The Fatal Conceit : The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)

Rating:
Summary: The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Wo
Review: First volume in the series, i.e.,The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek, Vol 1)
by Friedrich A. Hayek, W. W. Bartley (Editor) , in which Hayek passionately sums up his lifelong battle with socialism. This controversial manifesto argues that socialism, from its origins, has been mistaken on scientific, factual, and logical grounds, and its repeated failures are the direct outcome of these errors.

Rating:
Summary: The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Wo
Review: First volume in the series, i.e.,The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek, Vol 1)
by Friedrich A. Hayek, W. W. Bartley (Editor) , in which Hayek passionately sums up his lifelong battle with socialism. This controversial manifesto argues that socialism, from its origins, has been mistaken on scientific, factual, and logical grounds, and its repeated failures are the direct outcome of these errors.

Rating:
Summary: communist and socialist apologists
Review: Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) was one of the twentieth century's seminal thinkers. He was an economist in the Austrian tradition and studied under Ludwig von Mises. (Although he is often grouped with von Mises, he was not the consistent libertarian that von Mises was.) THE FATAL CONCEIT was Hayek's final work, and was put together from a manuscript by the late W. W. Bartley, III (who is named as "editor" of the work.) This book is timely in that it was written at the tail end of the communist age and provided Hayek with an opportunity to reflect on the failure the socialist revolution.

As Hayek shows, the central problem with socialism is that it based on the false idea of "constructive rationalism," the belief that man can order society based purely on reason (and therefore planning). However, social progress is based in large part on tradition, or -- as Hayek describes it -- "between instinct and reason." This progress is inherently evolutionary and proceeds by slow steps. As such it integrates all the knowledge that is dispersed in society.

The theory presented in this book is a mix of liberalism and conservatism. In many ways it is the application of evolutionary theory to social though. As he daringly says: "morals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man's reason but a distinct endowment conferred upon him by cultural evolution." This certainly won't endear him to either religious thinkers or Randian libertarians.

Hayek proceeds to discuss the benefits of private property, free enterprise and trade from this evolutionary perspective and shows socialized planning is inevitable destructive of social progress.

Hayek provides an excellent refutation of the central errors of socialism. The reader might want to compare his approach with that of von Mises in THE ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY and PLANNED CHAOS, which covers similar territory from a somewhat different approach.

Rating:
Summary: Why Socialism Fails
Review: Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) was one of the twentieth century's seminal thinkers. He was an economist in the Austrian tradition and studied under Ludwig von Mises. (Although he is often grouped with von Mises, he was not the consistent libertarian that von Mises was.) THE FATAL CONCEIT was Hayek's final work, and was put together from a manuscript by the late W. W. Bartley, III (who is named as "editor" of the work.) This book is timely in that it was written at the tail end of the communist age and provided Hayek with an opportunity to reflect on the failure the socialist revolution.

As Hayek shows, the central problem with socialism is that it based on the false idea of "constructive rationalism," the belief that man can order society based purely on reason (and therefore planning). However, social progress is based in large part on tradition, or -- as Hayek describes it -- "between instinct and reason." This progress is inherently evolutionary and proceeds by slow steps. As such it integrates all the knowledge that is dispersed in society.

The theory presented in this book is a mix of liberalism and conservatism. In many ways it is the application of evolutionary theory to social though. As he daringly says: "morals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man's reason but a distinct endowment conferred upon him by cultural evolution." This certainly won't endear him to either religious thinkers or Randian libertarians.

Hayek proceeds to discuss the benefits of private property, free enterprise and trade from this evolutionary perspective and shows socialized planning is inevitable destructive of social progress.

Hayek provides an excellent refutation of the central errors of socialism. The reader might want to compare his approach with that of von Mises in THE ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY and PLANNED CHAOS, which covers similar territory from a somewhat different approach.

Rating:
Summary: insightful
Review: Hayek, in a systemic manner, gives a series of arguments for the necessity to not only dismiss socialism as impractical, but to actively contest it as a fallacious ideology that has evolved from an amalgamation of some fundamental errors on empirical, and even logical grounds. Hayek approaches his arguments from the perspective of cultural-economic evolution, the reconciliation between instinct and reason, cognitive, and even linguistic influence.

