Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:31:55 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The (alleged) Errors of Socialism

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?

For the record, I agree that we can not have a large scale, explicit,
and wholly consistent ethical paradigm. But I don't see how Dr. Hayek
has gotten away from this by using history for a source. He must still
interpret history through a paradigm, and that means applying some
degree of rational thought.

>     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."

This begs the question, since the "ethics" the writer defends
include a justification of the marketplace. It might make more
sense to defend an ethos that includes what we call the
"marketplace" on the basis of its having evolved over a long
period of experimentation.

>     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".

>     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.

>  [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?

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.

>"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".

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.

>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.

>[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.

>     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.

>"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.

>___________________________________________________________
>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.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada