Marx, Hayek, and Utopia

by Chris Matthew Sciabarra

Develops a critique of utopianism through a comparison of the works of Karl Marx and F. A. Hayek, challenging conventional views of both Marxian and Hayekian thought.

This book develops a critique of utopianism through a provocative comparison of the works of Karl Marx and F. A. Hayek, thus engaging two vastly different traditions in critical dialogue. By emphasizing the methodological and substantive similarities between Marxian and Hayekian perspectives, it challenges each tradition's most precious assumptions about the other. Through this comparative analysis, the book articulates the crucial distinctions between utopian and radical theorizing.

Sciabarra examines the dialectical method of social inquiry common to both Marxian and Hayekian thought and argues that both Marx and Hayek rejected utopian theorizing because it internalizes an abstract, ahistorical, exaggerated sense of human possibility. The chief disagreement between Marx and Hayek, he shows, is not political but epistemological, reflecting their differing assumptions about the limits of reason.

"Sciabarra argues that Hayek and Marx shared a dialectic approach, an appreciation for the importance of context, and a disdain for utopian thinking. The major difference between Hayek and Marx is 'epistemic' or rather in the assumptions they make about the possible progress of human knowledge … Few others have … engaged in such a detailed and enlightening comparison." — Karen Vaughn, author of Austrian Economics in America

"This is a shockingly original piece of work, closely and cleverly argued, skillfully organized, and scholarly in the extreme … It is a very tolerant work, open to and looking for the strengths in both traditions." — Bertell Ollman, author of Dialectical Investigations

"Sciabarra's work is interesting and challenging and ultimately an important source for thinking about the nature of political radicalism." — Radical Philosophy Review of Books
"This intriguing book crosses a gulf between two camps in social philosophy that rarely address one another … Sciabarra should be praised for forcing us to give up our comfortable caricatures of Marx and Hayek as figures in absolute 'dualistic' opposition." — Canadian Philosophical Reviews

"...with Ayn The Russian Radical, as well as Marx, Hayek, and Utopia now under his belt, Sciabarra has emerged as one of the most provocative, and enjoyable, writers on the history of ideas of the twentieth century." — Reason Papers

"Sciabarra's book … makes a valuable contribution by presenting [Hayek's] ideas in an anti-utopian context." — Choice

“We are not apt to speak of Marx and Hayek in the same breath … Sciabarra’s insights into the similarities and differences between these two thinkers are surprisingly original.” — Liberty

Genres: Philosophy

178 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1995

Reviews

[Michael’ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sadly, I have to doubt whether Sciabarra read Marxist writings on politics. Even understanding of just Engels’ “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” or, even more so, Lenin’s “The State and Revolution” totally undermines Sciabarra’s understanding of Marxism. In fact, Sciabarra comes very close to doing so himself. “But its [the emergence of markets] progressive character is subverted because capitalism robs people of the ability to consciously plan their own fate.” Though this description of Sciabarra adds a moral element that is simply not there in Marx’s work, it does accurately describe Marx’s object, so to say. As Lenin describes in his “The State and Revolution” the limitedness of individual knowledge is, as Hegel would put it, “sublated” by the introduction of a social order in which there is no state power that can cause consequences that are, from a sociological view, “unintended”. That is because by constituting themselves as the bureaucracyless, proletarian state power such designs become purely individual actions by those who carry them out, even if that are masses of people. As Marx himself puts it (I forgot where), the new state power is based on the spontaneous action of the individual alone, not the will of the majority, as under democratic systems (even in their famous “Manifesto of the Communist Party” Marx and Engels endorsed the “Stirnerite” concept of the abolition of morality). It is exactly by introducing the most pure form of democracy, a form that is so absolutely democratic that it cannot but whither away once the motivation for the vast majority to constantly participate, defence against the return of the bourgeois state apparatus, is removed. Sciabarra seems to believe that this presents some path in between liberal statism and Anarchism but he forgets to posit that the anarchists Marx argued against believed precisely that through a conspiratorial takeover of the state they could introduce anarchy (order without governance) instantaneously or almost instantaneously. Most important is that they believed such an order could be introduced, or as they put it, that the state could be abolished. Marx believed the concrete social phenomenon observed among people who where not governed through a bureaucracy, police force etc. governed themselves in a way that constituted a sort of state. This would have to be prevented, potentially by using a, necessarily topdown, organisation to apply concentrated violence at each part of this social order in turn as to totally destroy it in the long run, as the anarchists called it “an educational dictatorship”. Marx rejected the practicability of such a plan entirely. As such, the famous anarchist political theorist, historian and politician Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis argues in his “Autoritair en Libertair Socialisme” (Authoritarian and Libertarian Socialism) that Marxism is more Libertarian than libertarianism (anarchism) itself. Domela Nieuwenhuis wrote an entire book on the history of the first international and the struggle between anarchism and Marxism that emerged there in the form described above, knew Rudolf Rocker and translated many of the classics of anarchism into Dutch, he knew very well what he was talking about. Sadly Sciabarra did not familiarise himself with this controversy, even through the easily digestible summaries of writers such as Domela Nieuwenhuis, all around lousy research. (Hal Draper is one of the other ones to write such an easily digestible summary of the debate between Anarchism and Marxism (though of much lower quality than the writings of Domela Nieuwenhuis and with much distortion), it is available for free on Marxists.org, Sciabarra even cites another work by Draper! but does not bother to consult Draper’s work on the obviously relevant question of libertarianism versus authoritarianism!) (The entirety of Chapter 6 is hereby rendered irrelevant)

