Rating: 
Summary: Fundamental
Review: You don't have to agree with every word, but if you want to be educated and informed on the critical issues that continue to face us, reading and dealing with this argument is imperative.
Rating:
Summary: Insight for those who wish to be free
Review: A classic analysis of totalitarianism in its most virulent forms and the dangers of going down the wrong road.
Rating:
Summary: Liberalism Defined, Defended, and Rescued
Review: Once again a classic that has had much of the goodness wrung out of it by political zealots who cite it but never really read it or have the historical understanding to understand the context in which it was written.Written at the end of WWII, Hayek was worried about the rise of totalitarian governments in the world --- and he had first-hand experience in the vagaries of fascism. Hayek assumes that people reading his great work will know the historical context. Maybe in his day most people did. Now you have mindless people in the US (mostly, but not exclusively) calling
themselves "conservatives" who cite the book as the main dogma for absolutely NO government intervention in ANY aspect of our lives. This argument is purely grounded in ideology and not any call to reason that Hayek intended, stated or believed. Hayek is in fact a liberal in the original and correct meaning of that term (not how it is bandied about in the US press) and identified himself as such, citing all the rudiments of liberal democracy as his credo: individual liberty, minority rights, sanctity of public property, and, above all, a call to reason as a method resolving disputes. In 1944 the world had been experimenting with two great dysfunctional political systems, communism and its ever more twisted cousins, fascism and naziism. Fascism was almost crushed. Its fallacies were all to plain to see. Communism was different story. The Soviet Unions role in crushing the Nazi beast it seemed that communism was a vindicated alternative hope to mankind. In western democracies WWII was an interlude following the depression and perceived collapse of any positive role for capitalism and the future to come. What would follow the war? State intervention had lessened the shock of the depression, even in America. Central planning had achieved a victory over Japan and Nazi Germany. State planning and Communism seemed to be triumphant. Hayek was worried that people would strengthen their notion that strong government intervention in all aspects of life was the wave of the future. His entire book is an argument against such ideas and an attempt, largely proven, that active government planning of economies and peoples lifestyles is a bad idea that may (in some instances) lead directly to the blank mindless pit of Fascism and Communism. People should be careful when advocating a throughgoing role for central government in economies and in areas where they impact upon public liberties. He states that there is no active positive role for governments in economies. This is made plain by Hayek when he states that the "state planning OF economies" should be avoided.
States taking an active role in central planning of production, expropriation of industries, progressive taxation of companies and the planning of cities with no private input are all things that Hayek forbade because they COULD be the thin wedge of a future totalitarianism and lead to inefficient economies of scale. In short if carried to an extreme as in Soviet Russia and Mao's China -- they lead to Serfdom. State planning FOR econonies and competition is, he describes, an honourable and old profession." He is specifically advocates a positive role for the state in the improvement of capitalism and quality of life. Latter examples of where Hayek would agree with positive state intervention are in areas of, education, roads, infrastructure, public services which benefit industry, public health care. ALL of these measure prepare a society for a healthy environment where competition can thrive within. It is debateable whether this book is dated. Hayek wrote for the times. As an economic liberal one has to agree with his general laissaz-fair policy. That appears timeless. In other areas Hayek was wrong. Many post WWII governments experimented with strong central planning economies and did not become even mildly totalitarian. Canada, Sweden, the UK, postwar Germany all advocated and produced strong central governments and were paragons of liberty, certainly much more so than the US. Moreover they were able to abandon many pillars of state intervention by government fiat and the ballot box and return to a less government dominated economy. The election of Thatcher in the UK is the most striking example. So as a text for right-wing, nonthinking ideologues this book will remain timeless. As an economic primer for why and how not to embark on central government planning Hayek will also retain appeal. As a dogmatic description of what happens when the government sets itself a positive role in the state it will fail to describe fully and account for the regenerative, cultural, and reason-based ideology that is liberal democracy. Ironic because Hayek was defending liberal democracy in the first place.
Rating: 
Summary: Hayek's mendacity is quite understandable but appaling.
Review: Well, it could be worse. Hayek's understanding of socialism is shoddy at best and mendacious at worst. Absolutley no dialectical analysis can be found in this poorly written book. Though completely understandable for a subjective value theoricist to know nothing about its counterpart, labor theory of value, we should all just dismiss this piece of "academia" as a pathetic libertarian panegyric to "free market" capitalism. Though, Hayek does get one star for being straightforward and honest about his lack of understanding. A good example of this really is his thesis. It really is absurd to even link socialism with facism. Were Hayek to explain the rise of facism as a backlash to socialism, that would be understandable, but of course devoid of reflection of the actual conditions that existed in Germany at the time. Let us keep in mind that Hitler had almost no support from the working class, and that trade unions were quickly dismantled and their leaders purged. Despite the obvious, that communists and socialists were quickly liquidated by Hitler and his facists, socialism and facism have very little in common (state capitalism and facism do have much in common though). However, Hayek goes on to say that most Germans were socialists during that time is just rediculous. If most of the socialists and communists were purged and trade unions obliterated, what socialists remain?We must all be wary when we see "academics" begin equating nationalization of industries with socialism. Throughout the book, Hayek clumsily criticizes socialism with out even knowing what he is criticizing. Just remember folks, state communism or National Socialism is a complete oxymoron. If you cannot understand this like Hayek, then I suggest you read Lenin's critique of Kautsky in "State and Revolution." Oh by the way... Road to Serfdom should not be taken seriously.
