Customer Reviews

The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2)

5 star:		(164)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

This new edition of the RTS is worth buying even if you already own an earlier edition. The editor has included important material on how this book was developed and interpreted.

As for the book itself, the Road to Serfdom explains the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe. Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While socialist 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 invites disaster.

The Road to Serfdom is a profound defense of commercial society and limited government. The RTS also is where Hayek started his 'abuse of reason' project. To fully appreciate Hayek's genius in the RTS, one should read his subsequent books in this project- The Constitution of Liberty and Law Liberty and Legislation V1-3.

The RTS has its critics, mainly on the left. Due to its insightful nature the Road to Serfdom has produced hysterical responses from the left. Leftists despise the RTS simply because it strikes at the core of both democratic-socialist or Marxist beliefs. Some serious scholars have attacked the RTS (i.e. Farrant and Levy) but their objections are misguided. The Road to Serfdom stands out as a true classic, as timeless as it is insightful. It offers insights that are relevant to our current problems with growing Federal spending and regulation. Read it completely and repeatedly.

I read it at the University, here in Guatemala, where my University has a library that is called Ludwig Von Mises and the Auditorium's name is Friedrich Von Hayek.

Once you read this book, it is impossible not to believe in freedom and to know that freedom and big interventionist government are not compatible concepts.

The principles are so basic that you do not need to be an economist (I am not) to understand them. If people do not trust themselves to make decisions because "people are ignorant or greedy" then they will give someone else the power to decide for them (government) that is the road to serfdom. People will lose their freedom to decide which insurance, retirement plan or things to buy, which charity to help, these decisions will be made by powerful burocrats (that maybe who friends of someone in government) that will know what is best for you. Big taxes so government will decide better what do do with the money you earned.

I have seen my government follow all these steps that go to the road of serfdom and I have seen exactly the results Hayek points out, I have been seeing that happens for 20 years (since I read the book). The book is so logical that after reading, if you have common sense and do not have a burocratic position to defend, you will definitely become a libertarian.

Over 30 years ago, when I was in graduate school, this book was nowhere to be found on any Political Science or Political Theory reading list. I suppose part of the reason was that once the Nazis and Fascists had been defeated, their ideas were no longer seen as important. The question then was whether or not Communism would succeed. Furthermore, then and now, many people in academia had no complaint about government power as long as their side holds the power.

Hayek skillfully deflates that delusion by showing how the very economic powers of government created by the Social Democrats were the powers the Nazis used to consolidate their power.

This book was published 64 years ago but is as timely today as it was then.

Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel prize winning economist, wrote this brilliant classic as a critique of government intervention and manipulation in markets. I am neither an economist nor a political scientist, but I was led to this book after watching with horror the recent outrages that are consciously being inflicted on us by our elected officials, most recently the bailout and socialization of the two giant mortgage lenders, Freddie and Fannie. I couldn't remember that I ever received any share of the loot when those companies were making huge profits and their CEOs were earning tens of millions per year, but now I find that our elected officials have written a blank check in my name, the taxpayer, to bail out these companies' losses and stupidity, and then handed the check to a group of unelected officials (and, surprise, surprise, those two companies spend hundreds of millions on congressional lobbying). Privatize the gains, socialize the losses: sounds like a win-win situation for somebody.

This kind of disastrous socialism is exactly what Hayek critiques in devastating form in this book, specifically government control of the economy. Apparently, they say, this book has been very influential, but a layman could certainly never tell by looking around. Hayek was writing from the perspective of a central European who had recently witnessed first-hand the unfolding development of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany, and he is warning that the exact same attitudes and policies that had been followed in Germany were uncritically being followed by the Allies, merely at a few years distance.

He begins by recollecting the ideals of old, classic liberalism, "the forgotten road". Of course, in Hayek's context, "liberal" means the true, historic liberalism of limited government, free markets, and private property, not "liberal" in the bastardized sense somehow hijacked by Leftists to mean unlimited government, socialized markets and massive forced wealth redistribution. He looks at the rise of collectivist thinking versus individual (it's all for the greater good); the problems of central planning in a democracy (someone in power makes the economic decisions for everybody else); the downfall of the Rule of Law (government is no longer bound by fixed rules announced beforehand but instead possesses arbitrary power limited only by its own discretion); the inextricable link between centralized economic planning and totalitarian regimes (if we're going to follow a plan, someone's got to force everyone to follow it); the problem of deciding how the society's production will be distributed; a chapter showing that "nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom" (Republicans apparently didn't get the memo); how in a socialized economy the worst individuals inevitably rise to the top (Really? Can it be? Obama and McCain?); the necessity of manipulating truth in a socialized society; and the fact that Nazism was a direct outgrowth of socialism and socialist ideology.

