Margaret Thatcherโs intellectual love affair with the economist Friedrich von Hayek continued despite divergent views on the importance of science, rationality andย truthโฆย
Margaret Thatcher presented a clear argument before the Royal Society in 1988: The free market economy depended on a sustainable natural ecology. And science provided the necessary knowledge to guide the industry on what would, in fact, beย sustainable.
The then-Prime Minister’s argument was based on reason. It was rationalย to expect her fellow free market ideologues to agree with her simple premise. But it seemed Thatcher’s adherence to science, distilled during her time studying chemistry at Cambridge, was not shared by her philosophicalย allies.
Friedrich von Hayek, her intellectual mentor, published a truly peculiar book in the same year as Thatcherโs Royal Society speech that attacked the very foundations of intellectual endeavour, reason, science and basic facts, deeming them to be the very enemies of tradition andย morality.
Hayek was no longer a professional economist by 1988, at which point he publishedย The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialismย with the free market-dominated Chicagoย University.
โI did only incidental work in economics,โ he admitted, while his friend and ally, Milton Freidman, confirmed that โthe truth of the matter is, he really got out of that side of theย business.โ
But he was still paranoid about socialism: โThe higher we climb up the ladder of intelligence, the more we talk with intellectuals, the more likely we are to encounter socialist convictions,โ heย wrote.
โRationalism, empiricism, positivism, and utilitarianism. In such definitions one finds quite explicitlyโฆ the declaration of faith of modern science and the philosophy of science, and their declarations of war against moralย traditions.
Socialism as aย ruse
โThese declarations, definitions, and postulatesย ย have created the impression that only that which is rationally justifiable, only that which is provable by observational experiment, only that which can be experienced, only that which can be surveyed, deserves belief; that only that which is pleasurable should be acted upon, and that all else must be repudiatedโฆ and that our task must be to construct a new morality on the basis of scientific knowledgeโusually the new morality ofย socialism.โ
Much of his anger appears to have been a reaction against claims that his free market ideology was nothing but a ruse to fool workers into supportingย capitalism.
He complained that his work had been โchallenged, even ridiculed, as the selfish excuse of privileged classesโ. Hayek returned to his argument, expressed inย The Road to Serfdom, that no system could satisfy the multitude desires of theย masses.
To support this claim, he seemed to be saying that โfactsโ themselves did not exist. โSome hypothetical body of objective fact is no more available to capitalists for manipulating than it is to the managers that ย socialist would like to replace them. Such objective facts simply do not exist and are unavailable toย anyone.โ
Hayek’s argument appears to be deeply pessimistic here, viewing the world and his fellow human beings as hostile and irrational.ย People should not expect to get what they want, and should be happy only to have the chance toย reproduce.
Socialย Darwinism
He argued that capitalism might not be pleasant, or fair, or valid, but that it was necessary. โOur civilisation depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can be precisely described only as the extended order of human cooperation, an order more commonly, if somewhat misleadingly, known asย capitalism.โ
Civilisation โresulted not from human design or intention but from spontaneity it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannotย proveโฆโ.
According to Hayek’s world view, โour desires and wishes are largely irrelevantโ and only the continuation of human existence is important. โWe can against calamityโstrive after what, under favourable conditions, will continue to lead, at least for some time, and in many places, to furtherย increases.โ
Perhaps this is what followers of the free market mean when they say humanity will be able to adapt to climate change.ย Theย Fatal Conceitย appears to have demonstrated something John Maynard Keynes had observed more than 40 years earlier: that Hayek was wrestling with his own conscience andย losing.
One interpretation of this book is that Hayek himself believed in his heart that rationalism, empiricism and the rationally justifiable led irresistibly to socialism. He must have been grateful that the Soviet Union offered only totalitarianism and despair while โthe outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family (and also anti-religion), is notย promisingโ.
Societies have evolved, he went on to suggest, through a form of community-wide natural selection.ย This โsocial Darwinismโ would have dark echoes of Nazism with its faith in the superior Aryanย race.
The apparent chasm between Thatcher’s scientific rationalism and Hayek’s unprovable traditionalism did not, however, affect theirย friendship.
The prime minister would congratulate the economist on the occasion of his 90th birthday in May 1989. โIt is 10 years this week since I was privileged to become prime minister,โ sheย wrote.
โNone of it would have been possible without the values and beliefs to set us on the right road and provide the right sense of direction. The leadership and inspiration that your work and thinking gave us were absolutely crucial, and we owe you a greatย debt.โ
Next week: Bert Bolin and the founding of the IPCC, attracting staunch opposition from the energy industry with the creation of the Global Climate Coalition, a corporate powerhouse designed to undermine any global effort to prevent climateย change.ย
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts