Buy Used
+ £2.80 UK delivery
Used: Good | Details
Sold by dolandaka
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: edges of covers a little faded, moderate general wear, a good copy, posted quickly by reliable uk seller
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek) Paperback – 1 Mar 1990

4.8 out of 5 stars 4 customer reviews

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Paperback, 1 Mar 1990
click to open popover

Special Offers and Product Promotions

Enter your mobile number below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Product details

  • Paperback: 194 pages
  • Publisher: Routledge; New Ed edition (1 Mar. 1990)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0415041872
  • ISBN-13: 978-0415041874
  • Product Dimensions: 23 x 15.6 x 1.4 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 974,292 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • See Complete Table of Contents

Product Description

From the Back Cover

Adopting an economic and evolutionary approach throughout, Hayak examines the nature, origin, selection and development of the differing moralities of socialism and the market order; he recounts the extraordinary powers that 'the extended order' of the market, as he calls it, bestows on mankind, constituting and enabling the development of civilization. --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

About the Author

F. A. Hayek (1899-1992), recipient of the Medal of Freedom in 1991 and co-winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1974, was a pioneer in monetary theory and the principal proponent of libertarianism in the twentieth century. He taught at the University of London, the University of Chicago, and the University of Freiburg.

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

4.8 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See all 4 customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Paperback
I have enormous respect for Hayek because he has an interesting methodological take on economics and because he supports evolutionary methods in economics. First, he takes a methodological position opposing the position taken by most economists because he often advocates a non-mathematical approach. Second, he argues for strongly for an evolutionary perspective on economics, which results in him advancing a theory of group selection. But I do not agree with the conclusions he draws from the positions he takes, namely that of high libertarianism, or a state that exists purely to uphold laws and to act as defence against outside forces and not to 'interfere' in other ways. Nevertheless, I believe that many of his arguments against socialism are accurate and should be better recognised and negotiated by socialists and statists alike. But Hayek also makes several errors, some of which I will bring up in this review, mainly those conceived by academics I have read, but about which you may not know.

First, he conflates a notion of a firm as actor and an individual as actor when firms are not individuals and markets often do not operate with an internal market structure, i.e., people are not priced within firms, they are managed. The problem with this is that corporatism and competition are often incompatible, or, at least, firms that have obtained substantial market share will spend substantial amounts of money to maintain that market share (see Herbert Simon on this).
Read more ›
3 Comments 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback
For those who wonder why the promised utopia of state intervention never seems to work out as planned, this book provides the answer. Hayek addresses a much ignored theme, namely how institutions like money, markets and trade developed spontaneously and flourished because they were superior to any alternatives, not because they were consciously designed. He makes a powerful argument for tampering with these at our peril, and does so in a style that is not beyond the scope of a reader not familiar with economic theory. This book would represent excellent value were it ten times the actual price.
3 Comments 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
As hoped for.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
The contents are those I expected. It exposes the idiocy of socialism What more can I say ,
except to add that it is one of the most boring books that I have ever read.
Comment One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) HASH(0x979d5048) out of 5 stars 109 reviews
334 of 352 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x979f1bc4) out of 5 stars Politicians should read this book 18 Dec. 2007
By Chuck DeVore - Published on
Format: Paperback
I first read The Fatal Conceit back in 1991, after reading Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. I reread the book in 2007 while commuting back and forth to California's state capital in my capacity as a state assemblyman. Needless to say, the book's profound critique of socialism means much more to me now as a 45-year-old lawmaker and front row eyewitness to daily attempts to incrementally enact socialism in the Golden State.

The Fatal Conceit's title captures the essence of the socialist/progressive/liberal impulse, born of a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority, to bring order to the free market, and in so ordering, destroy the very thing (capitalism), that allows modern civilization. Hayek writes of socialism in the introduction entitled "Was Socialism a Mistake?":

"...The dispute between the market order and socialism is no less than a matter of survival. To follow socialist morality would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest.

"All of this raises an important point about which I wish to be explicit from the outset. Although I attack the presumption of reason on the part of socialists, my argument is in no way directed against reason properly used. By `reason properly used' I mean reason that recognizes its own limitations and, itself taught by reason, faces the implications of the astonishing fact, revealed by economics and biology, that order generated without design can far outstrip plans men consciously contrive..."

