The Road to Serfdom

Rating:
Summary: The new testament of liberalism
Review: The "Road to Serfdom" is probably the best twentieth century defense of classical liberalism. Frederick Hayek, a Nobel Prize economist, outlines in depth the philosophical distinction between Western liberal values and German and Soviet totalitarianism.

Hayek addresses the basic tenets of socialism, or more accurately, economic planning. In a planned economy, he argues, people delegate responsibility to a higher body and slowly lose their moral agency and personal freedom; and, he shows that economic planning is inevitably dehumanizing, producing regimes that sacrifice freedom, morality and truth in pursuit of their conception of the "common good." "The Road to Serfdom" conveys succinctly the intellectual basis of the Cold War and presents the inevitable link between economic planning and totalitarianism; anyone who thinks the Soviet Union was a twisted application of a noble ideal should give "The Road to Serfdom" a close read.

More than half a century after its publication, "The Road to Serfdom" is still applicable. Hayek's discussion of liberalism is timeless and warns that economic planning does little more than take away our freedom. That is probably the message Hayek would have for those who feel burdened by the complexity of globalization and look to the state for help. Better than anyone, Hayek points clearly to the line that should separate the state from the market; and, he shows that the ultimate victor from this separation is human freedom.

Rating:
Summary: In Defense of Liberty.
Review: In _The Road to Serfdom_ the Nobel Prize winning economist F. A. Hayek makes a profound case against socialism and economic planning in favor of the traditional "classical liberal" position, which originally consisted of advocates of the principle of "laissez-faire". Arguing from the point of view of such classical liberals as J. S. Mill, Alexis de Toqueville (who inspired the title of this book), Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and Lord Acton ("absolute power corrupts absolutely"), as well as economists of the "Austrian school" and von Mises, Hayek argues that what was (and still is) termed "liberalism" in his day is in fact an abdication of the true ideal of liberty in favor of a redefinition of this term. Hayek shows how socialism and economic planning, such as that advocated by economists such as Keynes for example, have failed in both Russia and Germany. According to Hayek, economic interventionism, planning, and centralization are leading the state on "the road to serfdom" and destroying individual liberty. Fundamental to any notion of liberty is the belief in private property and Hayek argues that liberty is impossible without private property following Hume. While many who might advocate socialism will accept that liberty is impossible without private property, they still continue to push their ideology because they believe it will somehow enable man to focus on "higher things". Hayek argues that this itself is a conceit and shows the fundamental importance of economics and money in our lives. Hayek wrote this book near the end of the Second World War, and he shows that many of the socialists in Britain were coming close to advocating the same principles which were used by Hitler to establish his dictatorship. In particular, the works of the socialist theorist Werner Sombart played an important role in the economic understanding of the Third Reich. Hayek suggests that Nazism was made possible by German socialism and that in fact many individuals on one side of the communist/Nazi split could easily go back and forth between the two alternating in their hatred for the West. Many in the Third Reich regime such as Moeller van den Bruck, railed against the "West" (as it was understood by them, not the meaning it is given now where it would of course include the German nation) and its institutions as well as the ideals of classical liberalism. Hayek shows that there are indeed totalitarians in our midst who in the name of security will abolish our economic freedoms if given the opportunity to do so. While the United States claim to abide by capitalism, it continues to amount a burgeoning government bureaucracy and a monstrous "welfare-warfare state". Individuals such as Hilaire Belloc and Herbert Spencer had pointed out the dangers in such notions as socialism and statism earlier in the century, and Hayek has taken off from many of their writings. Hayek argues that socialism is a product of Germanic thought while he affirms the thought of certain individuals in Britain such as John Stuart Mill against the Germans. These remarks can probably be understood in the light of his times which had just witnessed a world confrontation against Fascism and National Socialism. Hayek concludes with a chapter on internationalism which he advocates in the classical liberal sense, but he also shows the dangers involved in the kind of "world unity" schemes which were then being devised and were to take shape in such bodies as the League of Nations and the United Nations. My copy of this book includes an excellent introduction by another Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman. In this introduction Friedman makes two points which I believe are worth mentioning. First, he argues that it is ironic that many of those regarded as the intellectual elite continue to accept the ideal of collectivism against that of individualism, basing their arguments on emotion and not on reason. Secondly, he notes the irony of the fact that socialist nations such as the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and the former East Germany had to develop walls to keep their citizens within, while capitalist nations have been forced to use police forces to keep too many people from coming in. This itself illustrates the great failure of the socialist ideal. While the intellectual "elite" continue to cling to their dying ideal of socialism and disparage individuals such as Hayek, history shows that their schemes will result in failure. Hopefully, they will continue to be opposed in the future by all people who consider themselves lovers of liberty, in the true sense of the word.

Rating:
Summary: Must read
Review: As most colleges assigned reading is the Communist Manefisto I can see why the masses are awaiting national health care. We are already serfs. Hayek examples this from a 1940's perspective.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant but not completely timeless
Review: In this work, his most famous, Hayek presents the classic arguement against central planning of economic activity. But the book has to be understood within its context. Hayek wrote it as a warning to the British who appeared at the time to be embracing socialist planning advocated by the Labour party. So most of the book is somewhat dated by this focus that has less relevancy today. Those elements that do have a broader applicabilty Hayek returned to later in greater detail, but these works are much less popular.

