Socialism, as with most cults, is decidedly irrational, prone to violence and demands a slavish devotion to 'projected' dreams and fantastical ideas; whilst rejecting the more interesting world of the 5 senses. Socialist dialecticism, which takes shape in Marxism, Communism, Social-Democracy, Social-Justice, or 'Rationalism'; is of course based upon illogical and quite irrational theologies. As Hayek demonstrates in this chapter Socialist cant rejects complexity, be it the complexity of a market, of a trading systems, or of systemic differences in prices points, supply and demand. Hayek ends Chapter 3 with a nice summation of the simple, indeed simpleton premise, which inform Socialism:
“Notwithstanding, and indeed wholly neglecting, the existence of this great advance [complex trade], a view that is still permeated by Aristotelian thought, a naive and childlike animistic view of the world has come to dominate social theory and is the foundation of socialist thought.”
Naive, childlike, animistic. These are good appellations to describe the barren theory of any form of Socialism. Why ? Socialism as Hayek proves time and again, ignores the dense, complicated and at times inscrutable nature of exchange, trade, long-distance interchange, cultural evolution, and the evolution around a market system of mores, ethics and of course private or several property.
“In Europe there is evidence of trade over very great distances even in the Paleolithic age, at least 30.000 years ago...Eight thousand years ago, Catal Huyuk in Anatolia and Jericho in Palestine had become centres of trade between the Black and the Red Seas, even before trade in pottery, and metals had begun.”
Paleo-and Neo-lithic villages developed in easy to farm soil, and some like Catal Huyuk sat near or bestrode volcanoes. Archaeology indicates that legumes and fruits were first 'farmed' in Armenia. Goats and cattle were domesticated in Israel. Sheep and pigs in Anatolia. Wheat and barley along the Israel-Lebanon coast. Each area had a 'speciality' and exchanged those products with its neighbours. Trade thus begat the idea of complex communities, villages, political order, morals and most likely the ownership of private assets and property. Hammurabi's famous 1700 BC law 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', is directly linked to the sanctity of private property and is likely based on Sumerian laws at least 500 years old.
As trade increased so did humans:
“...[trade] increased the density of population. A chain reaction began: the greater density of population, leading to the discovery of opportunities for specialisation, or division of labour, led to yet further increases of population and per capita income...”
Socialists simply refuse to acknowledge that diktats, utopias and state power did not create the modern world. The trading system and its attendant cultural artefacts did. Or, as Hayek would argue, culture and traditions based on property and trade; manufactured the modern world.
“The role played by governments is greatly exaggerated in historical accounts because we necessarily know so much more about what organized government did than about what the spontaneous coordination of individual efforts accomplished.”
and
“Governments have more often hindered than initiated the development of long distance trade.....often endeavoured to secure these supplies in one way or another.”
This is true. One is reminded of the above facts when reading for example, the story of Assyrian tyrants, and their long chronicles of utter devastation as they attempted to control all major trade routes. In their lust to control the source supply of tin, copper, gold, or cultivated crops, which were once freely traded into Assyrian cities, the Assyrian tyrants waged wars which have few equal in ferocity and bloodshed. Eventually through a century or more of bloody violence, these exchange routes all over the Near East were forcibly appropriated into the Assyrian empire in the 9th century BC. But it was ephemeral. The Assyrians soon overtaxed, over-regulated, over-controlled, and over-spent their resources. The empire decayed and fell bankrupted to the neo-Babylonians.
But ancient history is littered with the dysfunctional corruption of imperial states:
“And the history of China provides many instances of government attempts to enforce so perfect an order that innovation became impossible.”
Socialism rejects complexity because by default it has no insight into, or explanation for, evolution and cultural development, both of which occur at the individual level, not the communal.
“Although also acclaimed as a biologist, Aristotle lacked any perception of two crucial aspects of the formation of any complex structure, namely, evolution and the self-formation of order.”
Self-formation is the critical aspect of evolution. Trial and error finds what is best and most effective. A communal order; a regulation; a 'demand'; a utopian 'view'; none of this will produce an evolving order. Evolution in any sphere, can only occur when there are complex forces at work, sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing, sometimes exchanging; and these forces 'found out' the best solution through natural, organic and one could say 'rational' processes. Price points, profit, success and failure, supply and demand – all these attributes are impossible to centrally plan, manage or develop.
==