The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism Volume 1

I was hesitant to purchase this book because the title led me to believe that this was just a rehash of The Road To Serfdom. Instead, it turns out to be a philosophical work that in my opinion would be more accurately titled The Extended Order as opposed to The Fatal Conceit. The book mostly deals with the concept of the extended order, which is basically the idea that in addition to our genes, our morals and politics come from an evolutionary process which is much too complicated to be intentially created by the human mind. This is an epistemological view that argues against the idea of system building in both morals and politics (specifically socialism which seems to be broadly defined as any top-down political and moral construction). I would have liked to see the concept of the extended order flushed out into a more concrete moral and political philosophy, but this has been done (at least the political) in his earlier writings (Constitution of Liberty among others). Because of this, I'm not sure this book has as broad an appeal as some of his earlier classics, but as a Hayek fan who likes philosophy, I thoroughly enjoyed the book.

I first read The Fatal Conceit back in 1991, after reading Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. I reread the book in 2007 while commuting back and forth to California's state capital in my capacity as a state assemblyman. Needless to say, the book's profound critique of socialism means much more to me now as a 45-year-old lawmaker and front row eyewitness to daily attempts to incrementally enact socialism in the Golden State. The Fatal Conceit's title captures the essence of the socialist/progressive/liberal impulse, born of a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority, to bring order to the free market, and in so ordering, destroy the very thing (capitalism), that allows modern civilization. Hayek writes of socialism in the introduction entitled "Was Socialism a Mistake?": "...The dispute between the market order and socialism is no less than a matter of survival. To follow socialist morality would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest. "All of this raises an important point about which I wish to be explicit from the outset. Although I attack the presumption of reason on the part of socialists, my argument is in no way directed against reason properly used. By `reason properly used' I mean reason that recognizes its own limitations and, itself taught by reason, faces the implications of the astonishing fact, revealed by economics and biology, that order generated without design can far outstrip plans men consciously contrive..." What a simple observation of the truth, "...order generated without design can far outstrip plans men consciously contrive..." Capitalism, spontaneously generated through centuries of human interaction, has proven the best way to conduct the economics of mankind. But socialists to try to "improve" upon something that no person invented, and, in so doing, ruin a healthy economy. Hayek admits that capitalism can look bleak to individuals who, through hard luck or laziness, can't make it - but he convincingly argues that helping the poor by enacting socialism out of a moral impulse "...would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest." This brings me to present day California with its burgeoning budget deficit brought on by chronic overspending on social programs twined with a tax regime regarded by The Tax Foundation as the 47th worst business tax climate in America. Very soon this system will collapse. The socialists/progressives/liberals who run the legislature are already proposing more taxes and more social welfare spending. Should California become America's tax dungeon by edging out Rhode Island to claim the worst business climate in the nation, the negative impact on the working class will dwarf all the combined intended good of every social welfare program enacted and yet conceived by the left as the paying jobs of the capitalists flee the state. Gazing at California, Hayek would surely shake his head sadly. The Fatal Conceit should be required r

_The Fatal Conceit_ written by economist F. A. Hayek is a firm rejection of economic planning and socialism in favor of classical liberalism and private ownership of "several property" from an agnostic evolutionary perspective. Hayek argues that morality cannot be founded based upon reason alone but that its foundation must be found within the traditional structures that make up society. He argues this from an evolutionary perspective claiming that morality has evolved and therefore been selected for and therefore that it is naive of us to believe that through reason alone we can determine what is ethical. This is in agreement with a religious perspective that would claim that the morality-bearing tradition has been handed down to man from a source which involved an encounter with the Divine (of course, the religious perspective would deny evolution but would arrive at the same conclusion based upon revelation). Hayek, himself an agnostic, discusses these issues in his book and shows how religion can serve as a guardian of tradition. One specific tradition that exists within Western culture is that of private ownership of "several property". Hayek argues that socialism rests on a conceit and is often rooted in an irrational longing for a primitive time (primitivism). Hayek shows how many philosophers and economists including Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas ("the just wage theory"), Karl Marx, Keynes, and Einstein advocated some form of socialism and shows the errors in various aspects of their thinking. Hayek is particularly harsh to Keynes who spoke against the traditional value assigned to saving money, which Hayek feels is absurd. Hayek then shows how socialism is presented as a trade-off; however, involved in this trade-off is the substantial loss of liberty, a value all people should hold dear. Hayek demonstrates how language itself has become infested with words which take on socialistic meanings, and Hayek shows that the very word "liberal" has come to mean the exact opposite of its original intention, i.e. a lover of liberty. Hayek roundly refutes the Malthusian theory of population growth and argues against the over-population scare which is used by the Club of Rome to advance their population control agenda. Hayek shows that in regions which become industrialized and modernized the population growth decreases. This means as more and more regions trade in their premodern existence for an industrialized one the population growth in these regions will go down. The final chapter concludes with a discussion of the role of religion in preserving the traditional system of morality and Hayek's own agnostic philosophy. Hayek argues that it is naive of some to view religion as a conspiracy of the priestly caste to maintain their power, and he shows the value that religious beliefs may have. While I agree with this assessment in Hayek's discussion of religion, I disagree with his agnosticism and failure to recognize a personalized God.

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 RegulationThe 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.

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.