It is true; I freely admit it. Go to any university and poll the faculty; it will be overwhelmingly liberal, (which is why William F. Buckley Jr. famously remarked that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard). Examine the intellectual class in general and you will find that most people are liberals who tend toward socialism or outright socialists. No wonder J. S. Mill called conservatives "the stupid party."
F. A. Hayek, in that fascinating book of his old age entitled, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, also admits this fact even in the process of dismantling socialism as mistaken in fact, illogical and manifestly wrong. He writes:
"One's initial surprise at finding that intelligent people tend to be socialists diminishes when one realizes that, of course, intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence, and to suppose that we must owe all the advantages and opportunities that our civilization offers to deliberate design rather than to following traditional rules, and likewise to suppose that we can, by exercising our reason, eliminate any remaining undesired features by still more intelligent reflection, and still more appropriate design and 'rational coordination' of our undertakings. This leads one to be favourably disposed to the central economic planning and control that lie at the heart of socialism. Of course intellectuals will demand explanations for everything they are expected to do, and will be reluctant to accept practices just because they happen to govern the communities into which they have been born; and this will lead them into conflict with, or at least to a low opinion of, those who quietly accept prevailing rules of conduct. Moreover, they also understandably will want to align themselves with science and reason, and with the extraordinary progress made by the physical sciences during the past several centuries, and since they have been taught that constructivism and scientism are what science and the use of reason are all about, they find it hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that did not originate in deliberate experimentation, or to accept the validity of any tradition apart from their own tradition of reason. Thus a distinguished historian has written in this vein: 'Tradition is almost by definition reprehensible, something to be mocked and deplored.'"
Hayek here is making two closely related points. The first is a point about the temptation smart people face to over-estimate the uses of reason. Elsewhere, Hayek quotes Hume to the effect that our reason does not and cannot control our instincts and appetites. So the first point has to do with a Pelagian view of the self as unfallen and perfectly able to control one's own actions and desires by reason. The second point is one about the sociology of knowledge and how constructivism and scientism, which have no logical connection to real empirical science, are nevertheless absorbed by people by osmosis from those who deceptively use science to peddle their pet philosophies. One thinks of Col. 2:8 here.
Hayek then goes on to point out the dangers in this way of thinking.
"These reactions are all understandable, but they have consequences. The consquences are particularly dangerous - to reason as well as to morality - when preference not so much for the real products of reason as for this conventional tradition of reason leads intellectuals to ignore the theoretical limits of reason, to disregard a world of historical and scientific information, to remain ignorant of the biological sciences and the sciences of man such as economics, and to misrepresent the origin and functions of our moral rules.
Like other traditions, the tradition of reason is learnt, not innate. It too lies between instinct and reason; and the question of the real reasonableness and truth of this tradition of proclaimed reason and truth must now also scrupulously be examined." (pp. 53-4, italics original)
The moral of this story is that intelligence does not equal wisdom. To be smart is good, so long as one does not make an idol out of autonomous rationality and bow down before it. Conservatism is (in Russell Kirk's words) "reason operating within tradition" and socialism is reason operating autonomously while holding tradition in contempt. Revelation, of course, is passed on to us by tradition (including the Scriptures and commentary on them).
Showing posts with label F. A. Hayek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label F. A. Hayek. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
What is Socialism?
A while back I was attacked on this blog by a number of Yoder-quoting radical types who were outraged and scandalized by the fact that I sounded like I was agreeing with First Things and refused to endorse socialism. I also criticized Rowan Williams and, for some reason I can't quite grasp, the same people who claim to love the Anabaptist pacifist also love the head of the world's richest state church.
Anyway, when I offered some boiler-plate criticisms of socialism and implied that it had something to do with (a) the Soviet Union and (b) the ideas of Karl Marx, I was informed that I had no idea what I was talking about and did not know what socialism meant. I'm quite sure I did not know what socialism meant to my interlocutor; all I could discover was that he was very sure that anyone who was not a socialist (in his definition) was a very bad Christian, if he could indeed even be called a Christian at all.
Well, reading F. A. Hayek's very incisive and clearly written The Road to Serfdom (Collected Works, Vol. II, University of Chicago Press, 2007) has helped me to figure out what was going on in that curious incident. Hayek identifies a common confusion about socialism. He says:
"The confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality, and security, which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of 'planned economy' in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body." (p. 83)
Now this distinction, I think, goes some way to explaining what many theologians mean when they talk about socialism - or social justice or concern for the poor or a number of other similar slogans. They are simply mouthing slogans and ideals without actually sitting down and thinking through what a concrete and serious program to achieve those goals actually would entail.
