[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Oskar Leligdowicz Hayek about social justice and central planning economy
Hayek about social justice and central planning economy
Friedrich August Hayek is without any doubt person who has a mighty impact on a course of global economy in last decades. It was Margharet Thatcher who called his book Constitution of Liberty “this is what we want, this is what we believe”. And there is true in this statement, Hayek’s opinions were crucial for neolibertarian governments in 80’s, mostly in United Stated and Great Britain but also in continental Europe. What’s more the bitter end of USSR with hole countries united in Warsaw Pact and economic revolution in Communist China are one of the most important proofs for Hayek’s opinion about central planning and socialism at all. We must remember that for our perspective it’s easy to say why socialist governments fall down but he started to criticize central planning economy in its best days just after Great Depression. That was a time when countries try to restore old liberal system which existed before Great War without successes, when all countries have a troubles after crisis only with exception of USSR, when all states more or less were realizing central planning politic. So Hayek is father for neoliberalism theories, his ideas must waiting and some of them still wait for realization.
We could divide Hayek’s field of interest on three parts chronologically. Firstly Hayek focus on classical liberalism and problem of allocation of goods. But arguments on this area were not enough against arguments of socialist thinker. So he start to analyzed problem of coordination of economic process. Then he writes his most f. But as we know it was enough to control strictly every aspect of social and even some parts of private life. The only way to realize central plan in democracy is giving all power to some person or office which is only obligated to achieve a goal. It must be one office or person because realization of some number of smaller plans is not the same as realization of one central plan. So we need to do so some dictatorship. It is necessity to establish that kind of system because that is the most efficient way to force this plan. As we can see central planning is a straight way to totalitarism.
Second argument against collectivism is connected with German idea of “Rechtsstaat”. Socialist state which realize a some sort of plan can’t give any choice his citizen. If there is some alternative between goals state should choose the better one instead of person. So there’s a need to creating law ad hoc and judging behaviors in present situation not by some general rules. If it’s necessary for planning we should accept some behaviors in one group of people and not in the other. In socialist state law should legalize everything which office, dictator do to realize a plan. To achieve a goal we should have clear path and law cannot force as to choose less effective or ineffective ways. The good example giving by Hayek is “Declaration of Human Rights” by H. G. Wells where we have a rule “every person has a right to buying and selling (…) everything which according to law is free to buy or sell”. But then we have that it is only buying and selling “amounts and with restriction which are necessary to provide common prosperity.”. There is more example like right to free choosing of job but only if it’s decided that other path of carrier is opened for him. As we see we can’t have person freedom guaranteed by law with central planning. In central planning we are tools to realize that plan.
There’s also argument in favor of central planning connected with comparing effectiveness of collectivistic economy with free-trade economy. For us those theories from beginning of 20th century can look odd but we must remember that hole “socialist experiment” which was USSR was in great shape. Argument is that monopolies are more effective than small companies. Hayek don’t fight directly with this argument but send us to opinion of National Economy Committee in work known as “Concentration of Economic Power” which don’t found arguments in favor this opinion. What’s more free trade give us diversity of products. We could choose what car we want instead one type only. Of course producing one car for hole nation or event hole globe would be cheaper and faster (the great example is to compare German and soviet production of tanks during second war. Soviets focused only on one type in every category and German not what cause great disproportion between number of unit) but this take from us freedom of choice. Hayek called it “price of democracy”.
The term “social justice” is a goal of socialism and central planning. One of arguments of collectivism is social justice. So situation where every person have the same amount of goods. But a choice we had between socialism and free-trade is not between unjustice and blind diversity of good and a justice one. In free-trade economy we have free concurrence when we can some way decide about us and in socialism group of people who decide what give whom. Hayek gives a great example that event poor, uneducated laborer has more freedom with creating his own life than industrialist in Third Reich. In a country which realize this “social justice” argument we would have no freedom at all. Our position and wealth is given, we can’t decide about them, we can lose everything just next day if person in charge of such system decided so. Private property is one of most basic freedom we gained. There’s also a problem what mean “social justice”? If we use world justice it should be equality absolute in every cases. But every socialist movement want only “greater equality” not “absolute equality”. Good example is every socialist country starting from USSR and ending on today regimes like North Korea and in every country we have similar redistribution of goods as in capitalistic ones. In “Constitution of Liberty” Hayek goes deeper and tell us that redistribution of goods in capital society couldn’t be justice or injustice and the phrase of social justice is empty inside. Outcome can’t be just or unjust.
The final argument in debate is a assumption that everything can be planned. It comes from illusion of power of human mind. It’s obvious that one person or one office don’t have all necessary information which are needed to make complex economic decision as implement one central plan. We can’t plan what we can’t known.
Bibliography:
von Hayek F. A. “Droga do zniewolenia”, ARCANA, Kraków 1996, ISBN 83-86225-11-4
von Hayek F. A. „Konstytucja wolności”, Wydawnictwo PWN, Waszawa 2006, ISBN 83-01-14941-8
von Hayek F. A. ”Zgubna pycha rozumu. O błędach socjalizmu”, ARCANA, Kraków 2004, ISBN 83-89243-02-04
von Hayek F. A. „Intelektualiści a socjalizm”, Instytut Liberalno-Konserwatywny, Lublin 1998, ISBN 83-902282-7-0
Kostro Krzysztof „Debata socjalistyczna a rozwój teorii społeczno-ekonomicznych Friedricha Augusta von Hayeka”, Wydawnictwo Dig, Warszawa 2001, ISBN 83-7181-151-9
1
s.67, F. A. von Hayek, „Droga do zniewolenia”, Kraków 1996
s.92 , F. A. von Hayek, „Droga do zniewolenia”, Kraków 1996
s.110, F. A. von Hayek, „Droga do zniewolenia”, Kraków 1996
s.108, F. A. von Hayek, „Konstytucja wolności”, Warszawa 2006
s.135, F. A. von Hayek, “Zgubna pycha rozumu. O błędach socjalizmu”, Kraków 2004
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]