The Intellectuals and Socialism

This is an absolutely wonderful defiition of self-described intellectuals and their role in shaping public opinion. When I first started reading this pamphlet I wanted to learn why intellectuals are attracted more towards socialism. He only made that connection in the last few pages and wasn't too convincing in my opinion. However by the time I got to that point I really didn't care any more. I found all his descriptions and definitions right on the mark. I have had personal contcts with a few people who are considered influentail in my own (relatively) small "community." They get published in "scholarly" journals and have everybody's full attention at social functions with their commentaries. Now I think I can better see through some of the arguments and have a better insight into their motives. It is a very short essay and I highly recommend it as a wonderful read.

It seems an opportune moment, with the United States poised to declare victory in the Second Gulf War, to review this little classic.Hayek famously declared that his 'Road to Serfdom' was dedicated to socialists of all parties as he warned against the dangers of totalitarian rule for liberal(I use the word advisedly) democracies.This pamphlet is a reprint of an 1949 essay of Hayek wherein he pursued the dictum of Keynes' contained with the 'General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' about the influence of ideas.In the essay Hayek questions the view that intellectuals are original thinkers. For him, original thinkers are few and far between but their ideas and views are percolated through society by the intellectuals. Those 'second-hand dealers in ideas' as Hayek referred to them are not necessarily the greatest scholars or the most brilliant minds but are adept at taking ideas and regurgitating them as teachers or journalists or through some other profession such that they pass through to the general public. Hayek contends that intelligent people consider intelligence to be more important than it is and in the world of men and thus tends to be more socialist orientated as those people view the market with disdain. He recognises that the market is a fundamental part of establishing value through individuals participating in a trial and error system of exchange which the intelligensia overlook but which directly affects them anyway. For Hayek, the battle of ideas was to be won, not by the original thinkers, but by the spread of classical liberal ideas by the class of intellectuals who could be convinced of the power of new, or perhaps not so new, ideas.As Edwin Feulner, one of the editors, remarks, this article was a clarion call to those who espoused a classical liberal standpoint. Following on from this was the establishment of the free market think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs and other such institutions around the world. The story goes on to celebrate to some degree at least the success in bringing classical liberal ideas to the fore in many countries around the world and the success of some of those ideas.So far, sort of, so good. A word of warning should be sounded. Whereas I agree with the aims of the paper I am circumspect about the current situation. To me there is more to classical liberal ideas than just a free economy. It does appear from my point of view that the battle of ideas is being won by neo-conservatives and authoritarians of all parties rather than by liberals. Others may disagree but the lesson I have taken from reading this marvellous little book again is that all who rally to the flag of Classical Liberalism need be extra vigilant in these uncertain times against the further development of neo-conservative and authoritarian ideas because they threaten not only the gains that have been made in the last fifty years but also many of the liberties we all cherish in our western democracies.Liberals of the world