The relevance of the points enumerated above does not require comment. We are running madly down the road to serfdom, which is the road of socialism. Unfortunately for those of us who are being dragged along against our will, history is not neutral, and we will suffer the consequences of other peoples' decisions, just as the Jews in Germany did and the Russians in the Soviet Union did. Socialism has always led to poverty and oppression, and freedom, on the rare occasions it has been tried, has produced unparalleled prosperity. Hayek shows in detail why. We've decided to give socialism another try. God help us.

The Road to Serfdom by F.A.Hayek

(Note: I own and have READ this book) (...)

Short review: strongly recommended. A timeless classic. An analytic exposition of the same old re-cycled, cancerous, glib, smug nonsense that we hear endlessly repeated so often today. Namely that (yawn) Capitalism and the Free Market are unjust, inequitable, and dying anyway. No good has ever (EVER) come from rich, corrupt businessmen. They are exploiters and parasites. They need to be replaced by a benevolent, kind, compassionate 'planned' society. Administered by an Elite body of Federal Planners in Washington, who are wise and kind, (a tear trickles down our cheek), and who consist heavily of academics, intellectuals and Supreme Court Judges. We need more Government bodies, because they are fair, balanced, and wise. We need more rules, regulations, taxes and government inspectors to help business and private investment. (All kneel....)

A heavy read, requires concentration and dedication, and be prepared to look up many references. Some long paragraphs, some convoluted sentences, some ponderous pronunciations, but a work, written roughly between 1938 to 1944, which can be used as a stunning blue print to understand today's misleading representations by left wing extremists and political agitators. .What we see today in America is nothing new. The poorly read, uninformed, short sighted, activists, eager as ever to mount the barricades, but quite unwilling to sit, read, listen... and think.
It's the Old Marxist Brigade, the dreamers and the malcontents, revamped, with changed colors, new rhetoric, and lots of Utopian promises of 'free lunch' for all. In fact, they are intent on their own personal gain and self aggrandisement. Power politics as usual. Hayek foresaw it all, and described it for us in this incredibly clear sighted and clairvoyant work. This book has been an important inspirational source for many of today's more popular trendy conservative writers, although, so it seems, most will not admit to it. (With the exception of Mark Levin in his interesting "Liberty and Tyranny")

Long review: I like an author who entitles a chapter "Why the worst get on top" (chapter 10). I've often wondered the same thing. On page 160 he says: "There are three main reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society."
He then gives "three main reasons", which I suggest are well reasoned, well thought out, and ring remarkably true of today's self appointed saviours of the exploited masses. Check it out yourself.
I'll quote you part of his third reason:
"It seems almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program - on the hatred of the enemy, on the envy of those better off - than on any positive task."
P.162: "Collectivism has no room for the wide humanitarianism of liberalism but only for the narrow particularism of the totalitarian."
Chapter 2 is called "The Great Utopia", and if you're a bit of a weathered cynic like me, you'll enjoy it. Page 77 contains the classic quote from Tocqueville "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude".
On p. 78, Hayek says: "There can be no doubt that the promise of freedom has become one of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and that the belief that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere. But this would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude..."
Chapter 11 is called "The End of Truth" and you have to smile. Maybe Hayek was a secret time traveler. Maybe he visited America in the year 2009. If he did, then he penned the opening paragraph of this chapter for Americans today. Read it, you might like it. He continues on page 172: "The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda....are of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth."
Chapter 13 is called "The Totalitarians in our Midst", and must have been written yesterday. It contains so many quotable quotes, I shall limit myself to two: "...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." (p.195)
Or how about this one, same page: "Individualism must come to an end absolutely. A system of regulations must be set up, the object of which is not the greater happiness of the individual.... but the strengthening of the organized unity of the state for the object of attaining the maximum degree of efficiency..."

