Hayek’s frame pairs liberalism against totalitarianism, not authoritarianism

Evidence

Above all, Hayek argues, democracy and liberalism have radically different opposites. Democracy’s opposite is authoritarianism, concentrated but not necessarily unlimited political power. Liberalism’s opposite is totalitarianism, complete control of every aspect of life. This makes authoritarianism compatible with a liberal society—freedom, traditional morals, a protected private sphere. And totalitarianism can be brought into being and administered by democratic majorities. If both totalitarian democracy and authoritarian liberalism are logical and indeed historical possibilities, it becomes reasonable for Hayek to join his fellow neoliberals in accepting authoritarianism’s legitimacy in the transition to liberalism, thus justifying a Pinochet or Bremer and the coups or wars that installed them. — Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism, 119

Categorization

• DEFINE: The axis shift (democracy-authoritarianism vs. liberalism-totalitarianism) is Hayek’s conceptual engine authorizing Pinochet; the passage lays it out sparely.
• XREF: Pairs with the Frankfurt School history’s treatment of how the anti-totalitarian frame let authoritarian liberal orders be defended against the left. — connects to: Hayek distinguished authoritarian from totalitarian regimes to exempt Chile from criticism — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1590

Broader Connections

• Hayek distinguished authoritarian from totalitarian regimes to exempt Chile from criticism #complicates (0.82) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1590