Customer Reviews

The Road to Serfdom: A Classic Warning against the Dangers to Freedom Inherent in Social Planning (Library Edition)

5 star:		(172)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

I was introduced to Friedrich von Hayek through reading Thomas Sowell. And I decided to read this book because it was a highly recommended read in the Freedom's Nest Website Reading List.

As soon as I started reading this book, I developed a warm feeling toward the author. In his original introduction, Hayek started with: "When a professional student of social affairs writes a political book, his first duty is plainly to say so. This is a political book...." His candor and his confidence were so befitting with his great intellect.

Noting that Hayek was an Austrian, I was impressed by his mastery of the English language and I enjoyed his writing style. With mild language and in simple terms, Hayek made very sweeping predictions and patiently explained his reasoning with convincing arguments based on economic and human behavioral theories.

Hayek's thesis was that central economic planning will inevitably lead to governmental control of every facet of its citizen's life, and hence toward a totalitarian state. Hayek's other insightful observations: Nazism, Fascism and communism all have the same roots. In a totalitarian state, it is always the ruthless and the unsophisticated who ascend to the top. Extensive governmental control harms the society not just in delivering dismal economic results, but, more seriously, it produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.

One must not forget that when Hayek wrote this book, his was very much a voice in the wilderness; he was ridiculed and denounced by his contemporaries. But his ideas stood the test of time! And blessedly, he lived to see that - to see first the building and eventually the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This little book was said to have had definitive influence on such giants as Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan and many others. Perhaps the book's influence was best attested to by its being banned in the USSR, China and many other totalitarian countries.

This book belongs on your book shelf.

"The Road to Serfdom" is a classic for many reasons, but the chief among them is that nothing else so clearly and completely shows the degeneration of liberty inherent in the handing of arbitrary power to a bureaucracy.

Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in Britain in 1944. He wanted to examine Soviet Russia in comparison to wartime Britain; however, British authorities prohibited that approach due to the alliance of the time; and therefore, Hayek instead compared to Britain none other than National Socialist (i.e., Nazi) Germany. Nothing is lost -- and at the time, at least, much was gained -- in the trade.

The comparison, of course, is between a totalitarian socialist state and a democratic socialist state. Hayek shows that the only difference is the degree of benevolence of those leading the two countries; he also shows that, once arbitrary power is handed over, it usually cannot be regained.

No review can do "The Road to Serfdom" adequate justice. On the other hand, since the book is quite short, and since it is one of those books about which it can be right said that if you haven't read it you are not educated, I say just go and read it for yourself. You too will see what millions already have.

Hayek's classic book is a dissertation on why political freedom is, and can only be, inextricably linked to economic freedom. Originally published in 1944, his specific examples of socialist planning gone wrong are (were) Italy, the USSR, and most prominently, Germany. He primarily uses the British for comparison and contrast purposes, and directs many of his remarks toward Western European nations who were flirting with their own versions of socialist economic planning. He felt that these nations were ultimately going down the same road that the Germans had already traveled two or three generations earlier.

Hayek's central thesis is that individual liberty (economic and political) and collectivism are mutually exclusive, and that even the most well-intentioned socialist society will ultimately evolve into a totalitarian state. Hayek elaborates upon the following key arguments (and others): (1) Collectivism represents the undoing of liberalism (in the classic sense). (2) Socialism necessitates that the efforts of the populace be directed towards a common goal, often called something like "the common good." The economic system must be centrally planned in order to achieve this goal. Such planning amounts to coercion, and individual liberty is sacrificed for the degree of security a socialist state provides. (3) A free society operates according to the Rule of Law, where the rules are known beforehand. The economy of a free society consists of the net sum of individual decisions made within the known legal framework. By contrast, a centrally planned society relies upon government decisions that must be made on the basis of current necessity, what Hayek calls "arbitrary government." (4) Money promotes economic liberty, acting as the medium to provide the individual with the freedom to use his compensation in whatever manner he chooses, rather than being dependent upon a compensation whose specific nature is determined by others. (5) Socialism is inherently nationalistic or ethnocentric, because the leading party often must rally the populace to focus against a threatening group in order to effectively promote its own agenda. A "one-world" socialism that unites across peoples, nations, and ethnic backgrounds is not workable. (6) True believers in a socialist society must hold the interests of the State as higher than their own. Those who will move up the ranks in a socialist society are often prepared to do anything on behalf of the state, no matter how much this opposes one's own moral principles. Those who are amoral are thus more likely to "succeed" in a socialist hierarchy. Hayek holds out little hope that a socialist utopia will work if only "good people" are put in charge.

