Finer Attacks Hayek Logic, Sees 'Hideous Implications'

Aroused by Friedrich A. Hayek's controversial "Read to Serfdom," which he brands an "filled with every fallacy known brands an "filled with every fallacy known to the study of logic," Herman Finer, visiting lecturer on Government, announces that he is writing a "Road to Reaction" as an answer to what he considers "dangerous and deceptive" reasoning.

Hayek's book is, according to Finer, evidence of a conservative reaction which has been veiled but continuous during the war. "As soon as the world is rid of Hitler, the same questions arise regarding government control of economics." Adding that this book was laughed off in England, finer claimed it was further indicative of a reaction by its reception here.

"Crazy Perversions"

"Hayek tries to show that the economic system can and ought to be separated from political domination, and that only an economic system of laissez-faire is worth having. Perhaps the book's chief fallacy, though it's only one example of sheer nonsense out of hundreds, is that Nazism was the fruit of socialism, which is the craziest perversion I've ever come across.

"The essence of Hayek's book," says finer, "is that there are certain economic laws which only economists can, and only Hayek among them did, discover. This necessitates a Bill of Rights, placing a limitation on the power of a popular majority which might not know about such economic laws. And this is only tenable if the Constitution of which this Bill of Rights is a part is not subject to amendment, say by a two-thirds majority, then Hayek would still have to rely on the people, although he is anti-popular. Even the Fathers of the American Constitution didn't go that far."

In his "Road to Reaction," which is being written now and will probably appear in October, finer plans to label Hayek's "reasoning wrong, terminology distorted, outlook antiquated, planning false, and arguments fallacious and puerile. The whole thing is so ridiculous," adds Finer, "because of Hayek's illogical progression of ideas. He distrusts the people politically, but he has confidence in any one of those same people who cna be successful in economics; he believes in economic freedom, but not in political freedom."

Here on Temporary Appointment

Here on a temporary appointment, finer, formerly with the London School of Economics, announced that he will be at Harvard all summer, and here in Cambridge next year. Although teaching at Wellesley, he is planning a research project to complete during that period.

Finer's refutation will follow and expand on those already written by Alvin H. Hansen, Stuart Chase, and Carl J. Friedrich, and will more exhaustively answer Hayek's points one by one. "The implications of his thesis are hideous," he says, "but most people don't realize them."