Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
Next up, Marx! (Das Kapital or some other, suggestions?) This is a hard book to do a book review on. It is the subject of much controversy which likely limits its reader base to an admittedly chosen audience. If, however, I might be able to convince you to give this book a read, it would be as a great pair for any read on philosophy. This is because, while branded a book of political philosophy, and it endorses capitalism unabashedly, it is a genuine prospective on the social impacts of economic affairs which is today an intractable subject precisely because it is stubbornly political.
I respect the opinion of those who are unconvinced by Hayek’s arguments. He is thorough in his praise for liberalism (individual freedom) and this does create two vectors from which, it can be construed, creates high-handedness. First, he sets this as his value and attacks political illiberalism (of the traditional conservative and left socialist alike). Second, he attacks economic planning as a left phenomenon of the idealist. It is thus that some get the impression that Hayek believed all against him to be morally wrong. In addition, though he touts capitalism, he condemns laissez-faire and monopoly throughout the book suggesting that these are short-sighted. He also does support government intervention and bemoans the lack of study at the time related to the “positive” cases in which govt intervention is necessary, though he gives the rule of thumb: “nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services— so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields” (87). Though I suspect a great deal of them are simply opposed to the newest iterations of the Austrian School (Friedman) that contradicts some of the merits of this book.
The world in which Hayek *originally* wrote this book is like the base upon which today’s is built. Hayek was one of the Austrians who actually saw Hitler’s rise and it informs a great deal of his arguments in the book. It is the beauty of this book: an unabstracted (non-theoretical) work on economics which isn’t replicable today. You may wonder what I mean by this, or why this is desirable. It is because today we have no real (personal) understanding of the levers which govern our economic lives (monetary theory, risk, govt intervention, inflation) because it is so abstracted from the real power of the innovation machine that is capitalism — the creative energy of the individual. Friedman and other later Austrian School adherents focused more on the former abstractions leaving this book yet more valuable to a broad audience because of one thing we all fear — the democratic backslide to an evil totalitarian state.
Its greatest argument, which I have yet to see elsewhere in histories of the Nazis rise despite having read much about it, is the control of the economic life by union fronts (organized activity, collusion of industry & org labor) in controlling worker’s lives that led to control of the middle class’s political lives.
It is thus man’s economic life — separate his political one (as this given in two flavors by those imposed by his economic life: free to choose or not free to choose) — that determines how he lives, regardless of the system he lives under.
There is a number of things which I agree and disagree with Hayek on, but I don’t think opinion should be determinant of whether or not you read this book. There is much valuable history here which is otherwise unavailable to English readers (because they have gone untranslated from German) and many questions that are both newly opened and left unsatisfied by this book.
It is the former which gives this book some of its key weaknesses for me. Citations were at times incorrect (leaving questions as to why this is so) and sources were in some instances unverifiable being untrained in German. It is also unclear, this being an intellectual history at times, the relative degree of the works cited having significant impact on the German intellectual tradition without more exposure to the field; though this is not my pursuit in reading this and it is in my opinion satisfactorily bridged by the author’s synthesis of historical events in their image.
I’d say this is well worth 20 hours to get a new prospective on the strengths (and inherent vulnerabilities) of our democracies.
I respect the opinion of those who are unconvinced by Hayek’s arguments. He is thorough in his praise for liberalism (individual freedom) and this does create two vectors from which, it can be construed, creates high-handedness. First, he sets this as his value and attacks political illiberalism (of the traditional conservative and left socialist alike). Second, he attacks economic planning as a left phenomenon of the idealist. It is thus that some get the impression that Hayek believed all against him to be morally wrong. In addition, though he touts capitalism, he condemns laissez-faire and monopoly throughout the book suggesting that these are short-sighted. He also does support government intervention and bemoans the lack of study at the time related to the “positive” cases in which govt intervention is necessary, though he gives the rule of thumb: “nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services— so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields” (87). Though I suspect a great deal of them are simply opposed to the newest iterations of the Austrian School (Friedman) that contradicts some of the merits of this book.
The world in which Hayek *originally* wrote this book is like the base upon which today’s is built. Hayek was one of the Austrians who actually saw Hitler’s rise and it informs a great deal of his arguments in the book. It is the beauty of this book: an unabstracted (non-theoretical) work on economics which isn’t replicable today. You may wonder what I mean by this, or why this is desirable. It is because today we have no real (personal) understanding of the levers which govern our economic lives (monetary theory, risk, govt intervention, inflation) because it is so abstracted from the real power of the innovation machine that is capitalism — the creative energy of the individual. Friedman and other later Austrian School adherents focused more on the former abstractions leaving this book yet more valuable to a broad audience because of one thing we all fear — the democratic backslide to an evil totalitarian state.
Its greatest argument, which I have yet to see elsewhere in histories of the Nazis rise despite having read much about it, is the control of the economic life by union fronts (organized activity, collusion of industry & org labor) in controlling worker’s lives that led to control of the middle class’s political lives.