This book is a classic. The introduction by Bruce Caldwell is detailed.
My two minor grumbles would be:
1) that some of the sentences are very long winded. Lots of clauses, juxtapositions, conditional statements. I read a lot, but I frequently found myself forced to re-read a sentence, and sometimes a whole paragraph. Hayek crams a lot into every word. Anybody who says this book is an 'easy read', with 'smooth prose' possesses a much higher IQ than I do.
I still can read any page in Hayek, and enjoy it. It's a rich offering.
2) So why in heck are there only 44 reviews so far of this masterpiece on Amazon? Many authors today, with over 1,000 reviews, widely feted with lots of rah-rah-rah and prime time hoopla-la-la, clearly show Hayek Road-to-Serfdom influence in their work. They don't always admit it.
For my money, THIS is a major source for many of today's writers. Yup, you have to work at Hayek. He's not easy. Roll up your sleeves. Take notes. You can't watch the 'Commie News network' (CNN) at the same time, do the crossword, and listen to your favorite rapper. But Hayek is overwhelmingly well worth every effort.
A truly great, gripping, far sighted classic.

This is Friedrich Hayek's magnum opus. It is so, however, not because it his most insightful, his most deep, or his most innovative book (his more specialized works in political philosophy and economics claim those titles), but because it is the opposite, that is, a general book, and because this is the kind of book that the world most needed then, and most desperately needs again now.

I say this because Professor Hayek's work is essentially a restatement of the age-old principles of classical liberalism, dating at least back to the Enlightenment, in light of the then seemingly insurmountable approach of socialism, which Hayek feared (rightly) would lead to a totalitarianism just as deadly as that of Nazi Germany. Hence Hayek's thesis is twofold: it is a warning against the path Great Britain was on at that time (which is a path well-trod by the twenty-first century), which Hayek believes leads to slavery, to misery, and to totalitarian control; at the same time, Hayek makes these critiques in light of the central tenets of old liberalism (to be clear to reviewers, this liberalism has nothing to do with modern day "liberalism") - free markets and individual liberty.

As for Hayek's analysis itself, it is nothing short of brilliant. Again, Hayek more meticulously works out the details of his political theory in works like the "Constitution of Liberty", but here he is at his best, providing the big picture of the threat of socialism, in all its guises, and what it represents to any country which values individual freedom. A number of chapters will seem prescient, such as "The End of Truth" (Orwell's 1984 clearly borrows from this), detailing how under a totalitarian regime, truth becomes a matter of utility for the ruler, a pliable tool rather than an objective goal to be sought and conformed to. Most scary, Hayek shows how this is partly accomplished by the manipulation of language.

There are two things, however, which make this book so accessible, and therefore serve as the quintessential introduction to classical liberal thought. First, it is remarkably conciliatory towards opponents. Hayek is not a firebrand or an ideologue, but an intellectual, who holds strong views, but knows and respects members of the opposite camp. Hence, he dedicates this book, "to socialists of all parties," and never lowers himself to the level of diatribe or rambling. His earnest goal is to open his readers' minds to ideals that are perishing, and he knows eristic does not accomplish that. This alone allows the book to stand in marked contrast to any contemporary book. Second, however, Hayek's book is still read because though the circumstances have changed, it is as relevant as though it were written yesterday. As Milton Friedman says in his introduction, during the first half of the twentieth century people praised socialism but practiced capitalism; today, we praise capitalism but practice socialism. We are moving, sluggishly it is true, but certainly nonetheless, down the same road that Hayek feared sixty-six years ago. We are traveling down the road to serfdom.

This book has come across some recent popularity after Glenn Beck dedicated an entire show to this book.

I picked up this book a year and a half ago. It is truly a tremendous book, and one that provided me motivation to continue my studies at a fervent pace.

I suggest Glenn Beck fans should not stop here. The Austrian school is going to open your eyes. If you have not already, I highly suggest you begin to look into studying the many important works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises. Rothbard particularly had a tremendous ability to make complex subjects simple and actually pleasurable, so fear not if you are at all turned off by studying economics. It is much too important to push aside. If you do not wish to buy the books, you can download e-books absolutely free on the Mises Institute website. Also, the site offers free articles, lectures, and audio downloads on subjects including economics, history, and libertarian thought.