What a simple observation of the truth, "...order generated without design can far outstrip plans men consciously contrive..." Capitalism, spontaneously generated through centuries of human interaction, has proven the best way to conduct the economics of mankind. But socialists to try to "improve" upon something that no person invented, and, in so doing, ruin a healthy economy. Hayek admits that capitalism can look bleak to individuals who, through hard luck or laziness, can't make it - but he convincingly argues that helping the poor by enacting socialism out of a moral impulse "...would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest."

This brings me to present day California with its burgeoning budget deficit brought on by chronic overspending on social programs twined with a tax regime regarded by The Tax Foundation as the 47th worst business tax climate in America. Very soon this system will collapse. The socialists/progressives/liberals who run the legislature are already proposing more taxes and more social welfare spending. Should California become America's tax dungeon by edging out Rhode Island to claim the worst business climate in the nation, the negative impact on the working class will dwarf all the combined intended good of every social welfare program enacted and yet conceived by the left as the paying jobs of the capitalists flee the state. Gazing at California, Hayek would surely shake his head sadly.

The Fatal Conceit should be required reading for every elected official in America, beginning with California.

Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is Vice President of Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He served in the California State Assemblyman from 2004 to 2010. Before his election, he was an executive in the aerospace industry. He was a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988. He is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve. DeVore is the author of "The Texas Model: Prosperity in the Lone Star State and Lessons for America," the co-author of "China Attacks," and author of the novel "Twilight of the Rising Sun."
112 of 119 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x979f1c18) out of 5 stars Why Socialism Fails 14 Oct. 2002
By Steve Jackson - Published on
Format: Paperback
Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) was one of the twentieth century's seminal thinkers. He was an economist in the Austrian tradition and studied under Ludwig von Mises. (Although he is often grouped with von Mises, he was not the consistent libertarian that von Mises was.) THE FATAL CONCEIT was Hayek's final work, and was put together from a manuscript by the late W. W. Bartley, III (who is named as "editor" of the work.) This book is timely in that it was written at the tail end of the communist age and provided Hayek with an opportunity to reflect on the failure the socialist revolution.
As Hayek shows, the central problem with socialism is that it based on the false idea of "constructive rationalism," the belief that man can order society based purely on reason (and therefore planning). However, social progress is based in large part on tradition, or -- as Hayek describes it -- "between instinct and reason." This progress is inherently evolutionary and proceeds by slow steps. As such it integrates all the knowledge that is dispersed in society.
The theory presented in this book is a mix of liberalism and conservatism. In many ways it is the application of evolutionary theory to social though. As he daringly says: "morals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man's reason but a distinct endowment conferred upon him by cultural evolution." This certainly won't endear him to either religious thinkers or Randian libertarians.
Hayek proceeds to discuss the benefits of private property, free enterprise and trade from this evolutionary perspective and shows socialized planning is inevitable destructive of social progress.
Hayek provides an excellent refutation of the central errors of socialism. The reader might want to compare his approach with that of von Mises in THE ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY and PLANNED CHAOS, which covers similar territory from a somewhat different approach.
168 of 189 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x98af0a68) out of 5 stars A Lefty View of Hayek 4 Aug. 2010
By Amazon Customer - Published on
Format: Paperback
Most of the reviews come from those who, I'd guess, were on the right of the political spectrum well before they encountered Hayek. I read Hayek in college, and then again 40 years later, after a lifetime on the left, and have another point of view.

The term 'socialism' as used in political discourse generally begs definition, and is used carelessly rather than precisely by both sides of the debate. Consider, for instance the conflation of the manifestly wildly disparate New Deal and Soviet Communism. Those supporting the New Deal, which preserved democracy and capitalism during economic catastrophe with government intervention, too often had a wistful, credulous view of the Soviet Union. The right extended a realistic view of Soviet tyranny to define even the mildly US left as not merely mistaken, but advocates of tyranny and treason. Hayek is more precise. He views socialism as any government interference in the free market, and argues that, at whatever level it is conducted and imposed, the results are for the worse. He states that the plight of those in need, while acknowledging its reality, is poorly, if at all, mitigated by dirigiste government action, if not worsened and perpetuated. His arguments are logical, historically informed and presented in clear prose that's a delight to read.