It is thus man’s economic life — separate his political one (as this given in two flavors by those imposed by his economic life: free to choose or not free to choose) — that determines how he lives, regardless of the system he lives under.
There is a number of things which I agree and disagree with Hayek on, but I don’t think opinion should be determinant of whether or not you read this book. There is much valuable history here which is otherwise unavailable to English readers (because they have gone untranslated from German) and many questions that are both newly opened and left unsatisfied by this book.
It is the former which gives this book some of its key weaknesses for me. Citations were at times incorrect (leaving questions as to why this is so) and sources were in some instances unverifiable being untrained in German. It is also unclear, this being an intellectual history at times, the relative degree of the works cited having significant impact on the German intellectual tradition without more exposure to the field; though this is not my pursuit in reading this and it is in my opinion satisfactorily bridged by the author’s synthesis of historical events in their image.
I’d say this is well worth 20 hours to get a new prospective on the strengths (and inherent vulnerabilities) of our democracies.
ROAD TO SERFDOM
Have heard this book referenced for years but never got around to reading it until this year. I found this at a used bookstore and it felt like fate had dropped it in my lap at the time. Pretty well known as one of the libertarian "canon" books, this was an incredible read. Initially published in 1944 it was hot on the heels of the rise and fall of the Nazis and the wrap-up of World War II. Hayek has an excellent breakdown on the individual and the importance of their freedom(s) vs the detrimental effects of collectivism as enacted by governments around the world and walks the reader through the importance of economic freedom by way of structures and frameworks for the citizen. Especially as it applies to invidualism vs collectivism, I saw some parallels with Hoffer's "True Believer" (another worthwhile read!)
As usual, some of my takeaways/highlights;
"...while history runs its course, it is not history to us"
"...we all think that our personal order of values is not merely personal but that in a free discussion among rational people we would convince the others that ours is the right one."
"From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step".
"The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations."
"Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand - rules which will make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."
"Those most immediately interested in a particular issue are not necessarily the best judges of the interests of society as a whole."
"...whoever controls all economic activity controls the means for all our ends and must therefore decide which are to be satisfied and which not."
"Few catch-words have done so much harm as the ideal of a "stabilization" of particular prices (or wages), which, while securing the income of some, makes the position of the rest more and more precarious."
"The chance of imposing a totalitarian regime on a whole people depends on the leader's first collecting round him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that totalitarian discipline which they are to impose by force upon the rest."
"...able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently."
"It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program - on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off - than on any positive task."
"...several contributory factors strengthen the tendency of collectivism to become particularist and exclusive. Of these, one of the most important is that the desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders."
"To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group."
"Though we may sometimes be forced to choose between different evils, they remain evils."
"There is always in the eyes of the collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual."
"To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become THEIR beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants."
"If all the sources of current information are effective under one single control, it is no longer a question of merely persuading the people of this or that. The skillful propaganda then has power to mold their minds in any direction he chooses, and even the most intelligent and independent people cannot entirely escape their influence if they are long isolated from all other sources of information."
"From the nature of its task, totalitarian propaganda cannot confine itself to values, to questions of opinions and moral convictions in which the individual always will conform more or less to the views ruling his community, but must extend to questions of fact where human intelligence is involved in a different way."
"...most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning."
"It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced."
"Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support." (COVID anyone? Anyone?)
"Facts and theories must thus become no less the object of an official doctrine than views about values. And the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge - the schools and the press, radio and motion picture - will be used exclusively to spread those views which, whether true or false, will strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority; and all information that might cause doubt or hesitation will be withheld."
"Every activity must derive its justification from a conscious social purpose. There must be no spontaneous, unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide."
"To deprecate the value of intellectual freedom because it will never mean for everybody the same possibility of independent thought is completely to miss the reasons which give intellectual freedom its value."
"Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them has our decision moral value."
"Responsibility, not to a superior, but to one's conscience, the awareness of a duty not exacted by compulsion, the necessity to decide which of the things one values are to be sacrificed to others, and to bear the consequences of one's own decision, are the very essence of any morals which deserve the name."
"...neither good intentions nor efficiency of organization can preserve decency in a system in which personal freedom and individual responsibility are destroyed."
and the final one....
"We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may also prevent its use for desirable purposes."
Have heard this book referenced for years but never got around to reading it until this year. I found this at a used bookstore and it felt like fate had dropped it in my lap at the time. Pretty well known as one of the libertarian "canon" books, this was an incredible read. Initially published in 1944 it was hot on the heels of the rise and fall of the Nazis and the wrap-up of World War II. Hayek has an excellent breakdown on the individual and the importance of their freedom(s) vs the detrimental effects of collectivism as enacted by governments around the world and walks the reader through the importance of economic freedom by way of structures and frameworks for the citizen. Especially as it applies to invidualism vs collectivism, I saw some parallels with Hoffer's "True Believer" (another worthwhile read!)
