The Intellectuals and Socialism plus Isaiah’s Job
Moving upstream, winning in the long term: introducing the Fighting for a Free Future Book Club. This is the first of a series of my speaking notes as Chairman.
Losing my seat in the Commons has liberated much more time for politics and where this country goes matters: that’s why I have launched the Fighting for a Free Future project, comprising this Substack, a community amplifying the good think tanks and a book club to equip and encourage the next generation.
Last night we held our third discussion. My speaking note as Chairman follows below. We have previously studied, amongst other things, How to Advance Liberty and the Principles for a Free Society.
I intend to publish my introductory speaking note the morning after every book club. I hope these are useful.
Please get in touch if you would like to be considered to join us for beer, pizza and books.
Book club speaking notes Nock and Hayek 10 March
Speaking Notes: Hayek’s The Intellectuals and Socialism
https://cdn.mises.org/Intellectuals%20and%20Socialism_4.pdf
Overview
• Hayek argues that socialism prevails not because of direct economic reasoning but because of the influence of intellectuals—those who disseminate and interpret ideas rather than generate them.
• These intellectuals act as intermediaries between scholars and the public, shaping the climate of opinion over time.
• The market is losing the battle of ideas because classical liberals fail to engage the intellectual class effectively.
Key Themes for Discussion
1. The Role of Intellectuals
• Intellectuals do not create original ideas but filter, simplify, and popularise them.
• Socialism’s appeal is due to its simplicity and moral rhetoric rather than its economic validity.
• Intellectuals tend to favour collectivist solutions because they align with their desire for rational planning and control.
2. Why Free Market Ideas Struggle
• Classical liberals often focus on technical economic arguments rather than moral and philosophical narratives.
• Socialism offers a utopian vision, whereas free market advocacy tends to be reactive and defensive.
• The intelligentsia is drawn to big-picture, abstract solutions rather than the practical, dispersed knowledge of markets.
3. Lessons for Today
• The battle for a free society must be fought on cultural and intellectual grounds, not just economic ones.
• How can we cultivate a new generation of pro-market intellectuals?
• Should we rethink how we present free market ideas—framing them not just as efficient, but as morally compelling?
Key quote
The character of the process by which the views of the intellectuals influence the politics of tomorrow is therefore of much more than academic interest. Whether we merely wish to foresee or attempt to influence the course of events, it is a factor of much greater importance than is generally understood. What to the contemporary observer appears as the battle of conflicting interests has indeed often been decided long before in a clash of ideas confined to narrow circles. Paradoxically enough, however, in general only the parties of the Left have done most to spread the belief that it was the numerical strength of the opposing material interests which decided political issues, whereas in practice these same parties have regularly and successfully acted as if they understood the key position of the intellectuals. Whether by design or driven by the force of circumstances, they have always directed their main effort toward gaining the support of this "elite," while the more conservative groups have acted, as regularly but unsuccessfully, on a more naive view of mass democracy and have usually vainly tried directly to reach and to persuade the individual voter.
⸻
Speaking Notes: Albert Jay Nock’s Isaiah’s Job
https://mises.org/mises-daily/isaiahs-job
Overview
• Nock’s essay presents the idea of the Remnant—a small, discerning group who truly understand and carry forward the principles of liberty, even when the majority remains uninterested or hostile.
• His story is inspired by the biblical prophet Isaiah, who was sent to preach despite knowing his message would be largely ignored.
Key Themes for Discussion
1. The Concept of the Remnant
• The goal of a true intellectual leader is not mass persuasion but reaching and equipping the right people.
• The Remnant does not need convincing—they seek out the truth for themselves.
• Mass movements often dilute or corrupt ideas, whereas the Remnant preserves them for future generations.
2. Implications for Advocacy
• Should we be concerned with influencing the mainstream, or should we focus on cultivating a core group of serious thinkers?
• How do we recognise and support the Remnant in our time?
• Does this view suggest that mass political activism is futile, or does it complement it?
3. Applying Nock’s Insights to Today
• The idea of focusing on a select, engaged minority resonates with many libertarian thinkers.
• How does this contrast with Hayek’s view that we must engage the broader class of intellectuals?
• What balance should we strike between broad persuasion and deep cultivation of committed individuals?
Key quote
If a prophet were not too particular about making money out of his mission or getting a dubious sort of notoriety out of it, the foregoing considerations would lead one to say that serving the Remnant looks like a good job. An assignment that you can really put your back into, and do your best without thinking about results, is a real job; whereas serving the masses is at best only half a job, considering the inexorable conditions that the masses impose upon their servants. They ask you to give them what they want, they insist upon it, and will take nothing else; and following their whims, their irrational changes of fancy, their hot and cold fits, is a tedious business, to say nothing of the fact that what they want at any time makes very little call on one’s resources of prophesy. The Remnant, on the other hand, want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about. The prophet of the American masses must aim consciously at the lowest common denominator of intellect, taste, and character among 120,000,000 people; and this is a distressing task. The prophet of the Remnant, on the contrary, is in the enviable position of Papa Haydn in the household of Prince Esterhazy. All Haydn had to do was keep forking out the very best music he knew how to produce, knowing it would be understood and appreciated by those for whom he produced it, and caring not a button what anyone else thought of it — and that makes a good job.
⸻
Final Thought for Discussion
Both Hayek and Nock emphasise the role of ideas and those who carry them forward—but they take different approaches.
Hayek focuses on influencing the intellectual class to shift public opinion over time, while Nock suggests that true impact comes from speaking to a small but vital Remnant.
How do we reconcile these two perspectives, and what does that mean for Fighting for a Free Future?
I would be interested in participating in the book club.
> Hayek focuses on influencing the intellectual class to shift public opinion over time, while Nock suggests that true impact comes from speaking to a small but vital Remnant.
>
> How do we reconcile these two perspectives, and what does that mean for Fighting for a Free Future?
The intellectual class consists mostly of academics and journalists.
Academia is a state sponsored guild for intellectuals. As such, their incentives are currently aligned to fight for the complete destruction of free market ideas and the personal and career destruction of all of their advocates. There is only a tiny subset of academics who are even willing to listen and to refrain from lying about free markets: a remnant.
Journalists working for the legacy media have a similar problem. Media outlets are heavily regulated and so have a strong incentive not to tell unflattering truths about the state. Some media outlets are just mouthpieces for various parts of the regime, e.g. - the BBC is the propaganda arm of the civil service. Only a small number of journalists will listen and refrain from lying: a remnant.
Intellectuals outside the remnant should be treated as potentially being useful for particular instances in which their agenda happens to align with yours. Intellectuals inside the remnant are potential allies.
Thanks for a very interesting and high quality post Steve.
I'd like to add an extra point to 'Why Free Market Ideas Struggle?'
I think it is because those people most interested in free market ideas just get on and implement them. They start businesses, they employ people, they are ultra-busy. They have better things to do - chasing customers and profits.
They don't espouse their ideas, they don't promote them, they quietly find a niche, a customer to serve, a profitable segment and get on and do that well and quietly - before their competition catches on.
They don't have time to promote it, to talk about what worked, about the problems they have solved or how it made them wealthy. They just get on, quietly, finding and serving customers. Success is quiet.
We all benefit from the free market which gives us the luxury and comfort from which to complain. Just stop oil activists are almost always older, wealthy, comfortable Lib Dem voters who like to show status via their activist causes. You don't see many working class people on the bread line amongst them. Climate change and the activism around it is a luxury belief.
Back to the free market ideas....it is only after some time, when the creep of socialism catches up with private sector success, taxes creep up and bit by bit entrepreneurs realise how much is being taken from them by the state and wasted on projects and special interest groups that are deemed 'fair' and 'worthy'.
I'd liken it to the role of government, being in power or out of power. When in power you are busy running the country, putting out fires, managing the media, dealing with everyday chaos.
Unless you wrote some guiding principles when out of power you will struggle to stay on track. We will be distracted, diverted and exhausted by the everyday chaos and noise.
When out of power you get an opportunity to order your thoughts. To make your plans.
It reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's clarity of purpose and how it was communicated to her team:
--- There is a famous anecdote that during a Conservative Party policy meeting, Thatcher removed her copy of Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty from her handbag, slammed it down on the table and declared, “This is what we believe.” ---
We have lacked such clarity of purpose, sound money, sound economics in this country for a very long time.....and look at the results.
Inspired by the failure of The Conservative Party to remain conservative (over a 14yr period) I'm interested at the moment by what tools, measures, guard rails can be put in place to maintain conservative values over the long run.
One idea I've seen floated recently which resonated was to separate private sector GDP from public sector GDP.
At the moment it's the worst conflation of all time. People just look at GDP as a total regardless of whether it's public or private but that masks what is really going on in the economy and the genuine health of businesses.
Separating out private sector GDP and making it even better by choosing 'private sector GDP per capita' would be the truest measure of the health of a nation and whether a country's people are getting richer or poorer.
I'd be interested in the book club, but it may be dependent on the location as I'm in Birmingham.