My differences with him begin with his acceptance of the necessity of government protection of private property and of citizens against violence. I'd argue that unregulated capitalism, much as unrestricted government, can result in appropriation of property by the strong at the expense of the weak, and that there are many forms of violence, many of which are characteristic of unrestricted business activity. The proper role of government in economic life, therefore, becomes a matter of debate, rather than an a priori rejection. He, too, doesn't consider the negative externalities consequent to many economic decisions in free-market environments, the costs of which are oft borne by others--too, perhaps, a form of theft--and that bringing those externalities into economic decision is not only a reasonable sphere of government activity, but even in service of a free market approach, in that the real costs of the decisions become part of them.

Hayek is essential reading for a lefty. He requires engagement on a level other than simple dismissal; he doesn't merely call names or indulge in superficial, supercilious rhetoric. Amongst other things, exposure to his thought tempered my youthful confidence in government dirigism as the only just and practical response to human need, and my prejudice that government always works more effectively and more to the good of the people than does capitalism. I don't go along with his entire corpus. But lefties, as well as those on the right, have much to learn from Hayek, and ignore him at their peril.
48 of 52 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x979f1ea0) out of 5 stars Hayek Philosophy 12 Jan. 2009
By Marc Vossman - Published on
Format: Paperback
I was hesitant to purchase this book because the title led me to believe that this was just a rehash of The Road To Serfdom. Instead, it turns out to be a philosophical work that in my opinion would be more accurately titled The Extended Order as opposed to The Fatal Conceit.

The book mostly deals with the concept of the extended order, which is basically the idea that in addition to our genes, our morals and politics come from an evolutionary process which is much too complicated to be intentially created by the human mind. This is an epistemological view that argues against the idea of system building in both morals and politics (specifically socialism which seems to be broadly defined as any top-down political and moral construction).

I would have liked to see the concept of the extended order flushed out into a more concrete moral and political philosophy, but this has been done (at least the political) in his earlier writings (Constitution of Liberty among others). Because of this, I'm not sure this book has as broad an appeal as some of his earlier classics, but as a Hayek fan who likes philosophy, I thoroughly enjoyed the book.
35 of 41 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x979f80fc) out of 5 stars The Socialist Conceit. 14 Sept. 2003
By New Age of Barbarism - Published on
Format: Paperback
_The Fatal Conceit_ written by economist F. A. Hayek is a firm rejection of economic planning and socialism in favor of classical liberalism and private ownership of "several property" from an agnostic evolutionary perspective. Hayek argues that morality cannot be founded based upon reason alone but that its foundation must be found within the traditional structures that make up society. He argues this from an evolutionary perspective claiming that morality has evolved and therefore been selected for and therefore that it is naive of us to believe that through reason alone we can determine what is ethical. This is in agreement with a religious perspective that would claim that the morality-bearing tradition has been handed down to man from a source which involved an encounter with the Divine (of course, the religious perspective would deny evolution but would arrive at the same conclusion based upon revelation). Hayek, himself an agnostic, discusses these issues in his book and shows how religion can serve as a guardian of tradition. One specific tradition that exists within Western culture is that of private ownership of "several property". Hayek argues that socialism rests on a conceit and is often rooted in an irrational longing for a primitive time (primitivism). Hayek shows how many philosophers and economists including Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas ("the just wage theory"), Karl Marx, Keynes, and Einstein advocated some form of socialism and shows the errors in various aspects of their thinking. Hayek is particularly harsh to Keynes who spoke against the traditional value assigned to saving money, which Hayek feels is absurd. Hayek then shows how socialism is presented as a trade-off; however, involved in this trade-off is the substantial loss of liberty, a value all people should hold dear. Hayek demonstrates how language itself has become infested with words which take on socialistic meanings, and Hayek shows that the very word "liberal" has come to mean the exact opposite of its original intention, i.e. a lover of liberty. Hayek roundly refutes the Malthusian theory of population growth and argues against the over-population scare which is used by the Club of Rome to advance their population control agenda. Hayek shows that in regions which become industrialized and modernized the population growth decreases. This means as more and more regions trade in their premodern existence for an industrialized one the population growth in these regions will go down. The final chapter concludes with a discussion of the role of religion in preserving the traditional system of morality and Hayek's own agnostic philosophy. Hayek argues that it is naive of some to view religion as a conspiracy of the priestly caste to maintain their power, and he shows the value that religious beliefs may have. While I agree with this assessment in Hayek's discussion of religion, I disagree with his agnosticism and failure to recognize a personalized God. Hayek ends with several appendices which discuss various other approaches to economic liberty. In sum this book presents an excellent refutation of the "socialist superstition" which continues to haunt the minds of the intellectual elite to this day.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know