As much I enjoyed reading this book, I feel that Hayek, either intentionally or unintentionally, spends too little time addressing a very important issue in the debate against socialism. Namely, the necessary form of the socialist government. Hayek discusses, in great length, the impracticality and destructiveness of a totalitarian-style socialist socio-economic archetype. I'm mostly in agreement with his analysis. However, he fails, in my opinion, to justify why the Stalin-style socialist government is the ONLY possible outcome of a socialist existence. This, I feel, is a very central idea that has been grossly overlooked. Many socialists believe that democracy, liberty, AND a planned economy can very happily coexist. This type of socialists would even AGREE with part of Hayek's analysis on why a totalitarian government is bad news, socialist or otherwise. Hayek lists all the ingredients for making the arguments against the possibility of a democratic and liberal socialist society, but regrettably stops short of actually linking the argument with his brilliant analysis on cultural evolution and pure reasoning. Perhaps in his mind, the connection is obviously, but the omission is, in my opinion, the only "fatal conceit" of this otherwise fine volume.

Regardless, "The Fatal Conceit" is an altogether enjoyable read that provides not only insights but invites further discussion. Highly recommended.

Another point that I would like to make is my hope that readers will be critical when thinking about politics and economy. Even though I'm a staunch supporter of capitalism, but unlike Hayek, Friedman, and other Austrian School economists, I do not believe in a laissez-faire capitalism. Rejecting socialism does not automatically imply the extreme opposite of socialism. The current time is a hard time for people who advocate capitalism - not unlike most of Hayek's lifetime, when he was an outcast of a predominantly leftist intellectual community. Presently, the irrational religious-right American government and its reckless actions have once again mobilized the leftist intellectuals to turn the intellectual compass towards communism. A very dangerous tendency: communist revolution only has a chance when the current system is worse than the communist nightmare. Now than ever, we must have the audacity to refute the errors of socialism - however unfashionable it may seems, and to argue, fervently, with reasons and conviction, for the need of a truly democratic and liberal capitalist society. At the same time, it's important to differentiate between the theoretical model of a complete free-market economy and a more practical market-economy with a health level of supervision. A balance can, and must, be struck between freedom and supervision of the market. Liberties must be protected at all cost for the survival of capitalism. Law and order must be maintained, domestically and internationally, to ensure a safe environment where capitalism can flourish.

Rating:
Summary: An Autobiography of Hayek's Studies
Review: This book is an eye opener for those interested in either sociology or economics. Hayek explains the evolution of society from an economist's standpoint, and best of all it is written in plain English. Hayek doesn't use a prose cluttered with economist/sociologist jargon. This way it can be read and understood by anyone with a slight interest in the subject, yet still be highly appreciated by scholars.

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant but flawed jewel
Review: This book signals a broadening of the classical liberal agenda into a range of cultural, historical and anthropological interests, beyond its traditional strongholds in philosophy and economics.

The book was the first volume of a major publishing program at the University of Chicago Press. The ten-year plan was to bring out a uniform set of twenty or more volumes of Hayek's collected works. The senior editor for the venture was William W Bartley who died shortly after this book appeared.

The main concern of the book is the continuing appeal of socialism among Western intellectuals despite its theoretical shortcomings and its failure in practice. Hayek defines the basic problem of the book as 'how does our morality emerge, and what implications may its mode of coming into being have for our economic and political life'.

Central to his case is the notion of an extended order of civilisation that is held together by the largely unconscious influence of traditional moral codes and practices. He has deployed the 'extended moral order' concept in his critique of socialists and central planners and their 'constructivist rationalism'. He proceeds by way of a reconstruction of Western history to explain the function of a number of moral rules, especially those that regulate dealings in private property, which he calls "several property". Other important rules concern honesty, contracts, exchange, trade and privacy. He undertakes some "conjectural history" to chart the origins of liberty, property and justice and the linked evolution of markets and civilisation.

