Rating: 
Summary: Fundamental Reading, by fermed
Review: I was a pimply and feckless youth attending college in DC when I think I might have read parts of "The Road to Serfdom." I say "parts" because in those days I never read anything completely, suffering as I did from a profound aversion to any effort to instill an education into my head. Only two phenomena interested me then (food and sex) and I viewed with dismal contempt anything that would distract or interfere with the satisfaction of those simple but base instincts.I found a recent reading of the book refreshing and enlightening. The 50th anniversary edition, in paperback, contains the prefaces of the 1944 (first) edition, those to the 1957 and 1976 editions, and an introduction by Milton Friedman, dated 1994. Friedrich Hayek is now dead (1899-1992), but he received a well deserved Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. This book was the key to that prize. This edition contains the original bibliography (nothing before 1944) and a fair index. Hayek's book is one of the fundamental building blocks of libertarian thinking. In a careful and relentless analysis he points out that the growth of collectivism (socialism), and the expansion of government that such growth fosters, leads inevitably to the horrors of a totalitarian state. It is no coincidence that the only remaining endorsers of unrestrained communism (Cuba and North Korea) are ruthless dictatorships and not worker's paradises. This book tell you how come. I can't say this is a "fun" book. But one should, from time to time, attempt to remedy the excesses of youthful self-indulgence from one's college days. This is a good book with which to do penance and gain wisdom, all at once.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: Makes the compelling case that socialism/communism are really very much the same animal. The real shame here is that many of those who most need to read this book are in denial about the failure of communism/socialism.
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: Liberty and free markets are inextricably linked.
Review: 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."
Rating:
Summary: Why we have to fight government
Review: Hayek, the great communicator of libertarian thought, meticulously explains why every scheme aiming for an utopian goal through state power, whether it be the well-being of a "race" or the universal socialist Eden, _must_ end in tyranny. At first glance, his analysis seems to apply to a bygone era, before "the end of history" where liberal democracy triumphs over statist terror. However, his words are as important today as ever - liberty is as threatened today by both the well-meaning and the self-interested. The most interesting part of this book for me was his explanation of how Nazism, Fascism, and Communism are of the same cloth, not only in their effects, but also in their influences. Major figures in the National Socialist movement made their way there from a communist background, well documented in this book. It is illuminating, and sad, how society still considers Nazism to be to the "right" of the political spectrum and communism to the "left", and therefore less evil than Nazism. This despite the fact that communism killed many more people than Nazism ever did. Compare only the 14 million Ukranians with the 6 million Jews, and then we have not even mentioned the Poles and the other statistics on the road to tyranny. In fact, fascism, national socialism and communism are the same - they meet in the oppresion and killing of people. That should give pause to the left and the right today, but still they persist in their schemes to achieve their idea of "justice" at any cost - even if that cost is tallied in human lives. Killing civilians in Iraq is good for them - because their childrem might be free. Or, it is unfortunate that you will die because the FDA forbids you to try unapproved drugs, but, it is better for the other people, don't you see?
Rating:
Summary: For lovers of freedom.
Review: "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.
Rating:
Summary: The Book of the Century
Review: Fifty years ago, "Road to Serfdom" provided the foundations of the intellectual counterrevolution that resulted in the recent demise of socialism. From Latin America to Eastern Europe, this book opened millions of minds to the (now obvious) moral and material superiority of open societies and free-markets over all types of socialisms and fascisms. Of course, that is the single and simple reason why many resentful socialists still hate Hayek and this book so deeply. For example, the "reader from Birmingham" (prior review) calls the author (inter alia) a "fascist" despite the fact that Hayek had to escape fascism to save his life and that this book is one of the most compelling attacks on fascism ever written. Reading a book before "reviewing" it should be mandatory, but living and suffering in this capitalist world should not. A few socialist paradises built by inspired opponents of Hayek's ideas are still available around the globe (try North Korea - - be happy).
Rating:
Summary: Why we have to fight government
Review: Hayek, the great communicator of libertarian thought, meticulously explains why every scheme aiming for an utopian goal through state power, whether it be the well-being of a "race" or the universal socialist Eden, _must_ end in tyranny. At first glance, his analysis seems to apply to a bygone era, before "the end of history" where liberal democracy triumphs over statist terror. However, his words are as important today as ever - liberty is as threatened today by both the well-meaning and the self-interested. The most interesting part of this book for me was his explanation of how Nazism, Fascism, and Communism are of the same cloth, not only in their effects, but also in their influences. Major figures in the National Socialist movement made their way there from a communist background, well documented in this book. It is illuminating, and sad, how society still considers Nazism to be to the "right" of the political spectrum and communism to the "left", and therefore less evil than Nazism. This despite the fact that communism killed many more people than Nazism ever did. Compare only the 14 million Ukranians with the 6 million Jews, and then we have not even mentioned the Poles and the other statistics on the road to tyranny. In fact, fascism, national socialism and communism are the same - they meet in the oppresion and killing of people. That should give pause to the left and the right today, but still they persist in their schemes to achieve their idea of "justice" at any cost - even if that cost is tallied in human lives. Killing civilians in Iraq is good for them - because their childrem might be free. Or, it is unfortunate that you will die because the FDA forbids you to try unapproved drugs, but, it is better for the other people, don't you see?
Rating:
Summary: More true in 2004 than in 1946
Review: I think that one of the true hallmarks of great writing and great thought is that it stands the test of time. Hayek wrote this in 1946, while socialism was sweeping across Europe, at that point he was the voice in the wilderness crying out against the onslaught of socialism, he was right. His views have been in favor (the tremendous success of Thatcher and Regan in the 1980s) and out of favor (today), but he has always been right. This is a compleeling case that strikes right at the heart of the most important political debates. It is not about temporary issues that will be gone in a year, it is about the meat of the issue, that more government requires taking away liberty and choice for idividuals and leads to major problems. I will not try to summarize Hayek's work, because I will not do it justice, but I highly recommend this work.
|
