Critiques Hayek's theories by comparing capitalist and socialist economic ecosystems structurally, suggesting new insights.
English Abstract: This paper is the final chapter of the "Productive Political Philosophy" system's critique of Hayek. Having diagnosed the logical leap in Hayek's "knowledge dispersion" thesis and the degenerative mechanism of spontaneous order, this paper turns to positive construction. It proposes that the economic ecosystems of capitalism and socialism are structurally mirror-symmetric—both rely on the functional stratification of "bottom-up exploration + top-down integration." Capitalism constitutes its ecosystem through "monopoly capital + small and medium-sized private capital," while socialism constitutes its mirror through "state-owned enterprises + small and medium-sized collective enterprises." The core distinction lies not in ownership, but in the order parameter governing the top layer: capitalism takes "capital accumulation" as its supreme unifying principle, while socialism takes "ensuring the survival and development of the community" as its supreme unifying principle. This paper further hardens the theoretical foundation of functional stratification using information-theoretic language, explains the symmetric pathologies of both systems through feedback loop mechanisms, and validates the core proposition of "ownership non-determinism" through the key cases of the Soviet "calculator myth" and the unexpected rise of China's township enterprises. This framework fundamentally dismantles Hayek's core presupposition that private property is the sole institutional form for exploring dispersed knowledge, demonstrating that the innovative vitality of a system is determined not by ownership attributes, but by functional stratification and the correctness of its unifying logic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
鑫培 骆 (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: