Hayek - The Intellectuals and Socialism.pdf - Hayek Friedrich - antonif

The Intellectuals and Socialism, by F.A. Hayek

The Intellectuals and Socialism

By F.A. Hayek

[Reprinted from The University of Chicago Law Review (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433,

by permission of the author and the publisher, The University of Chicago Press; George B. de Huszar ed.,

The Intellectuals: A Controversial Portrait (Glencoe, Illinois: the Free Press, 1960) pp. 371-84. The

pagination of this edition corresponds to the Huszar edited volume.]

I n all democratic countries, in the United States even more than elsewhere, a

strong belief prevails that the influence of the intellectuals on politics is negligible. This

is no doubt true of the power of intellectuals to make their peculiar opinions of the

moment influence decisions, of the extent to which they can sway the popular vote on

questions on which they differ from the current views of the masses. Yet over

somewhat longer periods they have probably never exercised so great an influence as

they do today in those countries. This power they wield by shaping public opinion.

In the light of recent history it is somewhat curious that this decisive power of

the professional secondhand dealers in ideas should not yet be more generally

recognized. The political development of the Western World during the last hundred

years furnishes the clearest demonstration. Socialism has never and nowhere been at

first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious

evil which the interests of that class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of

theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long

time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals

before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program.

In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of the development

in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for

many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more

active intellectuals. In Germany this stage had been reached toward the end of the last

century; in England and France, about the time of the first World War. To the casual

observer it would seem as if the United States had reached this phase after World War II

and that the attractio n of a planned and directed economic system is now as strong

among the American intellectuals as it ever was among their German or English

fellows. Experience suggests that, once this phase has been reached, it is merely a

question of time until the views now held by the intellectuals become the governing

force of politics.

The character of the process by which the views of the intellectuals influence the

politics of tomorrow is therefore of much more than academic interest. Whether we

merely wish to foresee or attempt to influence the course of events, it is a factor of

much greater importance than is generally understood. What to the contemporary

observer appears as the battle of conflicting interests has indeed often been decided long

before in a clash of ideas confined to narrow circles. Paradoxically enough, however, in

general only the parties of the Left have done most to spread the belief that it was the

numerical strength of the opposing material interests which decided political issues,

whereas in practice these same parties have regularly and successfully acted as if they

understood the key position of the intellectuals. Whether by design or driven by the

force of circumstances, they have always directed their main effort toward gaining the

support of this "elite," while the more conservative groups have acted, as regularly but

unsuccessfully, on a more naive view of mass democracy and have usually vainly tried

directly to reach and to persuade the individual voter.

The term "intellectuals," howeve r, does not at once convey a true picture of the

large class to which we refer, and the fact that we have no better name by which to

describe what we have called the secondhand dealers in ideas is not the least of the

reasons why their power is not understood. Even persons who use the word

"intellectual" mainly as a term of abuse are still inclined to withhold it from many who

undoubtedly perform that characteristic function. This is neither that of the original

thinker nor that of the scholar or expert in a particular field of thought. The typical

intellectual need be neither: he need not possess special knowledge of anything in

particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as

intermediary in the spreading of ideas. What qualifies him for his job is the wide range

of subjects on which he can readily talk and write, and a position or habits through

which he becomes acquainted with new ideas sooner than those to whom he addresses

himself.

Until one begins to list all the professions and activities which belong to the

class, it is difficult to realize how numerous it is, how the scope for activities constantly

increases in modern society, and how dependent on it we all have become. The class

does not consist of only journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio

commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists all of whom may be masters of

the technique of conveying ideas but are usually amateurs so far as the substance of

what they convey is concerned. The class also includes many professional men and

technicians, such as scientists and doctors, who through their habitual intercourse with

the printed word become carriers of new ideas outside their own fields and who,

because of their expert knowledge of their own subjects, are listened with respect on

most others. There is little that the ordinary man of today learns about events or ideas

except through the medium of this class; and outside our special fields of work we are

in this respect almost all ordinary men, dependent for our information and instruction on

those who make it their job to keep abreast of opinion. It is the intellectuals in this sense

who decide what views and opinions are to reach us, which facts are important enough

372

to be told to us, and in what form and from what angle they are to be presented.

Whether we shall ever learn of the results of the work of the expert and the original

thinker depends mainly on their decision.

The layman, perhaps, is not fully aware to what extent even the popular

reputations of scientists and scholars are made by that class and are inevitably affected

by its views on subjects which have little to do with the merits of the real achievements.

And it is specially significant for our problem that every scholar can probably name

several instances from his field of men who have undeservedly achieved a popular

reputation as great scientists solely because they hold what the intellectuals regard as

"progressive" political views; but I have yet to come across a single instance where such

a scientific pseudo-reputation has been bestowed for political reason on a scholar of

more conservative leanings. This creation of reputations by the intellectuals is

particularly important in the fields where the results of expert studies are not used by

other specialists but depend on the political decision of the public at large. There is

indeed scarcely a better illustration of this than the attitude which professional

economists have taken to the growth of such doctrines as socialism or protectionism.

There was probably at no time a majority of economists, who were recognized as such

by their peers, favorable to socialism (or, for that matter, to protection). In all

probability it is even true to say that no other similar group of students contains so high

a proportion of its members decidedly opposed to socialism (or protection). This is the

more significant as in recent times it is as likely as not that it was an early interest in

socialist schemes for reform which led a man to choose economics for his profession.

Yet it is not the predominant views of the experts but the views of a minority, mostly of

rather doubtful standing in their profession, which are taken up and spread by the

intellectuals.

