From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The (alleged) Errors of Socialism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:49:07 GMT

In article <93026.113155SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.010015.8889@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
>Morrison) says:
>>
>>Here is an interesting article. Maybe it'll make people think, even just
>>a little. Perhaps we can discuss how it relates to Canadian Socialists
>>(NDP, etc)
>
>> [deletion]
>
>>     Hayek approaches ethics from an entirely different angle
>>from most philosophers.  While philosophical ethics usually
>>entail rationalistic system-building from certain assumptions
>>about human nature or from bits of empirical data, Hayek's
>>ethics are non-rationalistic and based upon the historical
>>process.  Hayek rejects the explicit, rationalistic
>>construction of most ethical systems because such
>>constructions rest upon the "fatal conceit" of human reason.
>>Reason, Hayek argues, is incapable of commanding the
>>information necessary to design an ethical system.
>
>How does reason "command" information?
>

I think all he is saying is that human beings are not sufficiently
intelligent to design an ethical society from an axiomiatic or 
ideological basis.  Some measure of trial-and-error, or empiricism,
or history over decades and centuries is necessary to incorporate
the non-rational aspects of human nature into the civil institutions
of our society.  

>>     Our ethical system was not designed by anyone; it is
>>traditional, handed down from generation to generation, and
>>learned by imitation.  Its progress and development were
>>achieved by a process of social evolution: those cultures
>>which adopted "good" ethical systems survived and flourished,
>>while those with "bad" ones either floundered or adopted more
>>successful ethical systems.  This subtle process of trial-and-
>>error has produced Western ethics, a highly successful system.
>
>Not by the accounts on which we base the system itself. The
>Western ethical and legal traditions still come out of
>Christian roots; and Christian tradition claims divine acts as
>its source. You may like or dislike that fact; but to claim
>some ethical "evolution" produced a morality based in fact on
>an interpretation of the Ten Commandments dodges the fundamental
>questions about the sources of our "ethical system".
>

I think that is what he means by intuition and reason both
being necessary.

>>     In what way do Western ethics contain a "contradiction"?
>>To understand this proposition, one must examine Hayek's
>>theory of the actual historical development of ethics.  Hayek
>>holds that the original human ethical system was that of the
>>small group -- the hunter/gatherer tribe.  These "small group"
>>ethics were both solidaristic and altruistic.  The primitive
>>tribes at the dawn of human history were each united by a
>>shared purpose -- rudimentary survival in an uncontrollable,
>>hostile environment -- that superseded the different purposes
>>of the tribes' individual members.
>
>This sets up, say, the rain forest as a "hostile" environment.
>(As opposed to the local toxic waste dump?) The use of the word
>"rudimentary" also suggests that the members of hunter-gather
>tribes experienced less full, satisfying, or in some sense
>"human" lives that the inhabitants of modern "liberal capitalist"
>culture. I suggest this belief rests only on the (natural) wish to
>believe that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
>

I don't think he is imposing a value judgement about the quality
of life...he is discussing the scale of life, the scope of the
sphere of activity which affects the life that is lived.  I
sense no imposition of an idea of progress...only an idea of
history.

>>  [deletion]
>
>>     These social changes were matched by changes in the
>>ethical sphere.  "Small group" ethics were not applicable to
>>diverse, cosmopolitan communities; groups that failed to adapt
>>became isolated and economically stagnant.  Through the social
>>evolutionary process, "small group" ethics were gradually
>>replaced by what Hayek calls "extended order" ethics.
>
>Does Dr. Hayek define a "social evolutionary process", or do
>you choose that phrase merely to suggest the inevitability of
>biological evolution?
>

Evolution does not necessarily connote progress...evolution is
merely a time line where one observes what happens.

>Also, your phrase "became isolated and economically stagnant"
>misrepresents the process; groups that failed to integrate
>themselves into the larger state units suffered conquest,
>enslavement, and, frequently, genocide. The process rested on
>military might; the victims of a state rarely got to make an
>economic choice.
>

Evolution is survival of the fittest...the human beings who
best adapted to the emerging reality, partly through their
social, political, and economic structures survived.  You
are imposing a morality on the social evolution of humans based
on your current enlightened state.

>>"Extended order" ethics abandoned commands that sought
>>collective ends in favor of abstract, generally applicable
>>rules that facilitated varied individual ends.  These ethics
>>served as an impersonal mechanism for the coordination of
>>individual actions and plans, whereas "small group" ethics
>>were dependent upon the highly personal rule of the tribal
>>leader, who directed the group to a common goal.
>
>Sargon of Akkad, Tuthmoses II, Alexander of Macedonia, Ceasar,
>Charlemange, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler,
>Stalin, et al: these did not exercise "highly personal rule"?
>They did not direct the ends of the state to a "common goal"?
>I am sure their subjects would feel profound astonishment if you
>told them that the society they experienced "facilitated
>individual ends".
>

The culmination of the development of "extended order" ethics...
the idea of popular sovereignty and democracy did not really emerge 
till around 300 hundred years ago...evolution is a slow and uneven
process...you are looking microscopically instead of macroscopically
at the time line.

>I don't mean to accept or value the role of "strongman" such
>as the ones quoted above: merely to point out that the process
>you suggest represents an idealised view of the evolution of the
>modern nation state, not what actually happened.
>
>>     While "extended order" ethics replaced "small group"
>>ethics as the dominant system, "small group" ethics continued
>>to exist side by side with their more successful counterparts.
>
>The use of the words "more successful" suggests a bias (common in
>Western thought) towards size as a measure of success. Something
>that works over a large scale draws higher praise than something
>that works on a limited scale. Such a bias led to the acceptance
>of Stalin's forced draft industrialisation and collectivisation
>of Russia. We now know that the building of large scale institutions
>does not produce a successful society.
>

Success when discussing evolution does not connote progress...only
what emerges.  You are applying a Hegelian or Marxist notion
of history as necessarily developing towards an ideal...not
just necessarily developing into what is, from moment to moment.

>>Families, friendships, and businesses continued to operate
>>according to the solidaristic principles of "small group"
>>ethics for obvious reasons.  Love, camaraderie, and shared
>>purpose -- so necessary to human fulfillment -- are possible
>>only within the small group.  Thus, contemporary Western
>>ethics are a heterogeneous mixture: "extended order" ethics
>>tell individuals and groups how to act within the larger
>>social order, while "small group" ethics instruct individuals
>>how to behave within the confines of the various voluntary
>>organizations to which they belong.
>
>As Nicholas Monsarrat points out, if the seamen of the British
>merchant marine had acted according to the "'extended order'
>ethics" you propose, the flag flying over London now might well
>have a swastika on it. Extended order ethics work well in times
>of low stress (peace, prosperity, health, etc.). In times of
>trouble (war, pestilence, famine) we depend, absolutely, on
>"small group" ethics.
>

Momentarily in history perhaps...looking at the trees instead of  
the forest.

>>[deletion]
>
>>     Hayek warns that, as strong as the tension may be, the
>>balance between the two systems of ethics must be maintained.
>>Both systems serve vitally important functions within their
>>own spheres: "small group" ethics provide for warmth and
>>compassion essential to man as a social animal, while
>>"extended order" ethics provide a coordination function
>>necessary to maintain economic security and further growth in
>>both population and wealth.
>
>And, as the ecologists point out, we can't grow forever.

It might be argued that cosmic events...i.e. collisions with
the earth by asteroids, have driven evolution...the simple fact
is that life on the Earth is doomed...we can use up the planet,
as long as we use it up very slowly.  The fact that the we are
finally experiencing the finiteness of the earth will
affect our social evolution.  However, we are not necessarily
confined to the earth either.  Unlike the dinosaurs, we
are conscious of the effects of the cosmos on us...it will
perhaps help us to survive.

>
>>     While no one (with the possible exception of Ayn Rand's
>>followers) is calling for an extension of "extended order"
>>ethics into the realm of the small group, there is an
>>influential intellectual group, the socialists, calling for
>>just the opposite: the reconquest of the West by "small group"
>>ethics.  Needless to say, Hayek looks upon this prospect
>>unfavorably.  Hayek, while admitting that such an event might
>>initially satisfy our instincts, points out its long-range
>>consequences: poverty, starvation, and widespread death.
>
>This comes down to the Malthusian argument. Several problems
>exist with it, but let us begin with the central one: the
>perceived dichotomy between "small group" and "extended order"
>ethics. I don't dispute the idea that we must develop and use
>shared rules for interacting with people in the larger society
>whom we do not know. But the fallacy lies in the claim that
>certain rules or concepts necessarily attach to small units,
>and others attach to larger units, and that we can separate the
>two.
>
>The evidence suggests otherwise. Feminists have documented in
>grisly detail how the cut-throat nature of our society has
>turned many women's homes into torture chambers. We see how
>economic pressures do damage friendships. I see no way around
>the problem: if we accept a merciless, impersonal "extended
>order" economic system, it will corrupt our home, our circle
>of friends, and our family. Eventually, we will produce a
>society which (fortunately) will not survive.
>
>In fact, socialists do not propose to "contaminate" on sphere
>with the rules of the other. Instead, the socialists I read
>propose to change the rules of both spheres. We have done this
>before, with considerable success. As a matter of reason and
>ethics, we abolished slavery. We abolished, in other words, a
>product of social evolution at least as old as money and
>property, one which had made up part of the "extended order"
>ethics for millennia, and which successful societies had handed
>down to us. We can make ethical changes in our social order,
>both our "close" social order and our "extended" social order.
>

The recognition of popular sovereignty and the slow emergence of
democracy is slowly abolishing slavery...not socialism...the
people in Eastern Europe for the last 50 years were slaves.

>>"Extended order" ethics, Hayek notes, are chiefly responsible
>>for making possible our present level of population and
>>economic well-being; their abandonment would lead to chaos and
>>primitive tribalism, a tribalism which, lacking large-scale
>>coordinating capabilities, would be unable to sustain Earth's
>>population.
>
>Unlikely. It would certainly lack the ability (and perhaps the will)
>to sustain the current Western "life-style". But the current "growth-
>driven" Western economy can not exist indefinitely, either. If we
>can not imagine a stable (in population and production) society, then
>the world according to Hayak's prescriptions can't continue any
>longer than any other social system.
>

Hayak is observing, not prescribing...you are prescribing and not
observing.  

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada