The Intellectuals and Socialism

by Friedrich A. Hayek

Never underestimate the influence of intellectuals, because the theories they are promoting today will be the basis of tomorrow's political programmes. This was the warning which Friedrich Hayek, the great architect of the 20th-century revival of classical liberal ideas, issued in 1949 with this essay. Hayek described intellectuals as 'professional second-hand dealers in ideas', people who are in a position to become familiar with new ideas and to promote them through their writings and speeches.

He believed the importance of this class had been ignoted by supporters of the free market, with serious consequences. For example, socialism had never, and nowhere, been at first a working-class movement. It adoption by policy makers had been preceded by a long period in which it had been of interest only to intellectuals, who had promoted it relentlessly.

Hayek believe that the classical liberal ideal of liberty and free markets had lost its appeal for young, intelligent people: the challenge was to 'make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure'. Hayek ended the essay by asking: 'Will it be in time?' A foreword by Edwin J. Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, and an introduction by John Blundell, General Director of the IEA, testify to the impact of this essay, together with Hayek's other writings, in stimulating the backlash against socialism through the many institutes founded by those who were won over to classical liberal ideas - just in time.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Political Science

28 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

Friedrich August von Hayek CH was an Austrian and British economist and philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought. He is considered by some to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century. Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate signals which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics. Hayek also wrote on the topics of jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.

Hayek is one of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, and in 1974 shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.

Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938.

Reviews

[Sylvester · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Intellectuals and Socialism was a dire warning about the moral balkanization these so called "Intellectuals" are still trying to propagate in the present. Intellectuals (or intelligentsia) are the group of people who primarily live in their ivory tower and work their way up to influential positions by leeching off others to cause divides among people (be it race, gender, class, etc). This short essays outlines the irrational propaganda machines' plan to rise up and become the rulers of their own selfish visions. Read as a horror non-fiction book now, it offers an ending that would give us hope for a better future.

[Alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's an interesting read. The fact that the short piece fails to support why "pure liberty" is superior to collective well-being protects it from a lot of the usual criticism. And it makes a fair point that the reason "socialism" is so dominant in the intellectual world is because it promotes the idea that people can fashion a utopia, whereas libertarianism is more focused on the past.

Unfortunately the paper loses its efficacy due to the fact it claims the facilitators of knowledge dispersement (intellectuals) are either peer pressured into socialism, or are idiots when it comes to Econ but brilliant in some non-related field. It makes sense this was the basis of the alt-right's vitriolic hatred of the liberal elite

[Christopher Goins · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can see why a conservative would recommend this book to another conservative or libertarian: socialists were largely successful because they were able to paint a picture of a utopian society in the minds of men. Basically, conservatives, libertarians, and "classical liberals," as opposed to modern liberals in the ilk of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, need to do the same.

[Alex Salo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unbelievably acute essay that withstands the test of time.

All the arguments fit perfectly well if you replace the "socialism" with any other trendy utopian movement that lacks practical think-through. Here in 2022, wokeism and environmentalism came to mind, and all the observations made by Hayek apply flawlessly.

The basic observation is that the prevailing ideas in society spread through a class of intellectuals - the second hand dealers in ideas - basically any professionals whose job it is to proliferate knowledge - teachers, professors, journalists - people who due to their profession are listened to by many. So far so good - that's working as intended. Then come two failure modes.

First, when intellectuals are talking with expert tone on subjects that they are not experts at all. Consider all the unfortunate false extensions that people derived from the otherwise useful theory of evolution. Hayek points out the intellectuals who becomes the most active and prolific celebrities in the movements are typically not respected in the scientific community on the subject because the lack the rigor and scientific doubt. Consider the environment catastrophism - good scientists don't end up making headlines because the things we actually know are neither sensational nor catastrophic. Nor do people familiar with the practical matters become catastrophist - you need to be convinced beyond the facts in what you believe to inspire great movements. That's why many authors equate Socialism, Communism (Yuval Harari), and Environmentalism (Alex Epstine) with pseudo religions.

Second, intellectuals tend to err towards utopias, since it's just not sexy enough to dream and talk about micro optimizations of the mainstream order of the liberalism. There needs to be a utopia that captures the imagination and dictates all the decisions through its lenses. Ask any woke person about the flaw in their reasoning - and you'd learn that they did not actually think about reasoning at all - it does not matter - what matters is the underlying principles in which they believe in. And since these principles are plausible and justifiable in abstract, and not really falsifiable, it's hard to argue with, and that's precisely why the movement becomes successful.