Contrary to some of the negative reviews below, I must argue that Hayek's book is certainly not "vicious propaganda," (and, I might add, that I sincerely doubt that Hayek's own lips were "lice-ridden.") Nowhere in the book does Hayek celebrate wealth. There is not one sentence in the book extolling the virtues of material riches. He DOES celebrate individual liberty and the superiority of a free market economy. To intelligently oppose Hayek, one must provide a literate argument against the points Hayek actually argues. In addition, one would be compelled in this debate to explain how a rigid socialist system would NOT degenerate into Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Stalinist Russia (or, for that matter, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Castro's Cuba, Communist China, etc.)

That said, Hayek's book is not free from criticism. He takes a few swipes at the Germans -- Hayek all but proclaims that because of their general ethnic personality the Germans as a people were an ideal setup for Naziism and ruthless obedience to Hitler. Not surprisingly, some readers may take offense to this. Hayek also concedes that in a prosperous economy a basic minimum standard of living should be guaranteed everyone, although he makes no mention of how it could be guaranteed in a manner consistent with his overall free market vision. There is not a single statistic in the entire book (some may find this a GOOD thing), nor is there mention of any specific historical event, except the ongoing war at the time. Hayek's arguments are essentially based upon logical deductions, relying upon assumptions of human nature - as individuals, large groups, or those in authority. I suppose some will find Hayek's logic dubious, although arguably the history of the fifty-plus years since Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom would back him up quite well.

This is the indispensable primer on the economics of liberty. Hayek, along with Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, and other members of the Mount Pelier Society worked to refute the prevalent idea earlier in this century that planned economies (Nazi and Communist, or Keynesian western socialism) were the inevitable wave of the future, and western liberal democracies a dying legacy of the past. In the 1990's we forget that in the 30's and 40's this battle hung in the balance, and that most of the educated world saw socialism as the inescapable and desirable model for the world. Events have since disproved that view, but The Road to Serfdom was the seminal work that cogently and forcefully addressed this issue, and served to guide the next generation of political leaders. The Thatcher and Reagan revolutions that helped to move governments back to governing, and not running capital markets was directly influenced by this book, and its 1945 Reader's Digest condensed printing in the U.S. The book is organized into thematic chapters, addressing topics from why planned economies lead to coercive measures from the state, to why the worst people rise to the top in socialist states. While the book is primarily an economics work, it has elements of political science and philosophy mixed in, and is generally readable to the layman. On occasion a point is complex enough to require a second reading, but just as often a section of clarion prose so clearly illuminates a point that the reader is hit with a revelation. It is for this quality that the book recently enjoyed its 50th anniversary printing, and is just as relevant today in reminding us that liberty and economic planning are mutually exclusive. There is no "third way" between Capitalism and Socialism that combines the liberty of the former with the promised security of the latter. Former Hungarian President Vaclev Havel, commenting on the book said "There is no third way. It is the quickest route to the Third World."

Von Hayek was one of the first writers to argue against statism in all its forms (nazism, fascism, socialism, communism, American liberalism) and to do so in an even-tempered way, using general principles of economics and politics. I realize I'm echoing the other fine reviews, but let me encourage all who believe that the State can ever be benign to read this book. Von Hayek showed the ultimate consequences of power in the hands of those who think they're better and smarter than you are. History has vindicated Von Hayek; if only we could learn from history we could finally lay to rest the ill-conceived notion that the State is the key to our collective betterment.

When Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944, the the economic portion of the political climate was steeped in Keynesian thought, and Hayek's work went almost unnoticed. Fifty-seven years later, there is little doubt as to who was right. The most prosperous nations on Earth are also the most free - socially AND economically.

Hayek is one of the fathers of the neo-classical school of economic thought, and modern libertarianism. In this book, Hayek demonstrates the inherent contradiction between freedom and a command economy, and the inevitable descent of socialism into totalitarianism. The accuracy of his predictions of the long-term results of communism were uncanny, and a dire warning against attempting this road yet again.

This is an absolutely essential book for a modern libertarian or student of economics, as well as any liberal or conservative with an open mind and a desire to understand the vastly differing economies and governments of the world. Written for the layman, it is lucid, clear, to-the-point, and, most importantly, has been backed up by world events during last half-century. A classic work in the field of economics.

