Often, when Austrian Economics or the Mises Institute is referenced in the media, it is in reference to AE being a religion, and the Mises Institute being a cult. I do not believe this. It sounds to me that the detractors simply cannot argue persuasively.
In the Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, Murray Rothbard describes a cult as follows: “Every religious cult has two sets of differing and distinctive creeds: the exoteric and the esoteric. The exoteric creed is the official, public doctrine, the creed which attracts the acolyte in the first place and brings him into the movement as a rank-and-file member. The quite different creed is the unknown, hidden agenda, a creed which is only known to its full extent by the top leadership, the “high priests” of the cult. The latter are the keepers of the Mysteries of the cult.”
My question is: What is the esoteric creed of the Mises Institute? Can someone assure me there is not one? Maybe someone can help me understand how the leaders at the Mises Institute are held accountable. Who are they accountable to?
The exoteric stuff: austrian business cycle theory, marginal utility, subjective value, praxeology, calculation problem of state socialism
esoteric stuff: we received all of these ideas from Beelzebub himself.
Seriously, though, I’ve not heard anyone refer to the Mises Institute as a cult. MI remains pretty civil for the most part. So there’s usually no sour grapes. Ayn Rand institute is less afraid to attack other groups… and had Greenspan among their members. So they get a lot of (usually untrue or stupid: like Greenspanism was some sort of Objectivist tenet) statements thrown at them from time to time.
The problem is a cult, by design, infringes on the weak minded and those who wan’t to follow. Mises and even the Ayn Rand Society are inspired by personal and individual motivation. Some people misinterupt the activsm and outspoken views of their followers as someone who is a fanatic. The remarkable thing about Mises, Rand, Libertarianism is we encourage debate and better ideas. A cult can’t be wrong, once it is it’s member lose faith. It’s funny the classic Kool-aid joke was made, because Jim Jones knew that his commune and it’s “policies” were falling apart when people wanted to leave. So he convinced his followers that still had faith to kill themselves.
Well, the problem with defining a cult that way is that that is what people do. ARI focused a lot more on Rand herself and on absolute certainty (they were even unafraid to say that she was a perfect person) rather than just allowing her ideas to be open source. So it circled around her. I think she had her justifications, rather than being malicious though. She believed heavily in intellectual property and thus the ownership of her ideas. And also in objective truth. Neither are that bad unto themselves (though I disagree about IP). But both are taken, sadly, as some sort of religion. Since people were so confident in the same way many religious people are: (even if usually they just stated harmless truisms like a=a or 2+2=4). It seems more of the “atheism = religion” deconstruction that gets tiring.
Mises is often attacked for having “unscientific” foundation. And so, in some twist of logic, a sort of mysticism. Even though there is science behind it and deductive logic is not that strange. There’s a lot of controversy I think because it is not quite so easy to approach Mises or Rothbard’s deductive principles. Especially when people are used to other traditions like positivism. This makes it not popular in academia and thus people shout past what Austrians say, often without reading him.
I asked about the accountability of the leadership at the Mises Institute. If that is “stupid”, then let the thread die or ask a Mod to delete it. Maybe the forum wasn’t the right place to ask this, but I have to learn about what is and what is not appropriate somehow, don’t I ? OK, I learned.
The accusers and reactionaries are really just “attacking” economics proper, since they are pissed at it being deductive and axiomatic. They want you to “value” their opinion. Let’s “agree to disagree”.
They get angry that their lies, fallacies and propaganda are constantly called out for what it is - bullshit.
So they call us “dogmatic” and a “cult”.
Anyone who knows anything about the intellectual movement though, realizes it’s anything but.
Care to say where have you seen this? The only economic systems I’ve seen mentioned in recent years are various forms of Socialism and Solidarism. Austrian Economics, Classical Liberalism etc have all but vanished from mainstream consciousness, both in the good and in the bad sense.
I am and will always be a faithful follower of freedom. Critques can call me whatever names they want! I will always adore maximum individual liberty. If that makes me faithful in the methodology of logic, than I am a true believer. Folks are not rats they are individuals. If the controller-planner-hater out there gets his kicks out on name calling than actual debate; he has already damned himself. The scary occultists are actually the etatists and their followers.
I believe in the Misesian view of the rebirth of classical liberalism.
Hmm, that’s interesting. We do have Mises Songs and we have had Mises singalongs. Also, I direct a choir on the side - chant and polyphonic music. Earmarks everywhere!