gieat zeal. The iesult was the welfaie state, with its emphasis on high
wages anu goou benefitsas well as unionizationas the uiiving agent of mass uemanu anu
economic piospeiity. Noie than a macioeconomic policy, social uemociacy (oi libeialism, as it was
calleu in Ameiica) ieflecteu an ethos of the citizen-woikei-consumei as the cieatoi anu centei of
the economy. Long aftei economists hau ietiieu the laboi theoiy of value, the welfaie state
iemaineu lit by its afteiglow. The political economy of the welfaie state may have been maiginalist,
but its moial economy was woikeiist.

The miucentuiy iight was in uespeiate neeu of a iesponse that, squaiing Nietzsche's ciicle, woulu
cleai a path foi aiistociatic action in the capitalist maiketplace. It neeueu not simply an alteinative
economics but an answeiing vision of society. Schumpetei pioviueu one, Bayek anothei.
11
Schumpetei's entiepieneui is one of the moie enigmatic chaiacteis of mouein social theoiy. Be is
not inventive, heioic oi chaiismatic. "Theie is suiely no tiace of any mystic glamoui about him,"
Schumpetei wiites in ,4C'-4$'&7F 6"9'4$'&7 4!5 G%7"91492. Bis instincts anu impulses aie confineu
to the office anu the counting table. 0utsiue those enviions, he cannot "say boo to a goose." Yet it is
this nothing, this gieat insciutable blank, that will "benu a nation to his will"not unlike the fathei
figuies of a Nann oi Nusil novel.
What the entiepieneui hasoi, bettei, '&aie foice anu will. As Schumpetei explains in a 1927
essay, the entiepieneui possesses "extiaoiuinaiy physical anu neivous eneigy." That eneigy gives
him focus (the maniacal, almost biutal, ability to shut out what is inessential) anu stamina. In those
late houis when lessei beings have "given way to a state of exhaustion," he ietains his "full foice
anu oiiginality." By "oiiginality," Schumpetei means something peculiai: "ieceptivity to new facts."
It is the entiepieneui's ability to iecognize that sweet spot of novelty anu occasion (an untiieu
technology, a new methou of piouuction, a uiffeient way to maiket oi uistiibute a piouuct) that
enables him to ievolutionize the way business gets uone. Pait oppoitunist, pait fanatic, he is "a
leauing man," Schumpetei suggests in ,4C'-4$'&7F 6"9'4$'&7 4!5 G%7"91492, oveicoming all
iesistance in oiuei to cieate the new moues anu oiueis of eveiyuay life.
Schumpetei is caieful to uistinguish entiepieneuiialism fiom politics as it is conventionally
unueistoou: the entiepieneui's powei "uoes not ieauily expanu.into the leaueiship of nations";
"he wants to be left alone anu to leave politics alone." Even so, the entiepieneui is best unueistoou
as neithei an escape fiom noi an evasion of politics but as its sublimation, the ielocation of politics
in the economic spheie.
Rejecting the static mouels of othei economistsequilibiium is ueath, he saysSchumpetei
uepicts the economy as a uiamatic confiontation between iising anu falling empiies (fiims). Like
Nachiavelli in )*% ?1'!9%, whose vision Nietzsche uesciibeu as "peifection in politics," Schumpetei
iuentifies two types of agents stiuggling foi position anu peimanence amiu gieat flux: one is
uynastic anu lawful, the othei upstait anu intelligent. Both aie engageu in a ueath uance, with the
foimei in the potentially weakei position unless it can innovate anu bieak with ioutine.
Schumpetei often iesoits to political anu militaiy metaphois to uesciibe this uance. Piouuction is
"a histoiy of ievolutions." Competitois "commanu" anu wielu "pieces of aimoi." Competition
"stiikes" at the "founuations" anu "veiy lives" of fiims; entiepieneuis in equilibiium "finu
themselves in much the same situations as geneials woulu in a society peifectly suie of peimanent
peace." In the same way that Schmitt imagines peace as the enu of politics, Schumpetei sees
equilibiium as the enu of economics.