Rating:
Summary: The maybe-not-so-obvious made VERY obvious
Review: This treatise by Hayek compels the reader to face what seems to be an undeniable fact. The free market and the freedom of the individual are an undivided unity. A planned economy cannot possibly succeed in the long term no matter how lofty the principles of it's designers. While many in the world still violently disagree with this thesis, the historical evidence of the 20th century beginning with World War I makes it plain that Hayek was correct. Now that the communist world has (nearly) completely collapsed, it seems ironic that the most vocal opponents of the free market reside in the free market nations. We can only hope that their particular brand of insanity is not contagious.
Rating:
Summary: Essential
Review: Essential reading for all students of economics and political science.
Rating:
Summary: Lessons as relevant today as when they were written
Review: This, now classic, examination of freedom and the assault upon it by the various flavors of socialism stands the test of time quite well. Hayek's thesis, that individual freedom cannot exist without economic freedom and that the "road to serfdom" (totalitarianism) is paved with the good intentions of those who would sacrifice economic freedom in favor of collectivism and economic "justice", is well supported, not only by the examples he cites (primarily Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), but by the subsequent march of history. Some dismiss this work as dated or irrelevant to current trends because the versions of socialism embraced by fascist nationalism and soviet communism. Others point out (correctly) that the Soviet system bore little resemblance to that proposed by Marx and Engels. They miss Hayek's point: The Soviets and the Nazis are simply examples of what awaits ANY society that goes down this ill-fated road. One chapter, "Why the Worst Get on Top", even discusses why such societal constructs inevitably produce despots.Hayek doesn't argue simply that attempts to control the entire economy result in a loss of freedom. He argues that attempts to control ANY significant aspect of the economy will yield the same results. And history supports his conclusions. This is a lesson that grows more and more relevant in twenty-first century America. Don't think so? Consider the Mussolini quote at the start of Chapter 4: "We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become."While the writing style can be a bit challenging (as might be expected from the writings of a noted economics scholar of the 1940s), it is broken down into easily digestible chapters that systematically drive the author's point home. Some may initially be perturbed by the use of the term "liberalism" in the classical sense, rather than as it is used in modern American political debate. Don't be deterred. Those who take the time will be rewarded with insights into those who embrace collectivism, those who promote it, and the (inevitable) consequences. If you find this book as rewarding as I did, try Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty".
Rating:
Summary: The Road Most Traveled Now...
Review: Aside from Ludwig von Mises' 1,000 page tome "Human Action," this is one of the best arguments for limited government and individual liberty penned during the tumultuous Twentieth Century. Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" is one of the clearest rationales for why liberty and limited government is essential to progress and prosperity. Hayek knew what America's founders also knew; that even those public servants with the best intentions begin to see every problem as one that government bureaucracy can fix. In truth, most of our problems are human problems and governments tend to exacerbate rather than alleviate them. When Hayek wrote this short piece back in 1944, Hitler and Stalin ruled over two of the world's largest government controlled economies and Britain's John Maynard Keynes' economic ideas were the order of the day. Before the decade was out Hitler's empire was in ruins, Stalin's USSR was on a path to devastation that was only temporarily slowed by its looting of Germany after the war and Keynes was totally humiliated in two head-to-head debates with Friedrich Hayek. Hayek would go on to win the Nobel Prize in economics and Keynesianism would fall to "fiscal conservatism" and Milton Friedman's Monetarism as championed by the likes of Reagan, Thatcher and Gingrich. It's ironic that a century and a half after America was founded on individualism and limited governance, those ideals would be reinvigorated by the Austrian School of Economics, led by Hayek and von Mises. This book is a testament as to why that is. How far has socialism fallen since Hayek wrote this book? Well in the spring of 2002, some fifty-eight years after its publication, Russia has adopted a 13% across the board flat tax. A "risky scheme" in the eyes of many of America's "mainstream Democrats." "The Road to Serfdom" demonstrates why command economies fail and free economies thrive. Individual liberty has had no better champion than Friedrich Hayek.
Rating:
Summary: More relevant than ever
Review: When the Berlin Wall was pulled down critics scoffed at the warning that Hayek issued in 1944, as they did in 1985 when the grim prognostications of Orwell's "1984" did not come to pass on schedule. They mocked too soon. Developments in the European Community, and some tendencies in the US after Septembe 11, demonstrate that Hayek's message remains valid and important. Unfortunately Hayek's writing in parts of this book is rather stodgy and it is most surprising (though gratifying) that the book achieved such a high and continuing level of readership. For best results it should be read in tandem with Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies". This is easier to read and it has a very similar message with greater depth in some areas such as the philosophical roots of totalitarian thinking, the statement of critical rationalism and the correction of the muddle which Plato created by the false dichotomy of individualism and altruism.
Rating:
Summary: A classic to enjoy
Review: Hayek describes the world in 1944, alarmed by the rising ideas of the "inevitable" trends to economic planning and centralization, pointing out the path that leads to totalitarian regimes. He says that socialism, fascism and nazism are "species" of collectivisation which don't differ in their nature.
In his book he tries to prove that in searching for security, governments can start to plan economic activities and, as this power grows, embark in building a society where every aspect of people's daily life was previously decided by the desire of a planner, because "economic control [...] is the control of the means for all our ends."
Hayek's work was a sort of bible for the neo-liberal era inaugurated by Thatcher and Reagan in the 80's and, although he explicitly opposes to the 19TH century "laissez-faire" economy, in many paragraphs he seems very "nostalgic" about it.
It is maybe one of the best counterparts of Marx's "The Capital" and, thus, a must-read for any socialist or communist (as Marx is a must-read for every capitalist) in order to widen your knowledge of economics and to come to a better conclusion about defining your political beliefs.
| 
