Hayek’s anti-union radicalism won out by silencing rival MPS views

Evidence

However, Hayek’s standpoint reflects only one side of the discussions that occurred in neoliberal circles during the 1950s. In the plurality of neoliberal viewpoints expressed on unions, Hayek opted for the most radical version, the one least tolerant of the very existence of unions. This was the version that scholars like Machlup and Petro, both former students of Mises, supported from 1947 to 1958. As this chapter has demonstrated, this view was fostered primarily in the American context and reflects the political and social interests of an ultraconservative fraction of employers, who regarded existing European practices with disdain. In opting for contempt, Hayek explicitly rejected another potential neoliberal position, which considered that a solidarity of interests between capital and labor could sometimes be appropriate and beneficial. The hostility to this alternative position went far beyond mere disputation over appropriate economic and social theory. Hayek felt it necessary to condemn those comrades who defended it and to describe such an alliance between employers and employees as “the crudest type of socialism, commonly known as syndicalism” (Hayek 1959, 292). In his Constitution of Liberty (chapter 19 on Labor Unions and Employment), Hayek simply omits neoliberal authors who were advocates of the alternative, only referring to “serious” neoliberal authors such as Machlup, Hutt, Petro, and Mises. From that time forward, the Hayekian position became the dominant neoliberal perspective on unions, notably because those who defended a more cooperative view with unions lost their influence in neoliberal circles. This shift is all the more important to consider in the present context, given that in many other theoretical disputes within the MPS, Hayek was not able to prevail. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 979

Categorization

• XREF: Challenges the standard historiography that treats Hayek’s union position as the unified founding neoliberal view; connects to broader debates in ‘foundational neoliberalism historiography.’ — connects to: Hayek’s dual identity let him bridge factions until conflicts made him partisan. — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 342; Some MPS founders rejected abolishing strikes as antidemocratic — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 976; Hayek reconciled intellectual credibility with donor accommodation in founding MPS — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 260 (+4 more)
• QUESTION: Why specifically was Hayek able to prevail on unions when he lost other MPS disputes? The passage notes this anomaly without explaining it.
• SEED: Potential essay angle: how an intellectual movement manufactures consensus by omission and ostracism of defeated alternatives — Hayek literally omitted cooperative-view authors from his Constitution of Liberty chapter.

Broader Connections

• Hayek framed unions as distortions of spontaneous order requiring legal disenfranchisement #corroborates (0.85) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 978
• Hayek held that ideas, not vested interests, ultimately shape political possibility #contradicts (0.85) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2116
• Hayek reconciled intellectual credibility with donor accommodation in founding MPS #qualifies (0.80) — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 260
• Neoliberal ideas reframed anti-union business positions as good judgment rather than reactionary politics #complicates (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1474
• Hayek’s distinctive skill was coalition-building sensitivity rather than Mill-style openness #responds-to (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 853