From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: The Errors of Socialism
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:00:15 GMT

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)


THE FATAL CONCEIT: THE ERRORS OF SOCIALISM
by F. A. Hayek
The University of Chicago Press, 5801 South Ellis Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60637   1989   180 pages   $24.95 cloth
Reviewed by Robert Taylor

     At the ripe old age of 90, Nobel Laureate Friedrich von
Hayek has loosed one final curve ball at the academic world.
While intended as a capstone work to summarize his lifelong
contributions to the social sciences, this book takes a
somewhat novel tack by examining the origin and nature of
ethics.

     Like Marx, Hayek sees an inherent contradiction in
Western capitalistic societies.  Unlike Marx, however, Hayek
sees this contradiction in terms of an ethical dualism, not a
materialistic dialectic, and he also feels that this
contradiction is both necessary and beneficial -- though
nonetheless problematic.

     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.

     Hayek believes that ethics lie somewhere between instinct
and reason.  Ethics -- like language, the marketplace, and the
common law -- are a spontaneous order that, in the words of
Adam Ferguson, is the product of "human action, but not human
design."

     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.

     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.

     As time passed, agricultural techniques were developed
and cities were founded.  These events provided a basis for
two further developments that made "small group" ethics
untenable: economic trade and population growth.  Trade placed
members of closed communities in constant contact with
"foreigners" who usually did not share the group's purposes or
beliefs.  Population growth, spurred by relative economic
security, made the small group rather large, with the result
that members of the same group were often strangers to one
another and often pursued different ends.

     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.
"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.

     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.
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.

     But, as Hayek notes, individuals have only a "limited
ability to live simultaneously within two orders of rules."
The dividing line between the two ethical structures often
becomes fuzzy in application, leaving individuals confused
concerning their obligations.  For instance, one would clearly
have an obligation to assist a friend or family member in
financial need.  But what about a needy stranger who accosts
one on the street?  Or a fellow businessman, teetering at the
edge of bankruptcy, with whom one is competing in the
marketplace of the extended order?

     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.

     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.
"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.

     The ethical dualism Hayek sees in Western society is
ultimately incapable of resolution.  The socialist
alternative, argues Hayek, is reactionary and inapplicable to
the complex yet subtle extended order of the modern world.
Hayek's final message in The Fatal Conceit is wise counsel
that should be pondered by all: the maintenance of a classical
liberal society, an extended order composed of individuals and
voluntary organizations freely interacting, is, without
exaggeration, a matter of life and death.

___________________________________________________________
Robert Taylor is a junior studying political science and
economics at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.  This
review is adapted from a column in the campus newspaper, The
Daily Beacon.
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics