Commentary
The book of Ecclesiastes tells us that “there is nothing new under the sun.” The quote reminds us that few things we think of as new are actually new, and economic philosophy is no exception.
While Karl Marx is considered the father of communism, his ideas weren’t as original as many think. His intellectual precursor was
Francois-Noel Babeuf (1760–1797), a proto-socialist of the French Revolution who was executed for participating in a failed coup designed to overthrow the Directory. Decades before Marx was born, Babeuf
called for absolute equity and prohibiting private property.
Marx’s classical liberal counterpart, Adam Smith, has his own intellectual doppelganger. It’s believed that Anders Chydenius was born only a few years after Smith (Smith’s precise date of birth is unknown). Like the more famous Scotsman, Chydenius was a champion of free trade, a free press, and equal rights before the law. And a decade before Smith published “The Wealth of Nations,” Chydenius
described an economic process similar to Smith’s “invisible hand.”
“Every individual spontaneously tries to find the place and the trade in which he can best increase National gain, if laws do not prevent him from doing so,” Chydenius wrote in “The National Gain” (1765).
“The wealth of a Nation consists in the multitude of products or, rather, in their value; but the multitude of products depends on two chief causes, namely, the number of workmen and their diligence. Nature will produce both, when she is left untrammeled.”
Though neither Smith nor Chydenius used the term “
spontaneous order”—it didn’t appear until the 20th century—the phenomenon is clearly what both philosophers describe. It’s the idea that social order and harmony emerge from the voluntary actions of individuals, not central planning.
Yet neither of these great philosophers was the first to articulate this idea. That distinction belongs to
Zhuang Zhou (aka Zhuangzi), a Chinese philosopher and poet who lived during the fourth century B.C.
Zhou rejected the Confucianism of the time, which emphasized obedience to national authority in addition to its broader ethical teachings, and embraced (and expanded upon) the teachings of Lao Tzu, a contemporary of Confucius who opposed state rule and emphasized
laissez-faire economics.
“Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone,” Zhou wrote.
It’s hard to find a more distilled definition of spontaneous order than that, and economist Murray Rothbard
credits Zhou (whom Rothbard refers to as Chuang-tzu) as the first thinker to chronicle the idea. And though the concept is simple enough, Zhou makes it clear that practicing spontaneous order is hardly simple and exceedingly rare.
“There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone,” Zhou wrote; “there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success].”
The reason spontaneous order is so difficult to practice was the same in ancient China as it is today: the presence of force.
Force is a constant in the pages of history. Whether the text is Plutarch, the Bible, or Zhuang Zhou, history is, in many ways, a chronicle of humans aggressing against one another. This is likely why Zhou suggested that humans would never leave each other alone and that the best we can do is create a social order that limits aggression.
As any Philosophy 101 student can tell you, this is why humans enter into a “
social contract.” The presence of force prompts the creation of an authority to keep aggressors in check. As 19th-century economist Frédéric Bastiat noted, the problem is that the state soon deviates from its mission and becomes an agent of aggression itself, often under the guise of doing good.
“The mission of law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit,” Bastiat
wrote in “The Law.” “Its mission is to protect property.”
Much of the disharmony we see in the world today stems from different views on the purpose of the law. Does government exist to protect private property, redistribute it, or even abolish it?
People have different views on the matter, just like Smith and Marx did. But it’s clear the discussion is nothing new.
It’s also clear that Zhou would tell you that Smith’s vision is the path to a peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society—not that of Marx. Because good things tend to follow all on their own “when things are left alone.”
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
