Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem - Essay Example

Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem There are different schools of thought that have their own philosophies about socialism. One school of thought in particular has had many compliments and criticism. This is as with any school of thought that another may find different from their own. In this case, there is the thought from one school that socialism can only be possible through the presence of private property and other factors of production. This is the Mises theory on socialism, which advocates for the presence of these factors to allow for economic calculation to take place. However, a contradiction in this theory came in the form of Hayek, who believes that it is not a problem of lack of private property, rather; the lack of knowledge that presents a challenge to socialism (Hoppe 143). This paper will examine the author of Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem and his line of thought. This is while focusing on what ideas he might offer the audience in terms of the concepts of socialism, and how it might affect them. Hans-Hermann Hoppe chose to discredit Hayek with his theory, saying that it was completely false and ridiculous. In an effort to discredit Hayek and his school of thought, he brings forth arguments to support Mises’s thesis. Mises’s thesis advocates for the presence of private property in land and production factors for there to be proper channels of economic calculation. There being a medium of exchange in the form of money, it would then be possible to calculate and make comparison of the economic situation. Hoppe makes the assumption that Hayek does not have the right arguments to support his thesis about socialism. Hayek purports that socialism and its ultimate flaw is that knowledge about certain circumstances of place and time exist in widely dispersed form, as the personal possession of various individuals (Hoppe 144). Hoppe may have an inclination toward Mises’s school of thought. This is as he brings out practical situations and scenarios that convince individuals of society’s economic capability and downfall. Hoppe calls Hayek’s thesis absurd as Hayek believes that the centralization of the use of knowledge may be the reason for the problems surrounding socialism. The author, Hoppe, criticizes Hayek by asking a question that would be on the minds of the audience about why clubs, firms, and families exist if his line of thought were to be true. It is Hayek’s belief that a decentralized use of knowledge may lead to the solving of socialism’s ills. In this decentralized use of knowledge, individuals are left to their own devices and can make their decisions (Hoppe 144). To some extent, the above may be true. However, the author tries to explain that when individuals are left to their own decision making abilities, it would be next to impossible to ignore the central plan, as they would not be constrained by the normal things in society. He further claims that if the deciding factor or the solution to socialism’s problems was a decentralized form of thinking, it would be a daunting task to explain why the problems faced by socialism are different from those faced by any other social order. According to Mises and his followers, this line of thought is beside the point. Hoppe points out that it is not the existence of centralized knowledge, or the lack of the use of decentralized knowledge that brings problems to socialism, rather; the absence of property. This ultimately leads to the lack or absence of prices (Hoppe 145). The author claims that Hayek came to realize what Mises had said, but tried to integrate it into his own thesis. This, according to Hoppe, was an elaborate attempt to create a higher and much better theory or line of thinking with regards to the socialism theory, which failed miserably. It is clear from the above that agreeing that socialism’s central or key problem lies in the lack of knowledge. According to the author, private property is the only channel through which information can be transferred. In this case, information is used to refer to prices, and it is the lack of the private property institution that leads to socialism’s problem (Hoppe 146). The author admits that he does not know everything that the audience might know, and the vice versa is also true. However, it would be problematic and wrong for individuals to assume that they all possess the same information in terms of prices (Murphy and Callahan 59). The author pushes further and says that if there is the possibility of centralizing knowledge, then there is the possibility of finding Hayek’s line of thought true. Unfortunately for Hayek, that would mean that Mises’s line of thought would have to be correct, and that is what he is seeking to dispute. The author hits it home with the point that is made on the issue he takes with Hayek’s political philosophy with this line of thought. He questions Hayek’s theory of subjectivism where Hayek describes advancement in economics may lead to the consistent application of subjectivism (Hoppe 147). Hoppe indicates or argues that subjectivism, on the other hand, does not lead to advancement in economic theory. According to the author, this is where Hayek draws his conclusion, which proves that it is based on falsehood. While Mises describes economics as the science of action, Hayek describes it as the science of thought. The author cannot find a link between an individual’s immediate surroundings and the thoughts they might have. However, the actions of an individual can be linked directly to their environment, and how they respond to it. In Hayek’s view, all physical and material things do not exist. It is through this theory that the author wishes to prove that the school of thought brought on by Hayek is fallacious. A political philosophy that the author and Mises share is that freedom is the right to own and control private property (Hoppe 148). Hayek, on the other hand, describes freedom as a state whereby individuals are left to their knowledge, and use it for their own purposes. In this line of thought, the author believes that Hayek does not bear any consideration to tangible property and scarce goods that economics tries to deal with in society. There is no indication that there is the existence of either of the states described present in this line of thought. There is no way, according to the author, that an individual can make any distinctions through such line of thought. At the end, it is clear that this line of thought is not operational and is not applicable in the real world. This is where everyone is involved in prices, tangible property, labor, taxation, and regulation Hoppe 149). It is wrong and improper for this line of thought to try and claim that individuals cannot do anything to improve on their conditions. In conclusion, the author tries to bring the intended audience to light through his criticism of earlier theorized schools of thought by philosophers. He is trying to indicate the false doctrine that is taught by one school by indicating all the areas they were wrong. They are not baseless assumptions that are not backed up by evidence. He clearly states that one line of thought is much superior to the other based on the facts and reasoning he offers. It is through theorized and practical evidence that the author hits his point home with regard to one school or line of thought. He offers counter arguments that make the audience view the lines of thought that are present, and therefore pass judgment with regards to what they are seeing and reading (Rothbard 79). Philosophy and economics may have a role to play in the growth of individual minds, and it is through such readings that individuals can be open-minded toward their situations. Works Cited Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem?” The Review of Austrian Economics 9.1 (1996): 143-149. Print. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. Print. Murphy, Robert P., and Callahan Gene. “Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic:  A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 20.2 (2006): 53-64. Print. Rothbard, Murray N. The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press,  1998. Print. Read More