The Road to Serfdom explains the rise of totalitarianism in early twentieth century Europe. Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the limits of democracy and human reason. In particular, Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While these ideals seem noble to many, those who persist in realizing these ideals will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom. Thus socialists must choose between their egalitarian goals and the preservation of individual liberty.

Hayek describes how Europeans came to expect progress, and became impatient for faster progress. The liberal reforms of the 19th century delivered unprecedented economic progress. Much of this was directly due to scientific discovery. The role of free competition in promoting scientific discovery was less obvious. Europeans increasingly came to believe that scientific planning of society itself could accelerate greater progress.

Europeans also changed how they thought about equality and freedom. Insistence upon freedom from want displaced the yearning for freedom from coercion. Democracy came to be seen as a means of realizing an increasing number of social goals, rather than as a means of preserving freedom. To Hayek, these were dangerous errors. Democracy could only work effectively in areas where agreement upon ultimate ends could be attained with little difficulty. A democratic government could enforce general rules of conduct that applied to all equally (i.e. free speech and free association). Democracy can never produce agreement over policies that affect specific economic results. One always gains at the expense of others in such matters. Such Economic planning places impossible demands upon democracy. This is because pursuit of specific ends requires timely and decisive action. Democracies move too slowly to attain specific ends, so arbitrary powers of government will grow. A planned economy will ultimately require acceptance of dictatorship. This is a dire consequence, as it is the worst sort of tyrants who are most adept at wielding dictatorial powers.

Some might say that these arguments are unduly pessimistic. Hayek points to the examples of Hitler and Stalin to support his case. Of course, these are worst case scenarios. Have not England, Sweden, and the US adopted large welfare-regulatory states without such tyranny? This is a fair point, yet we should remember two things. First, Hayek claimed that centralized control of the economy would destroy freedom ultimately, but gradually. Second, Western nations have not yet gone as far in planning their economies as did Russia and Germany in the 1930's. The fact that we have yet realized the horrible results of Stalinism implies neither that were are safe from despotism in the future, nor that our present situation is entirely satisfactory. One can easily argue that we have already started on the wrong path. For instance, Hayek's chapter on `The End of Truth' applies to modern political correctness.

Hayek wrote this book not only to warn people about the limits of democracy and the incompatibility of planning and freedom. This was the start of his project concerning the abuse of reason. His warning is also about the tendency to overestimate the abilities of even the best and brightest individuals. Not even the best and brightest can comprehend modern societies. Socialists who favor comprehensive planning, and even modern liberals and conservatives who want to plan part of society, proceed on a false assumption concerning human reason. Ultimately, Hayek makes a strong case for limited constitutional government. To expect more of democracy than what Madison and Jefferson intended is to risk disaster.

The Road to Serfdom is a profound defense of individual liberty. This book has its critics, mainly on the left. Yet this is due to its insightful nature. The Road to Serfdom has produced hysterical responses from the left simply because it strikes at the core of both democratic-socialist and Marxist beliefs. The Road to Serfdom stands out as a true classic, as timeless as it is insightful.

"Road to Serfdom", by F.A. Hayek, is one of the greatest arguments for economic, political, and social freedom written during the 20th Century. Published in 1944 as an assessment of what went so wrong in Western Europe as to allow the rise of Hitler and National Socialism, Hayek also perfectly forecast the disaster and horrors of Communism that would follow for the next several decades.

In this now famous book, Hayek breaks down the different ways in which state planning, as opposed to individual or more localized control, nearly always means the loss of liberty. Ultimately, in an economic system planned from the top down, should the system seek to continue, it will require dreadful, totalitarian measures. One of the saddest facts of these systems though is that in order to be put into place, they require many once-free people to willingly give up their freedoms: "the totalitarians in our midst" Hayek labels them. One passage along this line that holds just as true today as when Hayek wrote it:

"And, undoubtedly, not merely the ideas which in Germany and elsewhere prepared totalitarianism but also many of the principles of totalitarianism itself are what exercises an increasing fascination in many other countries. Although few people, if anybody, in England would probably be ready to swallow totalitarianism whole, there are few single features which have not yet been advised by somebody or other. Indeed, there is scarcely a leaf out of Hitler's book which somebody or other in England or America has not recommended us to take and use for our own purposes. This applies particularly to many people who are undoubtedly Hitler's mortal enemies because of one special feature in his system. We should never forget the anti-Semitism of Hitler has driven from his country, or turned into his enemies, many people who in every respect are confirmed totalitarians of the German type."

