Hayek's book 'The Fatal Conceit', lays out the transparently destructive flaw of socialist theology. The cult of the communal, as Hayek clearly indicates in his book, has in times past prevented the rise of civilization and obstructed man's development in all spheres of endeavour, including the moral. In the modern era, the cults of socialized mendacity have been responsible for the worst carnage in human history – all in the name of equality, social justice and 'brotherhood'. The rhetoric never meets the reality. Islam, a cult where the individual is subsumed into the collective and in which free will and responsibility are illegitimately denied, and where humans are 'slaves' to quote Recital, to a celestial object, is as well and quite clearly, another monumental failure.

The absurdity of socialism premised on a form of 'rationalism', does not however, prevent highly educated, supposedly intelligent, and usually well-meaning people from subscribing to the theological prescription of failure, immorality, coercion, and quite frankly self-obsessed narcissism. Socialism in my view is the most selfish and banal of cult theologies. It is primitive. There is nothing exalted or 'reasoned' in socialist theology. Socialism in its many forms negates the value of life, the individual, of responsibility and effort, and ignores basic laws around natural law rights, societal development, and the creation of a vibrant, moral and productive society. Socialism destroys, it does not equalize.

Hayek's first chapter [his introduction is here], is titled 'Between Instinct and Reason'. In it he examines cultural and biological evolution. How did society evolve? Was it from the communal, the power of the center forcing change and adaptation? Or was the process more complex, more subtle, more culturally biased and based ?

“These modes of coordination [in primitive societies] depended decisively on instincts of solidarity and altruism – instincts applying to members of one's own group but not to others....The savage is not solitary, and his instinct collectivist. There was never a 'war of all against all' [to quote Hobbes].”

Instincts informed the first human organizations. But what happened as the paleolithic evolved into the neolithic and beyond ? Was Aristotle, who was wrong on most things outside of zoology, correct when he placed instincts at the core of social development?

“Despite his achievements as a scientist, Aristotle spoke from his instincts, and not from observation or reflection, when he confined human order to the reach of the herald's cry. Such beliefs are understandable, for man's instincts, which were fully developed long before Aristotle's time, were not made for the kinds of surroundings, and for the numbers, in which he now lives.”

Obviously we don't live within a herald's cry today, but how did that complexity evolve over millenia ?

“What are chiefly responsible for having generated this extraordinary order, and the existence of mankind in its present size and structure, are the rules of human conduct that gradually evolved (especially those dealing with several property, honesty, contract, exchange, trade, competition, gain and privacy).”

The extended moral and cultural order, specifically the creation of non-instinctual rules around property, morality and ethics allowed civilization to be constructed.

“Mankind achieved civilization by developing and learning to follow rules...that often forbade him to do what his instincts demanded, and no longer depended on a common perception of events. These rules, in effect constituting a new and different morality, and to which I would indeed prefer to confine the term 'morality', suppress or restrain the 'natural morality', i.e., those instincts that welded together the small group and secured cooperation within it at the cost of hindering or blocking its expansion.”

The establishment of an extended and complicated order can only be accomplished through competition, individual initiative and individual responsibility – not through coercion and communalism:

“Competition is a procedure of discovery, a procedure involved in all evolution, that led man unwittingly to respond to novel situations; and through further competition, not through agreement, we gradually increase our efficiency.”

The success of the moral-cultural order was premised and created through competition, as the human searched for what worked and what did not work in building a better society and world. This pattern of competitive reasoning was based on key principles which evolved into a moral order, and which would find their way into the complexity of trade, intra-social relations and inter-tribal relations. Trial and error would produce Hayek's morality and lead to a more civilized existence.

So what according to Hayek is the fatal conceit of the socialist world order and theology as he surveys the development of human society?

“...the fatal conceit: the idea that the ability to acquire skills stems from reason. For it is the other way around: our reason is as much the result of an evolutionary selection process as is our morality. It stems however from a somewhat separate development, so that one should never suppose that our reason is in the higher critical position and that only those moral rules are valid that reason endorses.”

Human development and evolution is a cultural process – not one of reason. Rationalism which is another intellectual code-word for socialist engineering and communal cult organization; upends the reality and real processes which created civilization. This is why socialism is so dangerous and immoral. This theology views the world in the precisely opposite way that it should be considered:

“Man is not born wise, rational and good, but has to be taught to become so. It is not our intellect that created our morals; rather, human interactions governed by our morals make possible the growth of reason and those capabilities associated with it.”

Reason is a by-product of many factors; evolution, sensory perception; your mind and brain's capability. But there is little doubt that ultimately culture is king and it is the culture which will either stimulate your ability to reason, or neuter and destroy it. You cannot separate reason from culture. Hayek's 'morality' and set of rules is essentially about culture. When you efface your culture, and eradicate the long process of evolution which built a successful culture, and institute in its place 'rationalism', the cult of science and scientism, you will in actual fact, come to the point where the ability to reason has been destroyed.