Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
This was a mildly surprising book. Having read chunks of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" I had seen something of how his writing gets set up as a fetish or strawman as according to people's political opinions, but in particular how he makes some rather pointed comments that go against vulgar-libertarian "just let corporations do whatever" economics.
So I was surprised, but only mildly so, when lo and behold THE ROAD TO SERFDOM seems to have gotten the same kind of treatment. I saw where today's conservatives had derived their weird arguments that radical leftists are Nazis and Nazis were "well, actually" radical leftists. Hayek doesn't actually say that they are, although he makes an unfortunate decision to call the animating principles of Soviet communism and German Naziism and Italian fascism "socialist" along with the movements for central planning in other European countries. It's really "central planning" that he's concerned with, and his argument is that any program of total(itarian) central planning of a national economy must either do it badly or else start to act pretty oppressively towards everyone under its control.
What gets missed is that this is also quite an historically-minded book: Hayek wrote it at the close of World War II, when the UK was nationalizing industries to try to recover from the war, and when the very 19th-c. nationalist tendencies among socialists were still in evidence (there are some eyebrow raising quotes in here). Arguably things are different enough that one can't just point to TRTS and say "it's just as true today, maybe even more so!" It's also difficult to tease out Hayek's philosophical points from his historical-contingent points.
In the end I think it's a worthwhile book for historical reasons almost exclusively. Many of his observations about the conditions leading up to Hitler and the Nazis in Germany seem extremely relevant to current events, and I don't really mean Stalin or CCP apologists on Twitter: rather, the steady parade of conservatives in America who are laying the rationalization groundwork for true submit-to-the-king fascism, often from a Catholic-theocratic position (remember how the Catholic Church kinda rolled over for Hitler and Mussolini?).
I would like to read more historical scholarship about older socialist movements and the rise of fascism to evaluate Hayek's claims, but he makes interesting arguments.
Overall, 3 stars. Don't believe the right wing hype, but it's worth reading for very different reasons.
So I was surprised, but only mildly so, when lo and behold THE ROAD TO SERFDOM seems to have gotten the same kind of treatment. I saw where today's conservatives had derived their weird arguments that radical leftists are Nazis and Nazis were "well, actually" radical leftists. Hayek doesn't actually say that they are, although he makes an unfortunate decision to call the animating principles of Soviet communism and German Naziism and Italian fascism "socialist" along with the movements for central planning in other European countries. It's really "central planning" that he's concerned with, and his argument is that any program of total(itarian) central planning of a national economy must either do it badly or else start to act pretty oppressively towards everyone under its control.
What gets missed is that this is also quite an historically-minded book: Hayek wrote it at the close of World War II, when the UK was nationalizing industries to try to recover from the war, and when the very 19th-c. nationalist tendencies among socialists were still in evidence (there are some eyebrow raising quotes in here). Arguably things are different enough that one can't just point to TRTS and say "it's just as true today, maybe even more so!" It's also difficult to tease out Hayek's philosophical points from his historical-contingent points.
In the end I think it's a worthwhile book for historical reasons almost exclusively. Many of his observations about the conditions leading up to Hitler and the Nazis in Germany seem extremely relevant to current events, and I don't really mean Stalin or CCP apologists on Twitter: rather, the steady parade of conservatives in America who are laying the rationalization groundwork for true submit-to-the-king fascism, often from a Catholic-theocratic position (remember how the Catholic Church kinda rolled over for Hitler and Mussolini?).
I would like to read more historical scholarship about older socialist movements and the rise of fascism to evaluate Hayek's claims, but he makes interesting arguments.
Overall, 3 stars. Don't believe the right wing hype, but it's worth reading for very different reasons.
Hayek’s thesis is still relevant today, despite how much the context has changed. Of course, if you’re against capitalism and free markets, it’s pretty much a guarantee that you’ll hate this book. As someone who appreciates classical liberal ideals, The Road to Serfdom is said to be a fundamental text for my worldview, and, in many ways, it did deliver. I came out of it with strong feelings against collectivism and tyranny, and it’s scary to think how relevant the book is even to this day.
However, The Road to Serfdom does have issues. It’s more of a manifesto than an academically detailed work, and as such it doesn’t have as much data as I would have liked. While the footnotes helped, the multiple references to mid-century writings tended to be oftentimes distracting, and some aspects of his thesis might be easily criticized as oversimplifications. Furthermore, it doesn’t delve deep into the opposing ideologies and refuses to differentiate between the different forms of socialism. Indeed, a modern retelling of this classic is much needed in these times of change.
3.5/5
However, The Road to Serfdom does have issues. It’s more of a manifesto than an academically detailed work, and as such it doesn’t have as much data as I would have liked. While the footnotes helped, the multiple references to mid-century writings tended to be oftentimes distracting, and some aspects of his thesis might be easily criticized as oversimplifications. Furthermore, it doesn’t delve deep into the opposing ideologies and refuses to differentiate between the different forms of socialism. Indeed, a modern retelling of this classic is much needed in these times of change.
3.5/5
While Hayek's writing style is sometimes hard to decipher, he accomplished for me at least a definite favoritism towards capitalism (what he calls the principle of competition) rather than socialism (what he calls "planning"). His arguments ran from how international relations are better served by capitalism, to the virtues it produces, but most centrally relied upon the argument that socialism brings about tyranny and totalitarianism. He does this in the abstract, but also in particular to his historical context (the late days of 1944) and how socialism was a driving force in Nazi Germany. It was thus not just a general argument for capitalism, but a plea for the contemporary socialist intellectuals of England and America to not follow a system they were fighting against. In my estimation, it seems that both socialism and capitalism are going to encounter problems, misuses, and issues. People are going to be wicked and evil and abuse it and we must deal with that while encouraging better behavior. Under a capitalistic system, I and my fellow concerned neighbors have the power to do something about these problems--the same cannot be said for a socialist system where the government plans every move, income, and outcome. But the capitalistic tendency to live and let live must also be restrained. It is irresponsible to simply let the world march on to greater and greater efficiency while leaving the weak or unproductive behind. Hayek acknowledges there can be regulations upon competition, to his credit. So while I may generally be in favor of capitalism, Hayek's limiting advice is needed--for the common good.
I have some pretty mixed thoughts on this one. On the one hand, it has a lot of good information. On the other, I didn't entirely agree with everything Hayek had to say, mainly because it wasn't written with a Biblical foundation. Still, it had some interesting points.
Summary quote: The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly Progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the 19th century. Page 238
Favorite quote: It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced and affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is the awareness of one's neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Page 234
Favorite quote: It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced and affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is the awareness of one's neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Page 234
challenging
informative
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
"The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek, published in 1944, is a classic work in political philosophy that critiques the dangers of central planning and advocates for the preservation of individual freedom and free-market capitalism. The book, written in the context of World War II and the rise of totalitarian regimes, warns against the perils of collectivism and outlines the potential path from well-intentioned government intervention to a loss of individual liberties and the emergence of a totalitarian state.
Hayek begins by arguing that the collectivist ideologies of socialism and communism share a common root with totalitarianism, as they all rely on central planning and the concentration of power in the hands of a few. He contends that the belief in the ability of experts to plan and control the economy is a dangerous illusion that can lead to the erosion of personal freedom. Hayek suggests that the desire for security and economic planning often stems from a noble intention to alleviate poverty and ensure social justice but warns that the means chosen to achieve these goals may have unintended and detrimental consequences.
One key idea in the book is the concept of the "fatal conceit," referring to the belief that a small group of individuals can possess the knowledge and wisdom to plan and control an entire society. Hayek argues that this belief is misguided because the information required for efficient economic coordination is decentralized and dispersed among individuals in society. He emphasizes the importance of the price system in a market economy as a mechanism for conveying this dispersed knowledge and coordinating the actions of countless individuals pursuing their own goals.
Hayek also addresses the notion that individual freedom can be sacrificed for the sake of greater social or economic equality. He argues that attempts to achieve equality through central planning inevitably lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a ruling elite, resulting in a loss of individual liberties. He contends that a free society is not incompatible with a certain degree of inequality and that the pursuit of equality through coercion undermines the very freedom it aims to protect.
Throughout the book, Hayek critiques the idea of social justice as a concept that can be centrally planned and imposed, arguing that it is a subjective and evolving concept that should emerge organically through the interactions of individuals in a free society. He highlights the dangers of trading individual freedom for the illusion of security, asserting that such a trade-off ultimately leads to the erosion of both.
In conclusion, "The Road to Serfdom" is a powerful defense of individual liberty and a critique of collectivist ideologies. Hayek's central argument is that attempts to centrally plan and control economic and social life lead inevitably to the loss of individual freedom and the emergence of a totalitarian state. The book remains influential in discussions about the role of government, the market, and individual freedom in shaping the destiny of societies.
Hayek begins by arguing that the collectivist ideologies of socialism and communism share a common root with totalitarianism, as they all rely on central planning and the concentration of power in the hands of a few. He contends that the belief in the ability of experts to plan and control the economy is a dangerous illusion that can lead to the erosion of personal freedom. Hayek suggests that the desire for security and economic planning often stems from a noble intention to alleviate poverty and ensure social justice but warns that the means chosen to achieve these goals may have unintended and detrimental consequences.
One key idea in the book is the concept of the "fatal conceit," referring to the belief that a small group of individuals can possess the knowledge and wisdom to plan and control an entire society. Hayek argues that this belief is misguided because the information required for efficient economic coordination is decentralized and dispersed among individuals in society. He emphasizes the importance of the price system in a market economy as a mechanism for conveying this dispersed knowledge and coordinating the actions of countless individuals pursuing their own goals.
Hayek also addresses the notion that individual freedom can be sacrificed for the sake of greater social or economic equality. He argues that attempts to achieve equality through central planning inevitably lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a ruling elite, resulting in a loss of individual liberties. He contends that a free society is not incompatible with a certain degree of inequality and that the pursuit of equality through coercion undermines the very freedom it aims to protect.
Throughout the book, Hayek critiques the idea of social justice as a concept that can be centrally planned and imposed, arguing that it is a subjective and evolving concept that should emerge organically through the interactions of individuals in a free society. He highlights the dangers of trading individual freedom for the illusion of security, asserting that such a trade-off ultimately leads to the erosion of both.
In conclusion, "The Road to Serfdom" is a powerful defense of individual liberty and a critique of collectivist ideologies. Hayek's central argument is that attempts to centrally plan and control economic and social life lead inevitably to the loss of individual freedom and the emergence of a totalitarian state. The book remains influential in discussions about the role of government, the market, and individual freedom in shaping the destiny of societies.
informative
reflective
slow-paced