For anyone who has wondered recently why Pat Buchanan can often be seen receiving large applause at rallies with ultra-Leftist labor union leaders, or how other fringe Right groups often march these days against international free trade along side of socialist/environmentalist groups, F.A. Hayek explained it perfectly nearly 60 years ago. Whether seeking to force a large group of people to pay excessive amounts for goods and services, through trade protectionism supposedly planned to "protect" the jobs of a much smaller group, or through more directly stated taxation and redistribution of wealth programs, these groups are both taking a page from the Russian and German totalitarians of the 20th Century. Often "mortal enemies" of each other, they have found common cause at the modern-day economic forums, and should a free American people ultimately hand them control, as the Germans gave to these groups' National Socialist forebears, then similar results would ultimately not be far behind. (And if you think there weren't numerous leftists in strong roles in Hitler's National Socialist party, you need to read this book that much more.)

"The Road to Serfdom" lays out just what the title implies. F.A. Hayek was a brilliant thinker who was sadly dismissed by many of his day. Hopefully, more leaders of our era will read this book and realize that economic planning, be it through protective tariffs or progressive tax rates, while such an easy sell and so tempting at times, lead only to a loss of freedoms for everyone (as economic freedom is at the base of all the others), including the people they are supposedly intended to help.

This book, better than any other that I have read, demonstrates that economic freedom is a necessary condition to freedom in general. I believe it was one of the Founding Fathers (although I forget who) who said that encroachments to freedom usually begin with attacks on property rights. This book shows how and why that happens.

Socialists (especially Marxists) often deride capitalism as a tyrannical system where employers exploit workers. They overlook the fact that socialism is a system where economic planners exploit the planned. I personally do not consider the sale of my labor for my own enrichment to be exploitation on the part of my employer. Even if my employer treats me unfairly, I can quit my job and go work for someone else. Under socialism, there is only one employer: the state. If I'm not happy with socialist exploitation, I have nowhere else to go.

In this book, Hayek shows that a system of free markets facilitates the existence of a free people. People within that system may use that freedom for good or evil, but the system itself leaves them free. Under socialism, the tyrannical ends are contained within the means. The system itself demands that people not be free. If I cannot plan my own life, then I am not free. How hard is it to understand this simple maxim? I am astounded that there are people who actually want the state, which produces nothing and can only act by use of force, to plan their lives. Just go live in Russia for a while like I did and look around, and you'll see the boons of a socialist state. It's been ten years since communism fell there, and poverty is still the rule rather than the exception. Hayek wasn't just making this stuff up in the abstract--he knew exactly what he was writing about based on the horrible reality of planned economies.

The reviewer who stated that capitalist economies are a dismal failure and implied that it is labor unions which are to thank for prosperity has missed the boat. Labor unions facilitate prosperity only to the degree that they increase the productivity of their members in the workplace (i.e. by improving their health, their skills, and making sure they aren't overworked). But when unions contradict the principles of the free market, they reduce the net prosperity of society as a whole, even if in the short run they win temporary gains for themselves at everyone else's expense. Had there not been a free market, there would have been no prosperity. This point is so axiomatic that it should be unnecessary to even state. If you don't believe it, just take one look at Soviet life and compare it to America, and it's truth should be immediately self-evident.

Hayek hit the nail right on the head and warned us not to kid ourselves about socialism. Socialists can only plan themselves into economic inefficiency and poverty. The free market may not be perfect, but at least it makes prosperity and freedom possible, and it's the closest humanity will ever come to utopia. Hayek understood that and made his case compelling.

This book is a must read for anyone interested in the workings of civilization. He takes the view, which I believe is correct, that our belief that we can plan a society is the best evidence of our lack of understanding of human nature. If there is an important book in political economics that is accessible to the layman this is it. Hayek was subject to much unfounded criticism in his day, and in this day too. His argument is for the rights of people to choose for themselves, and against the idea that others can make the right choices for the individual. In these days of corporate hatred and tobbaco taxes Road to Serfdom should be read. It should be read so that we realize that laws against corporations and industries are simply laws against the people who work in them. The chapter on Planning and the Rule of Law is the single best work that I have read on any subject. Enjoy!