Hayek goes on:
"There are many people who call themselves socialists, although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain that they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Many people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends." (p. 83)
I think it would make sense for theologians to reserve the label "socialist" for those who are committed both to the ideals and the means and for those who value the ends but not the means to call themselves liberals. This would save a lot of confusion in determining what someone means when it is said that a Christian must be a socialist.
Personally, I would argue that a Christian cannot be a socialist in the sense of endorsing both the ideals and the ends for to do so is to endorse a totalitarian order that is at odds with the Christian concept of freedom. A Christian can, however, be a socialist in the sense of endorsing the ideals but not the ends. In that case, however, a Christian is in serious danger of being exploited by more doctranaire socialists and used to further a totalitarian agenda.
Hayek points out that the means we are talking about (centralized economic planning) need not be used for socialist ends, but can be used for any ends whatsoever (except for maximizing liberty, of course). Since, the means advocated by socialism are not unique to socialism itself, he prefers to call those who advocates these means "collectivists." So, in these terms, I would revise my statement to say that a Christian cannot consistently be both a socialist (values social justice ends) and a collectivist (advocates centralized economic planning to achieve these ends) simultaneously.
This is by no means just a lot of hair-splitting to no practical effect. Hayek points out that: "Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concern the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which socialists want to use them." (p. 84) One of the reasons I distrust liberalism (besides its conceptual incoherence) is that throughout the Twentieth century it has tended to accept collectivist methods bit by bit. This is where conservativism is valuable; as a brake on liberalism, which cannot seem to resist the siren song of collectivism.
Anyway, when I offered some boiler-plate criticisms of socialism and implied that it had something to do with (a) the Soviet Union and (b) the ideas of Karl Marx, I was informed that I had no idea what I was talking about and did not know what socialism meant. I'm quite sure I did not know what socialism meant to my interlocutor; all I could discover was that he was very sure that anyone who was not a socialist (in his definition) was a very bad Christian, if he could indeed even be called a Christian at all.
Well, reading F. A. Hayek's very incisive and clearly written The Road to Serfdom (Collected Works, Vol. II, University of Chicago Press, 2007) has helped me to figure out what was going on in that curious incident. Hayek identifies a common confusion about socialism. He says:
"The confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality, and security, which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of 'planned economy' in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body." (p. 83)
Now this distinction, I think, goes some way to explaining what many theologians mean when they talk about socialism - or social justice or concern for the poor or a number of other similar slogans. They are simply mouthing slogans and ideals without actually sitting down and thinking through what a concrete and serious program to achieve those goals actually would entail.
Hayek goes on:
"There are many people who call themselves socialists, although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain that they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Many people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends." (p. 83)
I think it would make sense for theologians to reserve the label "socialist" for those who are committed both to the ideals and the means and for those who value the ends but not the means to call themselves liberals. This would save a lot of confusion in determining what someone means when it is said that a Christian must be a socialist.
Personally, I would argue that a Christian cannot be a socialist in the sense of endorsing both the ideals and the ends for to do so is to endorse a totalitarian order that is at odds with the Christian concept of freedom. A Christian can, however, be a socialist in the sense of endorsing the ideals but not the ends. In that case, however, a Christian is in serious danger of being exploited by more doctranaire socialists and used to further a totalitarian agenda.
Hayek points out that the means we are talking about (centralized economic planning) need not be used for socialist ends, but can be used for any ends whatsoever (except for maximizing liberty, of course). Since, the means advocated by socialism are not unique to socialism itself, he prefers to call those who advocates these means "collectivists." So, in these terms, I would revise my statement to say that a Christian cannot consistently be both a socialist (values social justice ends) and a collectivist (advocates centralized economic planning to achieve these ends) simultaneously.
This is by no means just a lot of hair-splitting to no practical effect. Hayek points out that: "Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concern the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which socialists want to use them." (p. 84) One of the reasons I distrust liberalism (besides its conceptual incoherence) is that throughout the Twentieth century it has tended to accept collectivist methods bit by bit. This is where conservativism is valuable; as a brake on liberalism, which cannot seem to resist the siren song of collectivism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