In this book, FA Hayek more or less surmises that when civilizations become more sophisticated, more planning is required. With this, the temptation therin is to make the necessary planning more efficient. Of course, the simplest way to do this is to cut out the middleman, or as fate would have it, dispense with the tedious electoral process altogether. Stereotypically, who better at planning AND efficiency than the Germans? After reading Hayek, it all makes scary sense.

Hayek ought to have known this period better than anyone, as he was there before, during and after the rise of Hitler and German facism. Readers of this period unfamiliar with anything but the military history might be surprised to read his assertion that Germany was well on its way to this type of government before Hitler came to power; that he was more or less in the right place at the right time than was he an actual architect of the drift towards totalitarianism.

Hayek's theory makes more sense as the book develops. Hayek points out that historically, when it came to expanding economic influence, though all European nations relied partly on warfare, the English and French also had a robust tradition of trade. Germans, by contrast, only had one of conquest through warfare and domination. This tradition proved a potent mix when combined with large scale social planning run amok.

If a reader wonders why leftists dislike this book, notice that much of the overall theme hits a little too close to home:

p182: "The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism - Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle - are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism."

I found the entire book fascinating as well as relevant in light of the pace at which the US government is shouldering ever more of our supposedly free market economy and stifling legislative debate along the way. It's enough to turn one pessimistic, especially considering the resurgence of mindless dedication to a popular elected leader with little more than rhetoric, social planning and a hokey visual symbol in the shape of a circle in his toolbox.

Strange days indeed.

This book contains the most notable works of F.A. Hayek, the famed, Nobel-prize winning economist who explained yet again why democracies are best based on free market capitalism, and that socialism tends to lead to tyranny.

Hayek demonstrates how socialist governments, motivated by political considerations, can't help but interfere with markets. But economic principles are like the law of gravity...they can't be altered at the whim of a state bureaucrat, so government tampering usually results in cycles of clumsy tampering, suboptimal economic performance, financial crisis, and greater intervention. Hayek would argue for solutions based on individual freedoms while limiting government's ability to intervene in markets, but socialists see it differently. Instead, they demand greater and greater powers, claiming that only greater intervention can fix the problems their actions have caused. To the extent that people buy into this thinking and vote to grant governments ever more power, economic and personal liberties are surrendered, eventually resulting in tyranny and totalitarianism.

One of the other interesting points Hayek makes is that socialism and it's characteristic centrally planned economies tends to concentrate power in a small band of political elites. In this type of system, only the most corrupt and politically ruthless tend to advance, and over time it gets to be increasingly difficult to oppose them. Leaders, unable to offer real growth and prosperity, turn to things like thought (media) control and other nefarious means to stay in power and advance their socialist agendas.

It's also important to understand that this book, while scholarly, has its roots in a far more pragmatic and patriotic place. Written in 1944, Hayek and some of his peers were afraid that the drastic government market intervention surrounding WWII would be carried forward after the war, and the entire world would settle into a Soviet-style socialism. At the time, the Soviets were seen as successfully managing their economy through central planning, and socialism was the darling of intellectuals around the globe. Hayek, fearing this outcome, organized numerous meetings among the world's leading economic minds, and eventually, his book would have a dramatic impact on economic thinking for people in general as well as economists. Milton Friedman writes on this topic and it makes a fascinating read.

Although Hayek used Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for most of his examples, it's striking to see current events through the lens of this book, whether the mortgage lending crisis, AIG, GM, Cap and Trade, US health care system intervention and so on. Although few disagree with Hayek's principles, it is as though we need to relearn them every so often. Indeed, Hayek isn't the first (or last) to advocate these principles...Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and so on have been pointing the way for most of the last three centuries. Perhaps "Hope and Change" is just easier to believe in than sober, economic policies of individualism and personal freedom.

Very highly recommended and should be required reading for patriots and voters trying to make sense out of today's march towards socialism.

I can't believe I never heard of this book until it was referenced on [...]
It should have been the textbook for senior year economics in High School at least.
Hayek clearly and accurately shows how power in government leads to the equivalent of a monarchy, regardless of the initial intent. Nazism and Communism lead to the same end. This is so accurate and the thinking is so clear!
Highly recommend this book.