I wanted to ask whether you agree that intellectuals tend to prefer the designing of social institutions to serve human interests (based on principles of social justice for example)? Would you agree with Hayek that this is a prejudice of sorts? Or is there a way to prove that designed institutions are superior to those market institutions which developed (he claims) "spontaneously"?
Any thoughts Comrades?
He talks about economics mostly in the abstract, as if it's some kind of parlor game, without taking into consideration any principles of humanism or human rights. He called it a "game of chance," while I've heard other pro-capitalist ideologues suggest it's more like survival of the fittest where "only the strong shall survive." This seems to support the view that market economies are "just" and falls within the parameters of natural law.
I think this pretty much sums up the main argument in favor of capitalism, which relates to their arguments against socialism, as they think socialism violates "human nature."
One of the main problems with this view is that "natural law" is a sword that cuts both ways. Life is not a "parlor game." People at a certain aristocratic level in society tend to think in those terms and believe that everyone must follow and will follow a certain set of "rules" in this "game" that they've imagined for themselves. But they're not the ones on the assembly lines getting their hands dirty. They're not the ones in the trenches fighting wars. They're still safe and sound in their ivory towers, insulated and free to philosophize about abstractions - and pat each other on the back over how great their "system" is.
To be sure, nationalism also uses the "natural law" argument to justify itself. As a 19th century German nationalist philosopher once put it, "the weak and cowardly perish, and perish justly." That's one of the pitfalls of "natural law" and one of the reasons more enlightened nations have tried to move away from that kind of thinking.
I don't think we have to embrace "natural law" just because it's there. So what if one system can say that it's more "spontaneous" or "natural" than the other (thus implying that one is superior)? The real question is: Do we, as humans, really want to live this way?
Where I live in the American Southwest, there's a lot of people who embrace this kind of capitalist/libertarian viewpoint peppered with certain ideals that shaped the Old West. Culturally, the folklore of the Western/Frontier genre has probably shaped Americans' views of themselves, as well as the outside world and life itself. During the early days of the Cold War, it was also the early days of TV - and Westerns dominated. I sometimes watch those old shows on reruns. It's not just gunfights and cowboys, but there was a certain philosophy that has permeated other genres and created a lot of the value systems and perceptions that ostensibly dominate American thought and dominate the political culture.
What this means is that, when capitalists argue for what they consider to be "the best system," they're not really arguing for the nuts and bolts of a "market economy" as it exists presently. They're arguing for a world where Jedi Knights and Walker Texas Ranger actually exist. They're arguing for an abstract fantasy - a parlor game. They believe in contracts and lawyers and "rules," although as Col. Saito put it in
The Bridge On The River Kwai, "Do not speak to me of rules. This is war! This is not a game of cricket!"
But on that note, all these contracts and laws and rules that capitalists adhere to (and the wealthy benefit from) would contradict Hayek's argument that the system is "spontaneous." Humans had to design all those rules and the institutions set up to enforce them.
So, the institutions have already been designed; the question is whether humans can think of a better way to make them operate.
The other side of the question is what is the actual goal in whatever "system" we choose to set up? In simpler times (back in the Old West), the whole idea was to expand and build, expand and build - move west, set up towns, farms, railroads. It didn't matter who we rolled over to get to that point - that was the main goal. And in large part, it mainly worked to achieve the goal of expanding our size, resource base - and developing enough land to support a large population to build industries required to become a major superpower.
Other powers in Europe embarked on a similar campaign of acquiring land and resources around the world to build up their empires. They also tried to take land from each other, which also had consequences. Whatever political/economic systems they embraced depended on whatever national agenda or goals they might have had. Whether they were out for conquest or whether they were trying to protect their lands from would-be conquerors, their system was geared more towards that particular goal than anything else. It also depended a great deal on patriotism and nationalism - the idea that we are the "good guys" fighting the "bad guys."
The trouble is that we went too far. The machines and weapons of war became so frightening and monstrous that we didn't want to use them - except when absolutely necessary. In the nuclear world, geopolitics has become a big "Mexican standoff" where numerous powers have nuclear weapons - or the ability to manufacture them in a relatively short period of time. We also have a world where "class" means a different thing on a global scale than it might mean within a particular nation.
Back in Russia in 1917, most of the world was heavily nationalist, so the idea of all the workers of the world uniting in a common cause seemed impossible. But now that the capitalists have "gone global" and speak of a "global village" and free trade and global markets, perhaps a more globalized form of socialism might also be something with some appeal. In terms of class and the differences between rich and poor - on a global scale, the differences are quite stark.