So Sciabarra’s description of Marxism is full of confusion and clear falsehoods (not only the one described above). I think all of them originate from a common point: the commonly held believe that Marxism is mainly about economics, which it supposedly emphasises over politics. Even if we ignore Engels’ “revisionist” letter, Lenin clearly stated in “Once Again on the Trade Unions, The Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin” that “I said again in my speech that politics is a concentrated expression of economics, because I had earlier heard my “political” approach rebuked in a manner which is inconsistent and inadmissible for a Marxist. Politics cannot but have dominance over economics. To argue otherwise is to forget the ABC of Marxism.” I very much doubt that he took this from Engels’ letter, considering it had not yet been published, this view is supported by Lenin’s description of Marx’s method in ‘What the “Friends of the people” are and how they fight the social democrats’ and in Bernstein’s “Evolutionary Socialism” and in virtually all writings by Trotsky that even mention methodology. Sciabarra even sympathetically writes about what was historically called “Vulgar Marxism”, as formulated by Jeffrey Alexander, which makes this “dominance of economics” explicit (though Sciabarra’s interpretation is somewhat more nuanced, it’s still a fundamentally Vulgar one). As the people who discussed these matters directly with Marx, as well as Lenin and Trotsky, disagreed with this interpretation (and even Marx’s “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, supposedly one of the clearest expression of Marxian determinism, as well as Engels’ “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” seemed to support them) I do not believe this interpretation should even be taken seriously by Marx scholars. Yet Sciabarra makes it the foundation for his description of Marxism, very ignorant.

While he is not as ignorant of philosophy, his arguments here simply don’t support his conclusions. He divides utopian thought into arbitrary categories, then draws conclusions from his own arbitrary categorising, rather than from the actual systems of thought he is supposedly describing, to eventually criticise the utopians with the arguments supposedly implied in their own thought but that actually only emerge from his own arbitrary categories and poorly worded descriptions. Read Sciabarra’s “arguments” against Utopianism yourself, then follow up with Saint-Simon’s “Letters from an inhabitant of Geneva to his contemporaries”. You will see how poor Sciabarra’s arguments are (and how, nonetheless, Saint-Simonian Utopianism does not work).

There are a number of other big mistakes in this work, using Trotsky as a source but not Lenin for example, but fleshing these out would make this review too long. I made my point, that Sciabarra (and Hayek) was ignorant of some of the foundations of Marxism, across and feel that I have sufficiently deterred those who might find themselves deceived. Scholars, however, might be able to get something out of this, just skip chapters 6 & 7, there’s truly nothing there.

[Marco den Ouden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Based on his doctoral thesis, Chris Sciabarra's book is an interesting look at the differences and similarities between the works of Hayek and Marx. He argues that both are anti-utopian and both are dialectical thinkers. By this he means that both oppose a constructivist approach to organizing society and favour an organic or naturalistic approach. That is, both believe in the spontaneous evolution of society. Hayek through the integrated actions of individuals acting in the market place and Marx through a theory of history that projects a communist society naturally emerging historically.

Their dialectical approach consists of questioning things from a variety of different vantage points, considering different understandings and looking for common ground. This is well expressed in Hegel's concepts of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Sciabarra argues that Marx is more anti-utopian than the right acknowledges and that Hayek is more dialectical than the left acknowledges. Nevertheless, the twain do not meet, and their philosophies remain considerably opposed.

I do not find the argument that Marx was anti-utopian particularly convincing. In the section offering Hayek's critique of Marxism, Hayek's view of Marxism as utopian is, to me, very compelling. The whole idea of a teleological history aiming towards one eventual ending is utopian by its very nature. A form of Whiggism.

While the book is interesting, it is rigorously academic in its style and approach. As such it is not highly readable except perhaps to academics. A lay reader like myself finds it tough slogging. I'd like to see a version of this in ordinary and less technical language. A scholarly work does not have to be stuffy and filled with technical jargon.