The solution that Hayek proposes is for the defenders of the freedom to dream big and offer its own vision of utopia that is more compatible with the liberal view.

[Isaac Chan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Note:
Episodes mentioned:
1) 19/2/26 ('The wisdom of' - Episode on Burke)
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3HVA...

Why does academia lean left? Why do smart, well-trained people get swept up by radical ideas? This phenomenon is particularly salient for me, after that recent asinine Twitter thread by Alex Moskowitz, where he denigrated economics for not being a real subject because economists don't read Marx (that's not to say that Moskowitz is one of the 'smart, well-trained people' I have in mind). Moskowitz has since restricted his Twitter so I can't see it anymore.

I recently talked to 2 friends. The first of them was a uni classmate. This dude, although smart and having graduated from a top course, had not been able to secure a stable job in a related field since graduating. Being financially and professional distressed can fuck up your mind. Last week he suddenly questioned whether the US is ‘too capitalist’, and the reason being that inequality is widespread, wealthy people are dodging taxes here and there, and healthcare is in shambles. And he then proceeded to support Bernie's policies. After I disapproved of Bernie as a literal socialist, he said he's ‘not opposed’ to socialist ideas.

The 2nd dude was my cousin, an accountant/ consultant at KPMG Singapore, who I met over CNY. He ranted about how much of corporate consulting work is BS and lip service, how partners pocket most of the profits of a deal and juniors only receive a fixed pay, and how he can’t feel the practical impact of his work since he’s so far removed from the implementation of the project. And he blamed this on the failures of ‘capitalism’. On his last point, I remarked that what he’s saying is just Marxist alienation.

Why do even people trained in economics, accounting and finance buy into this dangerous idea – socialism – that’s failed in pretty much every country that tried it? An ideology that leaves economic destruction, political repression, and humanitarian tragedies in its wake? What’s so appealing about it?

Hayek defines an ‘intellectual’ as a ‘professional secondhand dealer in ideas’. In all fields, Hayek observes, there exists a class of ‘experts’, who are specialists in their subject matter. However, since a specialist, almost by definition, grapples with the particular and relatively neglects the general, their popular power is generally restricted. Call this class the ‘firsthand dealer of ideas’.

Smtg dangerous happens when an expert starts to stray outside their area of expertise and becomes an ‘intellectual’. Armed by the confidence that they have in their knowledge and abilities, it’s human nature for them to generalize this confidence across a range of fields, particularly those fields that are i) fun to study, ii) exert huge influence over entire societies, iii) comprises a key concern for everyone. Think of political philosophy.

Hayek warns us that the influence of ‘intellectuals’ are more far-reaching than what may appear on the surface, so we should clearly be alert of pseudo-intellectuals. The practical impact of ‘intellectuals’ aren’t seen immediately, but plants a seed in the collective unconscious, which sprouts in the future into a tree with deep-seated roots. By then, it’s too late to check the intellectuals. As Hayek observes, ‘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.’

Intellectuals don’t need to be particularly knowledgeable, let alone being an expert in the subject area which they profess – ‘ The typical intellectual … 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 an intellectual is merely his charisma, his ability to communicate and to sell sensational stories that need not be grounded in objective facts. The best examples that come to mind for me are Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro (although ironically, these 2 dudes preach social conservativism). Probably folks like Yuval Noah Harari and Neil DeGrasse Tyson as well, altho these 2 arguably don't stoke cultural wars.

So that’s 1 possible cause of the appeal of socialism that Hayek identifies – the rise of an ‘intellectual’ class.

Hayek searches for other causes. He notes the appeal of grand, sweeping theories over smaller-scale scientific endeavours which aim to provide more precise answers with careful weighing of evidence. Intellectuals gravitate to the former, perhaps because they have no compunction with espousing grand ‘theories of everything’ with little falsifiability; whereas experts stick to the latter, perhaps due to some status quo bias, a virtue of their scientific training. And so ‘in some respects the intellectual is closer to the philosopher’, because a philosopher is he or she who generalizes, and makes wild speculations.

So the intellectual’s influence is not constrained by practical considerations. And the specialist who achieves public fame and wide influence are not those who have gained recognition among their peers, but often those who experts regard as cranks or frauds.

In time, Hayek observes, the ‘intellectual’ class gains a lot of momentum. They start silencing conservative voices. This was clearly true during the woke/ DEI era a while back. Even in Hayek’s time, he was already lamenting that ‘anyone who has familiarity with a large number of university faculties’ will know that the most brilliant and successful teachers are more likely than not to be socialist, whereas those who hold conservative views are frequently mediocrities. So from this point of view, the majority of academics probably have to be classed as intellectuals than experts. Over time, the pressure of intellectual opinion makes it so that it requires more strength and independence to resist socialist ideas than to join in ‘modern views’.

I'd like to chip in on why intellectuals get wildly misguided - it stems from a blinded failure to distinguish between what the world IS and how the world SHOULD be. I'm always wary of anyone who tries to paint a picture of a utopia whilst seemingly ignoring harsh realities of the world. No matter how smart an intellectual is (famously, shockingly, curiously, even Einstein advocated socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Soc.... If his socialist ideas gained influence, then Einstein himself would become one of the 'intellectuals' as how Hayek defined it), it's easy to fall into the trap of applying revolutionary social science ideas to a fantasy of how they think the world SHOULD be like (and oftentimes these ideals are just arbitrarily defined by their own liking) - indeed, the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they IMAGINE they can design. Economics serves to check ludicrous political philosophy.

[Bartosz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dobrze się czyta, choć esej pisany nieco dawno, więc pewne tezy z początku mogą wydawać się dyskusyjne. Niemniej wyraźnie widać elementy, za które Hayeka warto cenić - poparcie dla dualizmu metodologicznego i ewolucyjnej teorii instytucji społecznych. Widać też dobre zdiagnozowanie problemu ospałości ruchu libernego w pierwszej połowie XX. wieku. Liberalizm po sukcesach XIX wieku osiadł na laurach, skupił się na nieistotnych detalach nieprzyciągających kreatywnych umysłów intelektualistów. Próba czasu niesamowicie pozytywnie zweryfikowała receptę Hayeka - większość liberalnych myślicieli, którzy doprowadzi do odrodzenia ruchu to niepraktyczni utopiści, dywagujący o całkiem nowych zasadach organizacji społeczeństwa.

[Bob Croft · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Intellectual Class" tend to overvalue intelligence. Everything worth knowing can be discovered by intellectual examination; fins it hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that was not discovered by such examination. They thus reject traditional rules of morality, property, freedom and justice. Utopia is possible, if created by the brightest.

[Chancellor Clay · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short and concise book gave some great insight into the influence that the “intellectuals” of our society have upon the culture and legislation. Especially when it pertains to the popularization and implementation of tyrannical socialism and a planned economy.

[Grim-Anal King · Rating 3 out of 5]

He has something of a point, but it's rather undermined by his sweeping generalisations about intellectuals.

[Dc96 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. As relevant now as when it was written.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Intellectuals and Socialism" (1949)

When Hayek speaks of “intellectuals” he is discussing what he calls the “professional secondhand dealers in ideas.” Hayek points out that while intellectuals do not have an immediate effect on policy, they have a strong effect in shaping public opinion over the long term, and so they are a force that should not be underestimated. He points out that socialism is always a movement of intellectuals before it is a working class movement. It begins with the intellectual class and is gradually filtered down to the actual working class whom it is primarily intended to benefit. Hayek makes an important distinction between the original thinker or genuine scholar and the intellectual, whose primary merit lies in his ability to “readily talk and write” on a wide range of subjects and convey them to his audience. The intellectuals play a crucial role in shaping public opinion because it is through him that knowledge of current events and original discoveries is filtered. Almost everything we know has been packaged for us by intellectuals. “Whether we shall ever learn of the results of the work of the expert and the original thinker depends mainly on their decision.” Not only do intellectuals shape public opinion; they “make” reputations, alsmot inevitably for left-leaning scholars and thinkers. Hayek points out that, while there has never been a majority of economists who look favorably on socialism, it “is not the predominant view of the experts but the view of a minority, mostly of rather doubtful standing in their profession, which are taken up and spread by the intellectuals.” The real scholar or “practical man of affairs” often finds himself irritated by the intellectual’s amateurish grasp on what he proclaims, yet it is crucial to remember that intellectuals have a massive impact in our culture: they are the “sieve through which all new conceptions must pass before they reach the masses.

