Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
73 of 79 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Why Socialism Fails, October 14, 2002
Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) was one of the twentieth century's seminal thinkers. He was an economist in the Austrian tradition and studied under Ludwig von Mises. (Although he is often grouped with von Mises, he was not the consistent libertarian that von Mises was.) THE FATAL CONCEIT was Hayek's final work, and was put together from a manuscript by the late W. W. Bartley, III (who is named as "editor" of the work.) This book is timely in that it was written at the tail end of the communist age and provided Hayek with an opportunity to reflect on the failure the socialist revolution.As Hayek shows, the central problem with socialism is that it based on the false idea of "constructive rationalism," the belief that man can order society based purely on reason (and therefore planning). However, social progress is based in large part on tradition, or -- as Hayek describes it -- "between instinct and reason." This progress is inherently evolutionary and proceeds by slow steps. As such it integrates all the knowledge that is dispersed in society. The theory presented in this book is a mix of liberalism and conservatism. In many ways it is the application of evolutionary theory to social though. As he daringly says: "morals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man's reason but a distinct endowment conferred upon him by cultural evolution." This certainly won't endear him to either religious thinkers or Randian libertarians. Hayek proceeds to discuss the benefits of private property, free enterprise and trade from this evolutionary perspective and shows socialized planning is inevitable destructive of social progress. Hayek provides an excellent refutation of the central errors of socialism. The reader might want to compare his approach with that of von Mises in THE ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY and PLANNED CHAOS, which covers similar territory from a somewhat different approach.
|
|
|
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Politicians should read this book, December 18, 2007
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 reading for every elected official in America, beginning with California.
Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, a California State Assemblyman, he served as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988, retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel, and is the co-author of "China Attacks."
|
|
|
40 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
F.A. Hayek's Fatal Conceit (or Why Socialism Sucks), May 12, 1998
By A Customer
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 Regulation The 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. So we have mistakenly fallen under the impression that a powerful state is the hallmark of a successful, and prosperous extended order of cooperation. "The powerful state is not the culmination of cultural evolution ; it as often marked its end." (page 33) Examples from history of powerful states extinguishing the light of voluntary cooperation include ancient imperial China, the Roman empire, and the Meso-American empires. Powerful governments are not conducive to spontaneous improvement. He believes that "sooner or later governments tend to suppress the freedoms they had earlier secured in order to enforce their own presumably greater wisdom and not allow 'social institutions to develop in a haphazard manner'." ( page 32) It is only the protection of private property, not any direction of its use by government, that provides the soil for the extended order to blossom in: ". . . No advanced civilization has yet developed without a government which saw it's chief aim in the protection of ! private property." (page 32) Without such protection, meted out by judicial, police and military force, the prerequisite morals ( honesty, for example) of the extended order would cease to exist. The evolution of such "individualist laws" aim through time to make increasingly possible the existence of voluntary associations without I compulsory powers.' Such an evolution of rules, however, must, like the chaotic extended order it seeks to support, be a spontaneous one . ( page 37) Without an acceptance of an individual's right to dispose over a recognized private domain the dense network of commercial relations among different communities' would not develop. The prerequisite for the existence of such "property, freedom, and order, is the same: law in the sense of abstract rules enabling any individual to ascertain at any time who is entitled to dispose over any particular thing." ( page 29) Hayek's role of government is of supreme importance precisely because it is a prerequisite to any further evolution of the extended order. The extended order cannot develop without the protection granted by government over private domain. Such an important role should never be seen as limited. But thinkers of all stripes call for more government regulation and a larger government role in society. Hayek would argue that any larger role, especially if called for by socialists , would lean towards those needs which our instincts and sentimental yearnings demand. He believes that such instincts and yearnings stem from the micro-cosmos of the tribe or even the family. This realm of the micro-cosmos is run by 'unmodified, uncurbed' rules which if ever applied to the macro-cosmos (or outer civilization) would destroy the extended order. (page 18) If you would like the rest of my review please email me. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Milton Friedman
by F. A. Hayek
by Mark R. Levin
by Milton Friedman
by Amity Shlaes
See all 100 books citing this book