With his conjectural history in place, Hayek then describes the revolt of the modern socialists against the discipline (and the opportunities) of the extended order. This revolt has two bases; one is instinctive or 'atavistic', the other is a perversion of reason that Hayek calls 'constructivist rationalism'. He claims that the instinctive resistance to the extended order of capitalism arises from the conflict between the "old" and "new" moral codes. However, against this essentially psychological thesis it is more likely that the attraction of socialism comes from the conjunction of several strands of thought. One of these is the tradition of utopian social thought which can be traced from Plato. Second is the tradition of helping the weak, which in the West is essentially the moral legacy of Christianity. Third, a cluster of ideas in political economy including the utopianism and centralism noted above, combined with the egalitarian aim of shifting wealth from the haves to the have-nots (inspired partly by the Christian ethos of helping the poor).

While the ideas of the first and third kind are well worthy of criticism the tradition of helping the weak is important and valuable, and needs to be sustained. Unfortunately there has been a growing movement in modern times to recruit the state to perform this function, in place of private charity. Therefore it is plausible to argue, against Hayek, that the moral force of socialism derives not from primitive emotional sources but from the fact that it recruits the power of Christian charity with its drive to help the poor and the weak. The tragedy of socialism is that the means do not achieve the objective.

Hayek's critique of reason is distinctly ambiguous and it is no more satisfactory than his psychological critique of socialism. His target is "constructivist rationalism", expressed in the view that blueprints for social engineering can be derived from concepts of society and its destination which form by a rational process in the minds of individuals or members of elite groups. An earlier critique of this stance occurs in "The errors of constructivism", a 1970 paper reprinted in his "New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas". At this stage in his thinking the individual still retained a high degree of autonomy and the critical function assigned to human reason was compatible with an evolutionary approach that recognized the significance of tradition.

This view of the critical role of reason is restated very briefly in "The Fatal Conceit", but so briefly and adjacent to so much argument in favour of the benefits of submitting to tradition that the impression is one of confusion. This is unfortunate because a very important (and reasonable) conception of the function of moral and political philosophy emerges from Hayek's work, and from that of Popper in "The Open Society and its Enemies". This is the view that the task of moral and political philosophers is to discover, formulate and critically probe the implications of those principles which function as the "rules of the game" in social life.

This approach would supplement the methods of conceptual analysis and crude 'positivist' empirical description of social and political systems. It would have the theoretical advantage of linking disciplines and the practical merit of being continually in touch with problems and their possible solutions. This is consistent with the thrust of Hayek's previous work. In view of the dubious critique of the 'atavistic' roots of socialism and the ambiguous critique of reason, "The Fatal Conceit" is a brilliant but flawed jewel.

Rating:
Summary: [Misrepresented]
Review: This book was not written by Hayek. It was written by editor and confidant W.W. Bartley when Hayek was sick and incapacitated. The only parts written by Hayek were just random notes that only show up in the appendices.

Rating:
Summary: F.A. Hayek's Fatal Conceit (or Why Socialism Sucks)
Review: This is a must-read for anyone interested in what mysterious forces are fueling our world.In his last book, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, published in 1988 (ironically, one year prior to fall of the Berlin Wall) , Hayek shoots one final poison arrow into the heart of socialist thought. Capitalism, or , what he prefers to call it, the spontaneous extended order of human cooperation , is to Hayek the liberator of humanity. He pits the advocates of the spontaneous extended order created by a competitive market against advocates who demand a deliberate arrangement of human interaction by central authority based on collective demand over available resources. (page 7) The "fatal conceit", which the title refers to, is the idea that the ability to acquire skills stems from reason. (page 21) Imitation and not insight or reason guide the spectrum of human nature and potential. Hayek's logic stems from his adherence to David Hume's conclusion that ' the rules of morality ... are not the conclusions of our reason. To Hayek and Hume, our morals were not the descendants of our human powers of reason. On the contrary, learning through imitation is considered the progenitor's of our insight, reason and understanding. (page 21) Our morals, Hayek believes, were naturally selected from pitting one tribe with one set of morals and behaviors against another with less beneficial Morals and behaviors. Only those tribes with the best morals, behaviors, and habits survived in nature. These survivors passed on their advantageous morals to the next generation through the children imitating their traditions. Our descendants did not consciously choose their morals, or fully appreciate or comprehend their benefits. Nature took care of selecting our morals for us.

Hayek's views on four key issues help elucidate some reasons why there is such a strong movement toward economic liberalization among many industrialized and even non-industrialized nations: the role of the state, government regulation, the ! function of the free markets, the problem of social cooperation, and the meaning of liberty and equality. I will also compare Hayek's views with Robert Heilbroner's central themes in his book "21st Century Capitalism." A better understanding of these issues help us better understand the era we are living in.

The Role of the State & Government Regulation

The major role of the state in Hayek's world was to protect the rights of its citizens from infringement:

"Governments strong enough to protect individuals against the violence of their fellows make possible the evolution of an increasingly complex order of spontaneous and voluntary cooperation" ( page 32) Such a complex order of spontaneous and voluntary cooperation is the mark of trade and capitalist beginnings. Hayek believed that since history only retains records of the activities of governments we are mislead to think that it was in the arena of government and not markets that the destinies of humanity lied. So we have mistakenly fallen under the impression that a powerful state is the hallmark of a successful, and prosperous extended order of cooperation. "The powerful

state is not the culmination of cultural evolution ; it as often marked its end." (page 33) Examples from history of powerful states extinguishing the light of voluntary cooperation include ancient imperial China, the Roman empire, and the Meso-American empires. Powerful governments are not conducive to spontaneous improvement. He believes that "sooner or later governments tend to suppress the freedoms they had earlier secured in order to enforce their own presumably greater wisdom and not allow 'social institutions to develop in a haphazard manner'." ( page 32) It is only the protection of private property, not any direction of its use by government, that provides the soil for the extended order to blossom in:

". . . No advanced civilization has yet developed without a government which saw it's chief aim in the protection of ! private property." (page 32)

Without such protection, meted out by judicial, police and military force, the prerequisite morals ( honesty, for example) of the extended order would cease to exist. The evolution of such "individualist laws" aim through time to make increasingly possible the existence of voluntary associations without I compulsory powers.' Such an evolution of rules, however, must, like the chaotic extended order it seeks to support, be a spontaneous one . ( page 37) Without an acceptance of an individual's right to dispose over a recognized private domain the dense network of commercial relations among different communities' would not develop. The prerequisite for the existence of such "property, freedom, and order, is the same: law in the sense of abstract rules enabling any individual to ascertain at any time who is entitled to dispose over any particular thing." ( page 29)

Hayek's role of government is of supreme importance precisely because it is a prerequisite to any further evolution of the extended order. The extended order cannot develop without the protection granted by government over private domain. Such an important role should never be seen as limited. But thinkers of all stripes call for more government regulation and a larger government role in society. Hayek would argue that any larger role, especially if called for by socialists , would lean towards those needs which our instincts and sentimental yearnings demand. He believes that such instincts and yearnings stem from the micro-cosmos of the tribe or even the family. This realm of the micro-cosmos is run by 'unmodified, uncurbed' rules which if ever applied to the macro-cosmos (or outer civilization) would destroy the extended order. (page 18)

If you would like the rest of my review please email me. All rights reserved.

Rating:
Summary: Beyond Darwin: Cultural evolution and economics
Review: This soberly written book by a Nobel Laureate economist is a summary of the author's thoughts on socialism, knowledge in society, and the evolution of society and what he calls the "extended order" (roughly the interconnected system of transactions that make up the economy). The main argument about cultural evolution is more tantalizingly interesting than conclusively thought out, but anybody interested in history, sociology, economics, politics or even evolution and ethnic differences in modern societies should find fascinating ideas here. My personal opinion is that the work can be fruitfully coupled with several of Thomas Sowell's books, but I'm sure other people will have other perspectives on the work just as interesting.As for economics, the book works out the calculation argument against socialism, an economic argument that to people who have read austrian economics is perhaps the most impressive and thorough argument against communism or socialism ever articulated. If one supports socialist ideals, which Hayek, the author, did in his youth, one should really take this argument into serious consideration. It claims, a claim central to the evolutionary thesis, that socialism as such is simply a misguided attempt to correct a misunderstood system (the market economy) that solves problems (allocation of goods, coordination of economic activites etc.) unsolvable by any other means. Stimulating, original and well written, the book is strongly recommended.