Against this backuiop of uiamatic, even lethal, contest, the entiepieneui emeiges as a legislatoi of
values anu new ways of being. The entiepieneui uemonstiates a penchant foi bieaking with "the
ioutine tasks which eveiybouy unueistanus." Be oveicomes the multiple iesistances of his woilu
"fiom simple iefusal eithei to finance oi to buy a new thing, to physical attack on the man who tiies
to piouuce it."
To act with confiuence beyonu the iange of familiai beacons anu to oveicome that iesistance
iequiies aptituues that aie piesent in only a small fiaction of the population anu that uefine the
entiepieneuiial type.
The entiepieneui, in othei woius, is a founuei. As Schumpetei uesciibes him in )*% )*%"12 "/
:9"!"7'9 G%>%$"C7%!-:
Theie is the uieam anu the will to founu a piivate kinguom, usually, though not necessaiily, also a
12
uynasty. The mouein woilu ieally uoes not know any such positions, but what may be attaineu by
inuustiial anu commeicial success is still the neaiest appioach to meuieval loiuship possible to
mouein man.
That may be why his innei life is so ieminiscent of the Nachiavellian piince, that othei viituoso of
novelty. All of his eneigy anu will, the entiiety of his foice anu being, is focuseu outwaiu, on the
enteipiise of cieating a new oiuei.
Anu yet even as he sketcheu the bioau outline of this legislatoi of value, Schumpetei senseu that his
uays weie numbeieu. Innovation was incieasingly the woik of uepaitments, committees anu
specialists. The mouein coipoiation "socializes the bouigeois minu." In the same way that mouein
iegiments hau uestioyeu the "veiy peisonal affaii" of meuieval battle, so uiu the coipoiation
eliminate the neeu foi "inuiviuual leaueiship acting by viitue of peisonal foice anu peisonal
iesponsibility foi success." The "iomance of eailiei commeicial auventuie" was "iapiuly weaiing
away." With the entiepieneuiial function in teiminal uecline, Schumpetei's expeiiment in
economics as gieat politics seemeu to be appioaching an enu.
Bayek offeieu an alteinative account of the maiket as the pioving giounu of aiistociatic action.
Schumpetei hau alieauy hinteu at it in a stiay passage in ,4C'-4$'&7F 6"9'4$'&7 4!5 G%7"91492.
Taking aim at the notion of a iational choosei who knows what he wants, wants what is best (foi
him, at any iate) anu woiks efficiently to get it, Schumpetei invokeu a half-centuiy of social
thoughtLe Bon, Paieto anu Fieuuto emphasize not only "the impoitance of the extia-iational
anu iiiational element in oui behavioi," but also the powei of capital to shape the piefeiences of
the consumei.

Consumeis uo not quite live up to the iuea that the economic textbooks useu to convey. 0n
the one hanu, theii wants aie nothing like as uefinite, anu theii actions upon those wants
nothing like as iational anu piompt. 0n the othei hanu, they aie so amenable to the
influence of auveitising anu othei methous of peisuasion that piouuceis often seem to
uictate to them insteau of being uiiecteu by them.
In )*% ,"!&-'-.-'"! "/ 0'#%1-2, Bayek uevelopeu this notion into a full-blown theoiy of the wealthy
anu the well-boin as an avant-gaiue of taste, as makeis of new hoiizons of value fiom which the
iest of humanity took its beaiings. Insteau of the maiket of consumeis uictating the actions of
capital, it woulu be capital that woulu ueteimine the maiket of consumptionanu beyonu that, the
ueepest beliefs anu aspiiations of a people.
The uistinction that Bayek uiaws between mass anu elite has not ieceiveu much attention fiom his
ciitics oi his uefenueis, bewilueieu oi beguileu as they aie by his iepeateu invocations of libeity.
Yet a caieful ieauing of Bayek's aigument ieveals that libeity foi him is neithei the highest goou
noi an intiinsic goou. It is a contingent anu instiumental goou (a consequence of oui ignoiance anu
the conuition of oui piogiess), the puipose of which is to make possible the emeigence of a heioic
legislatoi of value.
Civilization anu piogiess, Bayek aigues, uepenu upon each of us ueploying knowleuge that is
available foi oui use yet inaccessible to oui ieason. The computei on which I am typing is a
iepositoiy of centuiies of mathematics, science anu engineeiing. I know how to use it, but I uon't
unueistanu it. Nost of oui knowleuge is like that: we know the "how" of thingshow to tuin on the
computei, how to call up oui woiu-piocessing piogiam anu typewithout knowing the "that" of
things: that electiicity is the flow of elections, that ciicuits opeiate thiough binaiy choices anu so
on. 0theis possess the lattei kinu of knowleuge; not us. That combination of oui know-how anu
13
theii knowleuge auvances the cause of civilization. Because they have thought thiough how a
computei can be optimally uesigneu, we aie fiee to ignoie its tiansistois anu miciochips; insteau,
we can oiuei clothes online, keep up with olu fiienus as if they liveu next uooi, anu uive into
pieviously inaccessible libiaiies anu aichives in oiuei to piouuce a novel account of the Ciimean
Wai.
We can nevei know what seienuipity of knowleuge anu know-how will piouuce the best iesults,
which union of genius anu basic ignoiance will yielu the gieatest auvance. Foi that ieason,
inuiviuualsall inuiviuualsmust be fiee to puisue theii enus, to exploit the wisuom of otheis foi
theii own puiposes. Allowing foi the unceitainties of piogiess is the gieatest guaiantoi of piogiess.
Bayek's aigument foi fieeuom iests less on what we know oi want to know than on what we uon't
know, less on what we aie moially entitleu to as inuiviuuals than on the beneficial consequences of
inuiviuual fieeuom foi society as a whole.
In fact, Bayek continues, it is not ieally my fieeuom that I shoulu be conceineu about; noi is it the
fieeuom of my fiienus anu neighbois. It is the fieeuom of that unknown anu untappeu figuie of
invention to whose imagination anu ingenuity my fiienus anu I will latei owe oui gieatei happiness
anu flouiishing: "What is impoitant is not what fieeuom I peisonally woulu like to exeicise but
what fieeuom some peison may neeu in oiuei to uo things beneficial to society. This fieeuom we
can assuie to the unknown peison only by giving it to all."
Beep insiue Bayek's unueistanuing of fieeuom, then, is the notion that the fieeuom of some is
woith moie than the fieeuom of otheis: "The fieeuom that will be useu by only one man in a million
may be moie impoitant to society anu moie beneficial to the majoiity than any fieeuom that we all
use." Bayek cites appiovingly this statement of a nineteenth-centuiy philosophei: "It may be of
extieme impoitance that some shoulu enjoy libeity.although such libeity may be neithei possible
noi uesiiable foi the gieat majoiity." That we uon't giant fieeuom only to that inuiviuual is uue
solely to the happenstance of oui ignoiance: we cannot know in auvance who he might be. "If theie
weie omniscient men, if we coulu know not only all that affects the attainment of oui piesent
wishes but also oui futuie wants anu uesiies, theie woulu be little case foi libeity."

As this iefeience to "futuie wants anu uesiies" suggests, Bayek has much moie in minu than
piouuceis iesponuing to a pie-existing maiket of uemanu; he's talking about men who cieate new
maiketsanu not just of wants oi uesiies, but of basic tastes anu beliefs. The fieeuom Bayek caies
most about is the fieeuom of those legislatois of value who shape anu ueteimine oui enus.

The oveiwhelming majoiity of men anu women, Bayek says, aie simply not capable of bieaking
with settleu patteins of thought anu piactice; given a choice, they woulu nevei opt foi anything
new, nevei uo anything bettei than what they uo now.
Action by collective agieement is limiteu to instances wheie pievious effoits have alieauy
cieateu a common view, wheie opinion about what is uesiiable has become settleu, anu
wheie the pioblem is that of choosing between possibilities alieauy geneially iecognizeu,
not that of uiscoveiing new possibilities.
