The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents: The Definitive Edition

The historical analysis upon which this book depends amounts to nothing more than extremely poor scholarship masquerading as thoughtful contrarianism. Hayek's conflation of Nazism with Socialism merely because they have similar names in German is an example of stupidity on the level of mistaking the PATRIOT Act for patriotism or the Ministry of Peace for peacefulness. This distracting error is unfortunately the foundation of the entirety of his argument. His theory of authoritarianism consists of extrapolations from misplaced assumptions about Nazi Germany and disproven projections about the direction the U.S. & Britain are heading in the post-war era. His quaint economic theory tells us little about contemporary authoritarian regimes show more and even less about modern social democracy. In sum, don't bother. show less

I recently saw an edition of this book citing Glen Beck on the back cover and claiming it was an inspiration for the Tea Party. I couldn't help wincing at what the reaction of many potential readers would be to that. For Hayek, a Nobel-Prize winning economist, doesn't deserve to be dismissed with a sneer by those on the other side of the political divide. Hayek dedicated the book to "socialists of all parties" and said in the 1957 Preface to the American edition that was meant "in no spirit of mockery" and that the ideas in the book were honed by arguments and discussion with socialists, and above all directed to them; he believed "socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove." Indeed, in that show more Preface he was scornful of conservatism, which, he wrote, "in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies... is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."

Mind you, right at the start, Hayek admits: "This is a political book." Published in 1944, the book's kernel began as a 1938 journal article inspired by a common conception that the National Socialists in Germany were a capitalist reaction to socialism: Hayek believed they were a natural outgrowth of it. In a way, Hayek's argument has lost a lot of power simply through its own success. Most people today, I think, see the connections between the two extremes of the political spectrum and don't have to be convinced of the similarities between say, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

The heart of the book, and to me of most interest, was the twelfth chapter, "The Socialist Roots of Nazism." Hayek cautioned against seeing Nazism as rising from a German character--that would be to adopt many of the assumptions of Nazism itself. He points out that it "It overlooks the fact that, when eighty years ago John Stuart Mill was writing his great essay On Liberty, he drew his inspiration, more than from any other men, from two Germans—-Goethe and Wilhelm von Humboldt—-and forgets the fact that two of the most influential intellectual forebears of National Socialism—-Thomas Carlyle and Houston Stewart Chamberlain—-were a Scot and an Englishman." A lot of the intellectual history presented in that chapter was new to me and thought provoking.

This book isn't easy reading--truly this is the opposite of some simplistic populist bromide. It's highly abstract, erudite, sophisticated and nuanced and not what you might expect given its characterization as a polemic of the right wing. The third chapter, "Individualism and Collectivism" discusses what Hayek saw as limitations of the market and its ninth chapter, "Security and Freedom" even concedes the need for a welfare state. It's timely and timeless and surprisingly modern in its tone. Parts are a slog to be honest, but I think it's worth pushing through and thinking about. show less

This gets better as it goes. As is noted in one of the documents at the end of this edition, even at the time the earlier chapters assumed a level of knowledge of events in Germany that most Americans did not have. Now, over 60 years later, these parts can come off as Hayek just yelling at the Germans; I want to agree with him, but he doesn't actually show the specific facts that would enable me to do so.

The later chapters become more theoretical, which in this case was an improvement. Hayek is extremely skeptical of the claims that government can understand things well enough to improve them through detailed management, and believes that this inevitably devolves into the simpler pursuit of raw power by government officials. I find show more myself more and more in agreement especially with the first of these points -- that debating the goodwill or lack thereof of government officials is ultimately irrelevant because even the noblest of intentions would, due to all-too-human intellectual arrogance, be implemented in ways that don't achieve much that anyone values (and usually destroy a great deal of value in the process).

I suspect I would like other books of Hayek's that don't rely so much on the knowledge of particular historical facts (or perhaps that give a more detailed exposition of such facts in the text, although I don't know if Hayek tends to do this at all) even more. show less

Hayek argues passionately against central planning of the economy, stating quite firmly that it leads to totalitarianism. The way this happens is rather subtle, but Hayek claims that to have a centrally planned economy would require a moral judgment on all of the decisions made. This is my basic take on his argument; since all people are different, they all have different things that they value over other things. Even in the United States, we have the NRA, and then we have people who don't like guns at all. This is a bold oversimplification of what he says, but the gist is that it is too difficult to make decisions about the economy since you wouldn't know what to focus on. This would require you to make a moral judgment on what is show more better or more needed. It is easy to look back at Communist Russia, for example, and how they had the massive lines of people waiting for bread or shoes.

Hayek repeats himself a lot, and his ideas don't really change from chapter to chapter. He does tell us that laissez-faire Capitalism might be the cause of a lot of inequality in income, but that it is also the only system that allows for people to have the most freedom. show less

Despite a point of internal inconsistency (entirely understandable inconsistency, even), this book is a very good critique of socialism and of command economies. I especially appreciate his chapters on why the worst will come to power in this sort of system and on the infinity of human ends (which will necessarily be extremely limited by limiting the individual's economic capabilities).

One of the most important books of the 20th Century. Astonishingly prescient in terms of 2015 USA and Europe. Competition (not planning) - Democracy = equality of liberty. Socialism = equality of restraint and servitude. (Equality v. Greater Equality.) The expediency of delegation. Lenin: "Who, Whom? Choice + Risk = Freedom, v. security. Collectivism: communists, socialism, fascism, National Socialism (Nazis) = all the same, just variations. "Take from the rich, but, then what?" Give up liberty for safety, then you deserve neither. Hatred of success.The rule of law v. the rule of status.

The legal system is of paramount importance. Lady Justice wears a blindfold. The law cannot depend on the circumstances of the moment. There must be show more few exceptions. The law must be predictable - fair - not arbitrary, i.e., "decide the case on its merits" . Rules must be invariably enforced. Security, Usefulness, Remuneration. The apparatus of knowledge: schools, press, radio, TV, movies (who owns, who controls?). The mass production of opinion. "Blut und Boden - one race/own land". show less

A somewhat difficult read due to time elapsed since its original release. However, this Nobel prize winner leaves no doubt that socialism always ends in failure. While 20th century Americans knew this and fought against it and its related "isms", we have too many blindly embracing this economic and political loser.