It’s important, then, to understand why so many of the intellectuals “incline to socialism.” For one thing, Hayek says, "speculations about the possible entire reconstruction of society give the intellectual a fare much more to his taste than the more practical and short-run considerations of those who aim at piecemeal improvement of the existing order." In other words, Hayek suggests that the opportunity for abstract speculation on fundamental principles stimulates the intellectual in a way that conservative tinkering with an already-established cannot. He acknowledges as legitimate the "the desire for the understanding of the rational basis of any social order" and the "constructive urge" that attracts intellectuals toward socialism. Yet he laments that liberalism has no similarly well-reward outlets for wide-ranging speculative thinking. It ought to have, Hayek thinks. He laments, too, that classical liberals (who tend to think of themselves as "practical" and "sensible") tend to treat visionary speculation with derision, creating a culture of conformity rather than of bold and daring innovation that could animate liberalism anew. Indeed, Hayek writes, "there can be few more thankless tasks at present than the essential one of developing the philosophical foundation on which further development of a free society must be based. Since the man who undertakes it must accept much of the framework of the existing order, he will appear to many of the more speculatively minded intellectuals merely as the timid apologist of things as they are; at the same time he will be dismissed by men of affairs as an impractical theorist.... While no socialist theorist has ever been known to discredit himself with his fellows even by the silliest of proposals, the old-fashioned liberal will damn himself by an impractical suggestion." Liberalism needs its visionaries and utopians, too. Because most classical liberals, satisfied with present conditions, turn to the important but less intellectually stimulating business of fine-tuning, only the socialists "have offered anything like an explicit program of social development, a picture of what future society" they are aiming at. In consequence, the socialist program has become the general philosophy or social policy toward which liberalism must tend and compromise. The "contrast between the existing state of affairs and one ideal of a possible future society which the socialists alone hold up before the public" is what determined the development of society. Hayek notes the irony that it is the countries which have the most liberty that value it the least; while those with less liberty are more receptive to the ideas of classical liberalism. What we need he says is a radical or utopian liberalism.

[Laura Méndez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aborda el papel crucial que juegan los intelectuales en la difusión de ideas socialistas y cómo estas ideas influyen en la opinión pública y, eventualmente, en la política. Hayek argumenta que los intelectuales no son necesariamente expertos en economía o política, sino más bien intermediarios que interpretan, seleccionan y popularizan ideas complejas para el público general. A menudo, estas ideas provienen de una élite intelectual que, según Hayek, está predispuesta a apoyar el socialismo debido a una combinación de idealismo y una falta de comprensión de las realidades económicas.

Hayek sostiene que los intelectuales tienen un poder desproporcionado en la formación de la opinión pública y que este poder ha sido subestimado por quienes apoyan el libre mercado. Advierte que, aunque las ideas socialistas puedan parecer atractivas en teoría, sus aplicaciones prácticas tienden a erosionar la libertad individual y a llevar a una planificación centralizada que es incompatible con una sociedad libre.

Para contrarrestar la influencia de los intelectuales socialistas, Hayek sugiere que los defensores de la libertad y el libre mercado deben trabajar más en comunicar sus ideas de manera que resuenen con el público general. Esto implica la necesidad de desarrollar una red intelectual que pueda competir eficazmente en el mercado de ideas, presentando el caso del liberalismo y el capitalismo como sistemas que no solo son más efectivos económicamente, sino también más éticos en términos de promoción de la libertad individual.

[Ryan Christian · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I love Hayek and many of his ideas, this book gave me mixed opinions. On one front I love the fact that he calls out intellectuals for what they are and the recognition that they do not align with classical liberal or libertarian ideas. While this is great, I loathe the fact that he thought we needed to convince the elites. This servile longing to convince elites shows a lack of understanding in Hayek. No matter how many studies from the Cato Institute or articles penned by Reason are shown to elites they won’t change their ideas. Those in power aren’t typically motivated by the idea of promoting reason or virtue, but are rather interested in increasing their own power. Of the few who do want positive change, power is so dispersed and limited to be rendered useless. As David Friedman has noted: in the private market market failures are the exception and not the rule, but in the political market market failures are the rule. To anyone who is considering picking up this book I’d highly encourage you to instead read The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham. That book explains the nature of power (and by extension consensus making) far better than this book could ever possibly hope to.