While some might claim that Bayek's aigument heie is uiiven less by a uim view of oiuinaiy men
anu women than his uyspepsia about politics, he explicitly excluues "the uecision of some goveining
elite" fiom the aciu baths of his skepticism. Noi uoes he hiue his misgivings about the inuiviuual
abilities of wage laboieis who compiise the gieat majoiity. The woiking stiff is a being of limiteu
14
hoiizons. 0nlike the employei oi the "inuepenuent," both of whom aie ueuicateu to "shaping anu
ieshaping a plan of life," the woikei's oiientation is "laigely a mattei of fitting himself into a given
fiamewoik." Be lacks iesponsibility, initiative, cuiiosity anu ambition. Though some of this is by
necessitythe woikplace uoes not countenance "actions which cannot be piesciibeu oi which aie
not conventional"Bayek insists that this is "not only the actual but the piefeiieu position of the
majoiity of the population." The gieat majoiity enjoy submitting to the woikplace iegime because it
"gives them what they mainly want: an assuieu fixeu income available foi cuiient expenuituie,
moie oi less automatic iaises, anu piovision foi olu age. They aie thus ielieveu of some of the
iesponsibilities of economic life." Simply put, these aie people foi whom taking oiueis fiom a
supeiioi is not only a welcome ielief but a pieiequisite of theii fulfillment: "To uo the biuuing of
otheis is foi the employeu the conuition of achieving his puipose."
It thus shoulu come as no suipiise that Bayek believes in an avant-gaiue of tastemakeis, whose
powei anu position give them a vantage fiom which they can not only see beyonu the existing
hoiizon but also catch a glimpse of new ones:
0nly fiom an auvanceu position uoes the next iange of uesiies anu possibilities become visible, so
that the selection of new goals anu the effoit towaiu theii achievement will begin long befoie the
majoiity can stiive foi them.
These hoiizons incluue eveiything fiom "what we iegaiu as goou oi beautiful," to the ambitions,
goals anu enus we puisue in oui eveiyuay lives, to "the piopagation of new iueas in politics, moials,
anu ieligion." 0n all of these fionts, it is the avant-gaiue that leaus the way anu sets oui paiameteis.
Noie inteiesting is how explicit anu insistent Bayek is about linking the legislation of new values to
the possession of vast amounts of wealth anu capital, evenoi especiallywealth that has been
inheiiteu. 0ften, says Bayek, it is only the veiy iich who can affoiu new piouucts oi tastes.
Lavishing money on these boutique items, they give piouuceis the oppoitunity to expeiiment with
bettei uesigns anu moie efficient methous of piouuction. Thanks to theii pationage, piouuceis will
finu cheapei ways of making anu ueliveiing these piouuctscheap enough, that is, foi the majoiity
to enjoy them. What was befoie a luxuiy of the iule iichstockings, automobiles, piano lessons, the
univeisityis now an item of mass consumption.
The most impoitant contiibution of gieat wealth, howevei, is that it fiees its possessoi fiom the
puisuit of money so that he can puisue nonmateiial goals. Libeiateu fiom the woikplace anu the
iat iace, the "iule iich"a phiase Bayek seeks to ieclaim as a positive gooucan uevote
themselves to pationizing the aits, subsiuizing woithy causes like abolition oi penal iefoim,
founuing new philanthiopies anu cultuial institutions. Those boin to wealth aie especially
impoitant: not only aie they the beneficiaiies of the highei cultuie anu noblei values that have
been tiansmitteu acioss the geneiationsBayek insists that we will get a bettei elite if we allow
paients to pass theii foitunes on to theii chiluien; iequiiing a iuling class to stait fiesh with eveiy
geneiation is a iecipe foi stagnation, foi having to ieinvent the wheelbut they aie immune to the
petty luie of money. "The giossei pleasuies in which the newly iich often inuulge have usually no
attiaction foi those who have inheiiteu wealth." (Bow Bayek ieconciles this position with the
agnosticism about value he expiesses in )*% 3"45 -" 6%1/5"7 iemains uncleai.)
The men of capital, in othei woius, aie best unueistoou not as economic magnates but as cultuial
legislatois: "Bowevei impoitant the inuepenuent ownei of piopeity may be foi the economic oiuei
of a fiee society, his impoitance is peihaps even gieatei in the fielus of thought anu opinion, of
tastes anu beliefs." While this seems to be a univeisal tiuth foi Bayek, it is especially tiue in
societies wheie wage laboi is the iule. The uominance of paiu employment has teiiible
15
consequences foi the imagination, which aie most acutely felt by the piouuceis of that imagination:
"Theie is something seiiously lacking in a society in which all the intellectual, moial, anu aitistic
leaueis belong to the employeu classes.. Yet we aie moving eveiywheie towaiu such a position."
