Freedom From the Market: America’s Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand Hardcover – January 12, 2021

Konczal's book is a compact history of how Americans have tried to remove the constraints imposed on them by the market. Konczal questions the conventional idea that the market is solely a mechanism that expands choices and opportunity. As he shows, markets can, and have, achieved precisely the opposite outcomes -- restricting choices and preventing people from having options. In many instances, Americans successfully reclaimed the liberty they had lost to the market by organizing or taking state action. He thus makes a more general case for ensuring that societal outcomes are more consistent with Berlin's notion of positive liberty. Libertarians will not appreciate the book's conclusions.The book starts with the Homestead Act and ends with the decision to terminate virtually free higher education in the 1960s and 1970s. In between, he covers a lot of historical ground -- the effort to reduce working hours in the 19th century, the Wagner Act and Social Security during the New Deal, and the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, among other things. Despite the book's ambitious scope, you can read it in a sitting, which is quite a feat. Either Konczal is a naturally efficient writer, or he has a good editor.There is one topic I would've liked to see treated in more detail -- finance. Konczal gives the best concise summary of the economic ideas behind the ideological shift toward neoliberalism I have read. Still, the liberalization of finance during the past 50 years and its farreaching implications receive a cursory discussion. In an interview, Konczal said he wanted to include more discussion of this topic and something on the gold standard but didn't see how to incorporate it. In my view, it would have fit quite naturally into the chapter "Free Economy."But this is a quibble. Overall, the book is both well researched and well written. It sheds light on an important and timely question -- to what extent should Americans permit themselves to be subject to market-driven outcomes? The book shows that, historically, Americans have tried to implement changes that enabled them to live freer lives by organizing and taking political action. Not all those changes were successful but many were.For a deeper dive into these and related questions, read this book along with Polanyi's "The Great Transformation," Robin's "The Reactionary Mind," and Slobodian's "The Globalists."

The media could not be loaded. This is a good, short book laying out many of the ways that the market has crept up on us and made our lives smaller.Konczal provides necessary pushback to the neoliberal project, showing just everything that we have lost as the forces of capital decided that the Great Society, the New Deal, and the Progressive Era were bridges too far against the corporate form.

Well written, but not terribly exciting.

Always a treat to be entertained by interesting stories - one of the best ways to learn something useful, eh?"Useful" as in "a way to finally drive stakes through the heart of Reagonomics."

This book is a fabulous summary of how things came to be where they are; why life in the United States is so bad for so many.

Freedom from the Market remakes our understanding of American politics. By drawing intelligently on forgotten aspects of American history, Konczal makes it easier for Americans to understand that things they might not believe are possible in America must be, because they have been. He rescues moments such as the WWII government run daycare centers, or the use of the power of the federal state to bring through the integration of Southern hospitals, from the enormous condescension of posterity. And notably, although he doesn't dwell on this point, many of these changes began at moments that seem shittier and more despairing than our own.So what Konczal is doing is neither to provide a standard linear history, nor yet a policy textbook. Instead, he is claiming an alternative American tradition, that has not looked to the market as its apotheosis, but instead has sought to free Americans from its random vagaries. His history explains how Americans have responded collectively to the real and expressed needs of publics, who have organized to fight for them. And it does so in the plain language that he mentions in passing was necessary to allow ordinary people to organize and understand who was trying to stop them.Konczal's fundamental claim is that people who link freedom to markets miss out on much of the story. Equally important is a notion of freedom <em>from</em> markets, "rooted in public programs that genuinely serve people and checking market dependency." This notion goes back much further in time than the New Deal. The nineteenth century is sometimes depicted as a reign of laissez-faire, both by those who admired it and deplored it. Konczal argues instead that there was an emerging sense of public needs - and how the government might provide for them. For example, this helps us understand the provision of public land through the Homestead Act and the land grant universities.The nineteenth century notion of the public was clearly horribly flawed and contradictory - it did not include slaves or Native Americans. Some, like Horace Greeley ended up fleeing these contradictions into the welcoming arms of free market absolutism. But within these contradictions lay possibilities that opened up in the twentieth century. Konczal builds, for example on Eric Schickler's work to argue that as the New Deal began to provide concrete benefits to African Americans, it created a new conduit between them and the Democratic Party, breaking up the old coalition that had held Jim Crow together. Konczal explains how change happens - through social movements and the state:<blockquote>While the Supreme Court can be effective at holding back change and enforcing already existing power structures, it is actually very weak at creating new reform itself. It controls no funding and is dependent on elite power structures to carry out its decisions. What really creates change is popular mobilization and legislative changes.</blockquote>He also draws on historians like Quinn Slobodian, to describe how modern Hayekians have sought to "encase" the market order in institutions and practices that are hard to overturn. Property rights aren't the foundation of liberty, as both nineteenth century jurists and twentieth century economists would have it. They are a product of the choices of the state, and as such intensely political.This allows Konczal to turn pragmatism against the Hayekians. Hayek's notion of spontaneous order is supposed to be evolutionary. But if there is a need to to provide collective goods for people that cannot be fulfilled through voluntarism, the Hayekian logic becomes a brutal constraint on adaptation.The efforts of Hayekians to enforce binding legal constraints, to cripple the gathering of the collective knowledge that can guide collective action, to wink at legal doctrines intended to subvert social protections against the market; all these prevent the kinds of evolutionary change that are necessary to respond to changing circumstances. Konczal makes it clear that Oliver Wendell Holmes was no left-winger - but his criticisms of the rigid and doctrinaire laissez-faire precepts of his colleagues rings true. Their "willingness to use a very specific understanding of economics to override law writes a preferential understanding of economics into the constitution itself." Although Konczal wrote this book before the current crisis, he describes Holmes as mentioning compulsory vaccination laws as one of the ways in which government interference in private decisions can have general social benefits. The wretched contortions of libertarians over the last several months, and their consequences for human welfare in states such as North Dakota illustrate the point, quite brutally.What Konczal presses for is a very different notion of freedom. This doesn't deny the benefits of markets, but it qualifies them. In Konczal's words, "markets are great at distributing things based on people’s willingness to pay. But there are some goods that should be distributed by need." Accepting this point entails the necessity of keeping some important areas of life outside the determining scope of markets. Furthermore, people's needs change over time, as societies and markets change. Konczal's framework suggests the need for collective choice to figure out the best responses to these changes, and a vibrant democratic politics, in which the state responds to the expressed needs of mobilized publics as the best way to carry out these choices.All this makes the book sound more like an exercise in political theory than it is. You need to read the book itself, if you really to get the good stuff - the stories, the examples, and the overall narrative that Konczal weaves together. <em>Freedom from the Market</em> has the potential to be a very important book, focusing attention on the contested, messy but crucially important intersection between social movements and the state. It provides a set of ideas that people on both sides of that divide can learn from, and a lively alternative foundation to the deracinated technocratic notions of politics, in which good policy would somehow, magically, be politically self supporting, that has prevailed up until quite recently. Recommended.