Search

In her 2019 book I The Morals of the Market: Human Rights and the Rise of Neoliberalism i , Jessica Whyte investigates 'the historical and conceptual relations between human rights and neoliberalism'.[1] To undertake this investigation, Whyte returns to the 1940s to trace the way in which the post-war neoliberal thinkers of the Mont Pèlerin Society "mobilised and developed"[2] a language of human rights as a way to serve their own ends. But what was really important was that they didn't just conceptualise human rights in individualistic terms; they made an argument that human rights were not natural rights, that human rights actually had only emerged on the basis of liberal market capitalism and therefore if liberal markets disappeared, human rights would disappear too. B SP: b It's interesting that at no point do you say that human rights is I necessarily i a companion to power, but ... maybe we can come back to that question at the end, as to whether human rights can be redeemed or not ... because I think there are some quite interesting political insights in the book, which bode ill for supporters of human rights. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on importance of socialist calculation with development and intellectual clarification of those strands of classical liberalism that would ultimately metamorphose into neoliberalism. It mentions systematic perversion of the relation between market demand and social needs and social waste in the form of ecological damage, contamination of waterways, ill health, and work injuries. It also mentions rise of economic planning with vision of civilizational development.

Friedrich Hayek repeatedly stressed the centrality of submission to his own account of spontaneous order. In what he depicted as the rationalist refusal to submit to anything beyond human comprehension, he saw a threat to the "spontaneous order" of a market society. Kyong-Min Son's criticism of my account of the neoliberal subject provides me with an opportunity to further specify my understanding of the submissive disposition of the Hayekian subject. In this brief reply, I defend the claim that Hayek saw the complexity and opacity of the market order as constraining the possibility of collective political intervention that aims to alter the outcomes of market competition. While Hayek theorized a subject who was actively invested in the competitive "game," the premise of this investment was submission to the rules of the market and acceptance of its outcomes as a form of fate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]