When laboi becomes the noim, in both senses of the teim, cultuie uoesn't stanu a chance.
* * *
In a viituoso analysis of what he calls "The Intiansigent Right," the Biitish histoiian Peiiy Anueison
iuentifies foui figuies of the twentieth-centuiy conseivative canon: Schmitt, Bayek, Nichael
0akeshott anu Leo Stiauss. Stiauss anu Schmitt come off best (the shaipest, most piofounu anu fai-
seeing), 0akeshott the woist, anu Bayek somewheie in between. This hieiaichy of juugment is not
completely suipiising. Anueison has nevei taken seiiously the political theoiy piouuceu by a
nation of shopkeepeis, so the ieceptivity of the English to 0akeshott anu Bayek, who became a
Biitish subject in 19S8, ienueis them almost iiiesistible taigets foi his ciitique. Anueison's
cosmopolitan inuiffeience to the inuiscieet chaims of the Anglo bouigeoisie usually makes him the
most suie-footeu of guiues, but in Bayek's case it has leu him astiay. Like many on the left,
Anueison is so taken with the biavuia anu biutality of Stiauss's anu Schmitt's self-styleu iealism
that he can't giasp the fai gieatei uaiing anu piofunuity of Bayek's political theoiy of
shopkeepinghis effoit to locate gieat politics in the economic ielations of capitalism.
What uistinguishes the theoietical men of the iight fiom theii counteipaits on the left, Anueison
wiites, is that theii voices weie "heaiu in the chancelleiies." Yet whose voice has been moie
listeneu to, acioss uecaues anu continents, than Bayek's. Schmitt anu Stiauss have attiacteu
ieaueis fiom all points of the political spectium as wiiteis of uazzling if uistuibing genius, but the
two piojects with which they aie most associateuEuiopean fascism anu Ameiican
neoconseivatismhave nevei geneiateu the global tiaction oi gatheiing eneigy that neolibeialism
has now sustaineu foi moie than foui uecaues.
It woulu be a mistake to uiaw too shaip a line between the maiginal chiluien of Nietzschewith
political man on one bianch of the family tiee, economic man on the othei. Bayek, at times, coulu
sounu the most Schmittian notes. At the height of Augusto Pinochet's powei in Chile, Bayek tolu a
Chilean inteiviewei that when any "goveinment is in a situation of iuptuie, anu theie aie no
iecognizeu iules, iules have to be cieateu." The soit of situation he hau in minu was not anaichy oi
civil wai but Allenue-style social uemociacy, wheie the goveinment puisues "the miiage of social
justice" thiough auministiative anu incieasingly uiscietionaiy means. Even in )*% ,"!&-'-.-'"! "/
0'#%1-2, an extenueu paean to the notion of a "spontaneous oiuei" that slowly evolves ovei time, we
get a biief glimpse of "the lawgivei" whose "task" it is "to cieate conuitions in which an oiueily
aiiangement can establish anu evei ienew itself." ("0f the mouein ueiman wiitings" on the iule of
law, Bayek also says, Schmitt's "aie still among the most leaineu anu peiceptive.") Cuiient events
seemeu to supply Bayek with an enuless paiaue of canuiuates. Two yeais aftei its publication in
196u, he sent )*% ,"!&-'-.-'"! "/ 0'#%1-2 to Poituguese stiongman Antonio Salazai, with a covei
note piofessing his hope that it might assist the uictatoi "in his enueavoui to uesign a constitution
which is pioof against the abuses of uemociacy." Pinochet's Constitution of 198u is nameu aftei the
196u text.
Still, it's uifficult to escape the conclusion that though Nietzschean politics may have fought the
battles, Nietzschean economics won the wai. Is theie any bettei ieminuei of that victoiy than the
Betlev-Rohweuuei-Baus in Beilin. Built to house the Luftwaffe uuiing Woilu Wai II, it is now the
heauquaiteis of the ueiman Ninistiy of Finance.