Regardless of this Hayek has a problem in his analysis. He uses the experiences of the rise of totalitarian government in Germany and Russia (primarily) and seeks to generalize that result to Britian (and to a lesser extent the U.S.). Hayek ignores the important difference between these states, the existence of stable democratic rule. Hayek sees any serious economic planning attempt as the begining of a slippery slope that will end in totalitarian government. But the experience of Britian disproved this view. While the post-war Labour government did create a number of socialist programs, these programs never really expanded later. A "collectivist consensus" developed in which it was understood that Labour would not seriously push for more socialized planning and the Conservatives wouldn't seek to unravel what was already settled. This arrangment lasted until the system begain to breakdown in the late 70s and Thatcher was elected. This demonstrates that a healthy democratic polity can engage in planning without it necessarily sliding into the abyss. A similar story is evident in American politics, though in a different and less dramatic fashion due to the more conservative nature of American institutions. Hayek's main problem is that he discounts the value of a democratic system because his direct experience was in unstable democracies such as interwar Austria. These experiences installed a deep distrust of democracy that colors his analysis.

While this is a significant limitation this book should be read by anyone interested in political economic theory. Its historical and intellectual impact has been enormous.

Rating:
Summary: Signs of Freedom
Review: F.A. Hayek provides articulate a strong argument against the use of centralized state power to satisfy our wants and needs. In 2003, in a time period when we have elected small-government minded Republicans who wish to experiment by expanding the role of centralized government (i.e., Medicare), it is best to heed Mr. Hayek's warning. By centralizing power for the elites (who are always in favor of increasing its power; for reference, read any major newspaper's editorial page, academic arguments in journals; elite judges and other holier-than-thou commentators), we cede our control to them. Rather than "emporing" people to make decissions for themselves, centralized state power limits the available choices we can reasonably make for ourselves. As such, we have given some of our freedom away. We ought not make this decission now. It is quite easy for liberals to say we need governmental intervention in the economy. But what say you regarding the results, including giving up the power to dictate our own destinies? Why should we give this freedom to the state, and then beg for the freedom to do what we wish economically?

Rating:
Summary: Really teriffic treatment of freedom and economics
Review: I would recommend this book over both "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom" by Friedman. Although Friedman is probably a bit easier to read, Hayek's arguments and clear thinking are much more powerful. Hayek does an excellent job of describing why planned, socialist economic systems necessarily lead to loss of both civil and political freedoms. To paraphrase: A planned economy simply cannot exist without strict economic, civil, and political controls of the people, niether in theory or in practice.

Hayek's analysis of the often overlooked economic changes in pre-Nazi Germany and pre-Fascism Italy that led to the emergence of such horrible dictatorships is worh the price of admission alone.

Rating:
Summary: Hayek should be canonized!!!
Review: Hayek's ideas were necessarily self-moderated by the circumstances surrounding "The Road to Serfdom"'s authorship. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time to go about writing a sarcastically damning indictment of government and central planning. While some claim that this detracts from the importance of his work, I disagree. The fact that he literally risked his life for his ideas in noble and honorable, and adds to the value of the book. If he were any weaker a person we might not have ANY of his ideas, ideas that were influential in shaping Macroeconomics and helping to tear down the Berlin wall, among other things.

While the writing is characteristic of the era, and often awkward, the power of the idea that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that planning does not work, and the arguments used to support these ideas more than overcome this defect. The next saint to be canonized should be Ludwig von Mises, the second Rothbard, and the third Hayek, for the ideas of the Austrian school of Economics and the great minds behind them have led to countless social miracles.

For more information on the battle between Keynes and Hayek, one would be wise to view the series "Commanding Heights".

Rating:
Summary: Still Timeless and Still Misunderstood
Review: Hayek was a proponent of the "Austrian School" of free-market economics which, although not commonly known, was key to the post-WWII West German Wirtschaftwunder ("economic miracle") under Erhardt (further reading on this is also highly recommended). Hayek was a friend of Keynes but an opponent of Keynesianism. For those who will read no other Mises or Hayek, read this book as a layman's introduction to economics and Homo Economicus. Hayek was also a refugee from Nazi Europe who nevertheless also was troubled by certain political trends in the relatively free Anglo-Saxon democracies. The longevity of this book is due partly to its dual service not only as an economics classic but also as a classic in political philosophy. Well before Hannah Arendt, in her classic 1951 treatise, Totalitarianism, linked the dictatorships of the right and left and noted not only their similarity in operation but their similarity in public support (Arendt Pt3 1968 p.1-9), Hayek identified these commonalities in socialisms in his 1944 Road to Serfdom (1994 p.34). More importantly, it is too often overlooked that Hayek derived this book and its title from Tocqueville's Democracy in America and Tocqueville's warnings about democracy's threat to liberty (p.xli). Because the connection between 1830s American democracy and Nazism might not be immediately obvious, ideally, this book should be read in tandem with Tocqueville (most histories ignore Tocqueville's most important points but that issue is for another time). The continued relevance of this book is evident throughout, including Hayek's debunking of the (recently feted) beatification of moderates and their "reasonable" and "common sense" compromises (p.47-48).

Rating:
Summary: Hayek Won, Marcuse Lost - Bigtime!
Review: For a former liberal like myself, it is eery to read such a complete and comprehensive refutation of the collectivist ideals I so blindly followed out of youthful ignorance and stupidity. Those on both sides of the individualist vs. collectivist argument who are possesed of a mind for truth and reason will find Hayeks arguments, written for WWII England, compelling and highly relevant to the new millenium.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Points - Tough to read.
Review: The Road to Serfdom is an excellent book in that Hayek describes how socialism does not work. He does this very thoroughly with lots of examples and the first time reader might find himself (herself) switching political affiliations. It is, however, very difficult to read and very slow going. Patience is required to plow through this book.