As usual, some of my takeaways/highlights;
"...while history runs its course, it is not history to us"
"...we all think that our personal order of values is not merely personal but that in a free discussion among rational people we would convince the others that ours is the right one."
"From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step".
"The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations."
"Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand - rules which will make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."
"Those most immediately interested in a particular issue are not necessarily the best judges of the interests of society as a whole."
"...whoever controls all economic activity controls the means for all our ends and must therefore decide which are to be satisfied and which not."
"Few catch-words have done so much harm as the ideal of a "stabilization" of particular prices (or wages), which, while securing the income of some, makes the position of the rest more and more precarious."
"The chance of imposing a totalitarian regime on a whole people depends on the leader's first collecting round him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that totalitarian discipline which they are to impose by force upon the rest."
"...able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently."
"It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program - on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off - than on any positive task."
"...several contributory factors strengthen the tendency of collectivism to become particularist and exclusive. Of these, one of the most important is that the desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders."
"To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group."
"Though we may sometimes be forced to choose between different evils, they remain evils."
"There is always in the eyes of the collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual."
"To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become THEIR beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants."
"If all the sources of current information are effective under one single control, it is no longer a question of merely persuading the people of this or that. The skillful propaganda then has power to mold their minds in any direction he chooses, and even the most intelligent and independent people cannot entirely escape their influence if they are long isolated from all other sources of information."
"From the nature of its task, totalitarian propaganda cannot confine itself to values, to questions of opinions and moral convictions in which the individual always will conform more or less to the views ruling his community, but must extend to questions of fact where human intelligence is involved in a different way."
"...most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning."
"It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced."
"Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support." (COVID anyone? Anyone?)
"Facts and theories must thus become no less the object of an official doctrine than views about values. And the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge - the schools and the press, radio and motion picture - will be used exclusively to spread those views which, whether true or false, will strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority; and all information that might cause doubt or hesitation will be withheld."
"Every activity must derive its justification from a conscious social purpose. There must be no spontaneous, unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide."
"To deprecate the value of intellectual freedom because it will never mean for everybody the same possibility of independent thought is completely to miss the reasons which give intellectual freedom its value."
"Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them has our decision moral value."
"Responsibility, not to a superior, but to one's conscience, the awareness of a duty not exacted by compulsion, the necessity to decide which of the things one values are to be sacrificed to others, and to bear the consequences of one's own decision, are the very essence of any morals which deserve the name."
"...neither good intentions nor efficiency of organization can preserve decency in a system in which personal freedom and individual responsibility are destroyed."
and the final one....
"We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may also prevent its use for desirable purposes."
informative
Hayek was an economic genius and a sociopolitical prophet. His unblinking critique of socialism, how it leads to ruin, and how the West is steadily pursuing that path is as prescient now as when it was written in the depths of WWII.
The author does not, in my opinion, have adequate support for the central idea of the book.
Hayek described himself as a libertarian and this book is his attempt to describe why totalitarianism and authoritarianism are bad and why central planning of economies doesn't work well. While I agree with that premise, this book is filled with vague terms such as "liberty" and "individual freedom" that are not defined or set into a framework of practice.
What we get instead are broad claims against the general ideology of socialism. There is an amazing lack of nuance in this book and no details about how democracy or democratic institutions should look or operate. Some of the claims he makes against totalitarian regimes could be placed against many of today's Western societies, such as the rise of opportunists and the manipulation of truth. There is a case for limited government and free markets, but specifics would have made a more convincing argument.
What we get instead are broad claims against the general ideology of socialism. There is an amazing lack of nuance in this book and no details about how democracy or democratic institutions should look or operate. Some of the claims he makes against totalitarian regimes could be placed against many of today's Western societies, such as the rise of opportunists and the manipulation of truth. There is a case for limited government and free markets, but specifics would have made a more convincing argument.
I can save you the trouble of reading a few hundred pages with a summary of Hayek's views of collectivism: socialism and all its central planning permutations are bad and must logically lead to totalitarianism and the death of liberty. To this end, he walks through various reasoned arguments and unless you're a Chapo Trap House diehard, you'll nod right along in agreement. But this isn't a rigorous work, contains some suspicious interpretations of European history and ends up somehow not particularly convincing, even though I already agreed with all his conclusions.
I can save you the trouble of reading a few hundred pages with a summary of Hayek's views of collectivism: socialism and all its central planning permutations are bad and must logically lead to totalitarisnim and the death of liberty. To this end, he walks through various reasoned arguments and unless you're a Chapo Trap House diehard, you'll nod right along in agreement. But this isn't a rigorous work, contains some suspicious interpretations of European history and ends up somehow not particularly convincing, even though I already agreed with all his conclusions.
Almost too much common sense in this book, that at some points it's kind of boring. It's shocking to me that this was (and is) controversial to many.