[Radoslaw Paklikowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gdybym wiedzial, że to tylko 40 stron, to bym ją przeczytal wieki temu... :D

[Kyle Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interestingly describes the libertarian radio types more today then what's left of the tankies.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe this should be 5 stars - read it 20 years ago - I should reread soon.

[ziombel · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this work Hayek describes the "Professional sellers of ideas" - the intellectuals who shape public opinion. The author explains why socialism was a great success among the intellectuals. According to him, the radical socialism is intellectually attractive for this group of people because it has a large field to theorizing. The mistake of the classical liberals was that it began to deal mainly practical things, not visions of the future society. Through this approach, socialist had clear road to serfdom. The only way to defend free market, is a radical preaching for freedom to once again make it attractive intellectually. Sure conclusions are similar to the conclusions of Ayn Rand, but the creator of objectivism has gone much further. I would recommend this book to others libertarians, but work has heavy style, which is hard to read.

//polish
W tym dziele Hayek opisuje "Profesjonalnych sprzedawców idei" - czyli intelektualistów, którzy kształtują opinię publiczną. Autor wyjaśnia dlaczego socjalizm odniósł duży sukces wśród intelektualistów. Według niego radykalny socjalizm jest atrakcyjny intelektualnie dla tej grupy ludzi, ponieważ ma duże pole do teoretyzowania. Błędem klasycznych liberałów było to, że zaczęli się zajmować głównie praktycznymi rzeczami, a nie wizjami przyszłego społeczeństwa. Przez to oddali pole socjalistom i w długim okresie przegrali. Jedynym sposobem obrony jest radykalne głoszenie postulatów wolnościowych, aby znów stały się one atrakcyjne intelektualnie. Pewnie wnioski są podobne do wniosków Ayn Rand, jednak twórczyni filozofii obiektywizmu poszła znacznie dalej. Książkę polecam innym wolnościowcom, jednak te dzieło ma ciężki styl, przez co ciężko się czyta.

[Rareș · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good essay. I want, however, to quote this (incidental) bit:

"If we still think [the intellectual] 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 to spread views which to us appear a threat to our civilization[1].

[1] It was therefore not [...] "politeness to a fault" but profound conviction of the importance of this which made me, in Professor Schumpeter's words, "hardly ever attribute to opponents anything beyond intellectual error."

This has increased my respect tenfold for Hayek, as I have never seen someone so outrightly intellectually honest and kind to those with whom he argues. I am much more excited to read the rest of his works now!

[Kevin Reinholdt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hayek definerer intellektuelle som dem, der spreder ideer fx gennem medier, og dermed ikke nødvendigvis som intelligente eller på anden måde specielt egnede til fremme holdninger. De intellektuelles synspunkter former ifølge Hayek samfundets udvikling. Et flertal af disse intellektuelle har angiveligt velmenende, omend skadelige, socialistiske holdninger. Artiklen virker mere filosofisk og postulerende end økonomisk og argumenterende. Han anbefaler liberale til at inspirere folk med utopiske ideer og på den måde præge folkestemningen, frem for at holde sig til hvad der er politisk muligt (som han vil overlade til politikerne).

[Sean Rosenthal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting Quote:

"It may be that as a free society as we have known it carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, that once freedom has been achieved it is taken for granted and ceases to be valued, and that the free growth of ideas which is the essence of a free society will bring about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends."

-F. A. Hayek, the Intellectuals and Socialism

[Adrián Sánchez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un ligero ensayo donde Hayek le explica al lector el por qué los intelectuales en aquél tiempo se sentían más atraídos hacia el socialismo y qué hacer y no hacer para no caer en lo mismo, es un buen apoyo para reforzar el contenido que ofrece en La Fatal Arrogancia donde se ve este tema.

[Craig Bolton]

"The Intellectuals and Socialism (Rediscovered Riches, 4) by Friedrich A. Hayek (1998)"

[Jamees · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh.

[Yogy TheBear]

Short thoughts of Hayek on the appeal and spread of socialism in academic circles. Also an interesting comment on scientism in the fields of politics and economics, witch he disproves.
At the end he urges the need of liberalism to promote itself as socialism did. He argues for a little bit of utopianism in liberalism. Well I may say that what he urged for hase been done by Rothbard and the new libertarian current, and that drop of utopianism is present in the form of anarho capitalism