The all-pervasive influence of the intellectuals in contemporary society is still

further strengthened by the growing importance of "organization." It is a common but

probably mistaken belief that the increase of organization increases the influence of the

expert or specialist. This may be true of the expert administrator and organizer, if there

are such people, but hardly of the expert in any particular field of knowledge. It is rather

the person whose general knowledge is supposed to qualify him to appreciate expert

testimony, and to judge between the experts from different fields, whose power is

enhanced. The point which is important for us, however, is that the scholar who

becomes a university president, the scientist who takes charge of an institute or

foundation, the scholar who becomes an editor or the active promoter of an

organization serving a particular cause, all rapidly cease to be scholars or experts and

become intellectuals, solely in the light of certain fashionable general ideas. The

number of such institutions which breed intellectuals and increase their number and

powers grows every day. Almost all the "experts" in the mere technique of getting

knowledge over are, with respect to the subject matter which they handle, intellectuals

and not experts.

373

In the sense in which we are using the term, the intellectuals are in fact a fairly

new phenomenon of history. Though nobody will regret that education has ceased to be

a privilege of the propertied classes, the fact that the propertied classes are no longer the

best educated and the fact that the large number of people who owe their position solely

to the their general education do not possess that experience of the working of the

economic system which the administration of property gives, are important for

understanding the role of the intellectual. Professor Schumpeter, who has devoted an

illuminating chapter of his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy to some aspects of

our problem, has not unfairly stressed that it is the absence of direct responsibility for

practical affairs and the consequent absence of first hand knowledge of them which

distinguishes the typical intellectual from other people who also wield the power of the

spoken and written word. It would lead too far, however, to examine here further the

development of this class and the curious claim which has recently been advanced by

one of its theorists that it was the only one whose views were not decidedly influenced

by its own economic interests. One of the important points that would have to be

examined in such a discussion would be how far the growth of this class has been

artificially stimulated by the law of copyright.

It is not surprising that the real scholar or expert and the practical man of affairs

often feel contemptuous about the intellectual, are disinclined to recognize his power,

and are resentful when they discover it. Individually they find the intellectuals mostly to

be people who understand nothing in particular especially well and whose judgement on

matters they themselves understand shows little sign of special wisdom. But it would be

a fatal mistake to underestimate their power for this reason. Even though their

knowledge may often be superficial and their intelligence limited, this does not alter the

fact that it is their judgement which mainly determines the views on which society will

act in the not too distant future. It is no exaggeration to say that, once the more active

part of the intellectuals has been converted to a set of beliefs, the process by which

these become generally accepted is almost automatic and irresistible. These intellectuals

are the organs which modern society has developed for spreading knowledge and ideas,

and it is their convictions and opinions which operate as the sieve through which all

new conceptions must pass before they can reach the masses.

It is of the nature of the intellectual's job that he must use his own knowledge

and convictions in performing his daily task. He occupies his position because he

possesses, or has had to deal from day to day with, knowledge which his employer in

general does not possess, and his activities can therefore be directed by others only to

a limited extent. And just because the intellectuals are mostly intellectually honest, it is

inevitable that they should follow their own conviction whenever they have discretion

and that they should give a corresponding slant to everything that passes through their

hands. Even where the direction of policy is in the hands of men of affairs of different

views, the execution of policy will in general be in the hands of intellectuals, and it is

frequently the decision on the detail which determines the net effect. We find this

illustrated in almost all fields of contemporary society. Newspapers in "capitalist"

374

ownership, universities presided over by "reactionary" governing bodies, broadcasting

systems owned by conservative governments, have all been known to influence public

opinion in the direction of socialism, because this was the conviction of the personnel.

This has often happened not only in spite of, but perhaps even because of, the attempts

of those at the top to control opinion and to impose principles of orthodoxy.

The effect of this filtering of ideas through the convictions of a class which is

constitutionally disposed to certain views is by no means confined to the masses.

Outside his special field the expert is generally no less dependent on this class and

scarcely less influenced by their selection. The result of this is that today in most parts

of the Western World even the most determined opponents of socialism derive from

socialist sources their knowledge on most subjects on which they have no firsthand

information. With many of the more general preconceptions of socialist thought, the

connection of their more practical proposals is by no means at once obvious; in

consequence of that system of thought become in fact effective spreaders of its ideas.

Who does not know the practical man who in his own field denounces socialism as

"pernicious rot" but, when he steps outside his subject, spouts socialism like any left

journalist? In no other field has the predominant influence of the socialist intellectuals

been felt more strongly during the last hundred years than in the contacts between

different national civilizations. It would go far beyond the limits of this article to trace

the causes and significance of the highly important fact that in the modern world the

intellectuals provide almost the only approach to an international community. It is this

which mainly accounts for the extraordinary spectacle that for generations the

supposedly "capitalist" West has been lending its moral and material support almost

exclusively to those ideological movements in countries father east which aimed at

undermining Western civilization and that, at the same time, the information which the

Western public has obtained about events in Central and Eastern Europe has almost

inevitably been colored by a socialist bias. Many of the "educational" activities of the

American forces of occupation of Germany have furnished clear and recent examples of

this tendency.

A proper understanding of the reasons which tend to incline so many of the

intellectuals toward socialism is thus most important. The first point here which those

who do not share this bias ought to face frankly is that it is neither selfish interests nor

evil intentions but mostly honest convictions and good intentions which determine the

intellectual's views. In fact, it is necessary to recognize that on the whole the typical

intellectual is today more likely to be a socialist the more he his guided by good will

and intelligence, and that on the plane of purely intellectual argument he will generally

be able to make out a better case than the majority of his opponents within his class. If

we still think him wrong, we must recognize that it may be genuine error which leads

the well- meaning and intelligent people who occupy those key positions in our society

375

Hayek - The Intellectuals and Socialism.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: